The sort of language used to assert men’s dominance over women has a pretty recognizable pattern across the cultural landscape. Men, we are told, are in charge of things because they have something women (supposedly) lack: physical strength, honor, higher cognitive facilities, or the mystique of the male organ itself. Women, sadly “lacking” these qualities, need to be “protected” from the all-consuming lusts of strange men.
This can be spun as noble chivalry, brutal domination, or a playful battle of the sexes, but at the root it’s the same: women are denied the freedoms that men take as a God-given right, assigned subordinate status, and coerced into performative gender roles.
In this dialectic, men’s protective abilities and ravaging urges come from the same place and are both aimed squarely at women. Language, of course, did not create the patriarchy, but language is a powerful method of inscribing the possible, shaping how and what we think, and justifying the status quo.
Thus, perhaps it’s no surprise that feminist outreach towards the traditional opponents of women’s liberation – i.e., cis-gendered heterosexual men — utilizes the same language as that of domination.
Rather than attacking the institution of masculinity itself, several recent campaigns have attempted a sort of masculinity triage, trying to eliminate violence against women, while still flattering men with the label of protector. These campaigns, such as “real men don’t buy girls,”“my strength isn’t for hurting,”are various incarnations of “how would you feel if someone said that to your mother /sister /girlfriend,”and have proven to be enormously popular, achieving prodigious re-blogs, conferences, and media airtime.
They are, by many metrics, successful, and have gotten institutions long silent on the rights of women to speak up. I believe we are the better for them, but I also believe that they do not go far enough, and we all must, as feminists, radicals and progressives, push against our comfort zones.
In these campaigns, the masculine mystique is still very present, albeit a kinder, gentler version. By flattering men’s strength and asking them to use it to protect women, we once again place men in the driver’s seat of culture, asking for them to renounce violence and be less vile guardians.
Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.
Male privilege is re-defined, but not negated, in a way that leaves masculinity unchallenged and still dominant. The wonderful, complex, and multi-faceted language of generations of queer, trans, intersectionalist and sex-positive feminism and human-rights dialogues is thrown aside completely in favor of a request that straight, cis-gendered men join the rest of the world at the big-kids table.
Again, this isn’t to say that these campaigns haven’t done good, but rather, that they should go farther. There is certainly something to be said about using the language of the patriarchy to subvert the patriarchy, or of using privilege to end privilege, but it’s not clear that’s what’s being done. Rather, it looks as if men are given a privileged place in the feminist movement, one where they are praised for simply not being terrible and their much-vaunted power remains intact.
Moreover, the bar for male allies has been set tremendously low. In contrast to the sacrifices, acts of bravery and daily fights women and LGBTQ people are expected to take on to achieve equality and justice, men are asked simply not to buy people, physically abuse people, or rape. The fact that this counts as progress is a sad indictment of how much work there is left to do, but that, I believe, is all the more reason to not sugar-coat it or water down the message.
Feminism has made great strides against patriarchal oppression in much of the world, and perhaps to finish the job, to make a world of true equality, the message cannot be compromised or simplified. Males in the movement should (and can) be challenged and encouraged to act not like a virtuous “real man,”but like humans.
About the author: J.A. McCarroll is a NYC-based writer, anthropologist, and baker. He works in reproductive rights and volunteers with Canimiz Sokakta and the Rules. Tweet @jamccarroll.
Reblogged this on moniquedhooghe.
Kinda really disagree. You seem to be opposed to masculinity itself and see it as an inherently negative thing. The truth is men CAN hurt women but they shouldn’t. Saying that isn’t wrong in any way. Flattering men or trying to not alienate them by labeling them all the enemy is not a bad thing is it?
Very well said, Amy.
Hi Dear, are you truly visiting this website on a regular basis, if so afterward you will without doubt get nice know-how.
Created by Jestine Yong, a specialist LCD Monitor instructor, who’s conducted several LCD
monitor repair courses. About 70% of a flickering display’s causes shall be a lloose
or dangerous cable, so fundamental essenntials primary troubleshooting stgeps you sould try.
Simply, add this service to your cart, complete thecheckout process,
and send your LG Smartphone to our repair section.
I have read some excellent stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking for revisiting.
I wonder how much attempt you put to make the sort of excellent informative site.
You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs online.
I most certainly will highly recommend this
If you don’t want people to buy what you’re selling ….. don’t sell it.
As long as you assume women are for sale, the problem will continue. You should instead change the way you are thinking.
He’s not talking about selling women, he’s talking about “selling” feminism to the masses and then getting upset when your allies don’t think exactly the same.
“Male privilege is re-defined, but not negated, in a way that leaves masculinity unchallenged and still dominant. The wonderful, complex, and multi-faceted language of generations of queer, trans, intersectionalist and sex-positive feminism and human-rights dialogues is thrown aside completely in favor of a request that straight, cis-gendered men join the rest of the world at the big-kids table.”
Misandry at its finest. Because masculine men are just children, right? Feminism is obsolete in the developed world, and shit like this makes that painfully clear. Time for first world feminists to go where women REALLY don’t have rights and fight the good fight (which they won’t, they’d rather make a stink about non-issues in a place where they already have equality because they want to have their cake and eat it, too than risk their lives for the cause) or shut the fuck up and put away the banner for good.
Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve understand
your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful.
I really like what you have acquired here, certainly
like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it.
You make it entertaining and you still care for
to keep it smart. I can not wait to read much more from you.
This is actually a tremendous site.
I’m always hated the line “What if this happened to your mother, sister, daughter, wife?”. No! What if this happened to YOU. Women are people my friend. WOMEN ARE PEOPLE. P.S. Re-blogged this awesome post!
Reblogged this on Don't Listen to a Word I Say. and commented:
I’ve always said men shouldn’t think of their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives they should think of themselves. Women are people my friend. Women are people.
Howdy would you mind letting me know which webhost
you’re working with? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different
internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most.
Can you suggest a good web hosting provider at a
fair price? Kudos, I appreciate it!
Tiens je сomptais écrire un post pareil à celui ci
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all people you actually
realize what you are speaking approximately! Bookmarked.
Please also consult with my website =). We will have a hyperlink exchange
arrangement among us
Hello! I was wondering if you could provide any examples of the “multi-faceted language of generations of queer, trans, intersectionalist and sex-positive feminism and human-rights dialogues”? Thank you!
You’re so interesting! I don’t believe I’ve read something like this before.
So nice to discover another person with some unique thoughts on this issue.
Seriously.. many thanks for starting this up.
This site is one thing that’s needed on the web, someone with a little originality!
I have recently started a web site, the info you provide on this site has helped me greatly. Thank you for all of your time & work. There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail. by Erich Fromm. gkdcggeeegdd
As the admin of this website is working, no doubt very
soon it will be renowned, due to its quality
Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues
with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing a few months of hard work due to no backup.
Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?
Reblogged this on dolphinewaitutu33's Blog and commented:
Wow!!! Well said.
I do accept as true with all the concepts you have offered to your post.
They’re very convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for novices.
Could you please prolong them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.
When some one searches for his essential thing, therefore he/she wants to be available that in detail,
thus that thing is maintained over here.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about abortion 28 weeks.
Wow! just Wow! He was doing something to help women and they said “We Dont Need it” Or “its not enough” ? just wow. This is why most men dont want marry anymore. Well at least marry American women. A vast majority of you women have bought into this overwhelmingly frustrating feminist mentality that dooms you in the long run. Not only are you tricked into believing that you want something, by the media, but once you get it you’ll realize its not what you truly wanted and have to start all over. But guess what? you have biological clocks, and any woman who thinks this way will ultimately end up dating into her late 30’s and maybe even 40’s. Because no smart man will want his partner in life spewing out this malarkey. You can all continue pushing until you look up and there is no longer anyone to push, or we’ll push back and we all know we’d win. And if you end up with a guy who puts up with this, he is seriously lacking in what it takes to actually be a man. And dont try to tell me Im wrong because you are not men and no nothing about what it takes to be one. You cant teach something you know nothing about. Most men just want to be left alone. This is the very reason Divorce rates are through the roof. You have all become delusional. Its no wonder if you search a simple ambiguous search on Google or Yahoo, Search “American Women” and just watch how much negative things you get, from american men and people from every country. Everyone knows you all are Delusional and Marrying you is like building a house on sand. And I love women!!! I dont hate them at all. But this type of thing is ridiculous. Feminist crap is a joke and is one of the main reasons the average Marriage dont last past 5 years today in America…
Let me be clear though. I do not agree with sex trafficking at all. Its just when you are so frustrated with such a thing a feminism, We men tend to go off on rants filled with pent up anger over the fact that women are no longer women in this day and age, Just Opposers
“And dont try to tell me Im wrong because you are not men and no nothing about what it takes to be one.”
“We men tend to go off on rants filled with pent up anger over the fact that women are no longer women in this day and age, Just Opposers”
I wont tell you how to be a man if you don’t tell me how to be a woman.
yes real men don’t but girls because we are not a commodity, we are individuals who need to be understood because the greatest need of the human heart is to be understood
I personally think that the campaign messages are dumb. I am a hetero male and I consider myself a feminist. I don’t feel the need to be cast in a hero role and I think that the men who do can’t really embrace the idea of women’s rights totally because this self-ascribed protector role stems from a place of inequality that will forever be a roadblock. Crafting campaigns that make men feel good about their “protector” role is not going to advance women’s rights to the place that it needs to be. Instead, it teaches one positive message while feeding the wolf of misogyny. Thank you for understanding that the promotion of the “real man” ideal in feminist campaigns is not the ideal and that men are capable of more than what we are currently giving and we shouldn’t need the ego boost in order to be better, more accepting, and compassionate people.
Thankyou! I despise this “dude” “feminism”. I’m not a baby who needs to be protected.
This puts what I have always thought so eloquently and spot on! As a mother of a 17 year old boy it has been one of my goals as a parent to impart upon him this thought process. Thank you. JM
I sense from the words that you use that you begin your analysis with a bias. You make this clear when you say, “by flattering men’s strength” in reference to these new ads against violence towards women. I think a more objective and realistic interpretation is that the ads are acknowledging the advantage men have that has allowed them to abuse women. This advantage is part social and partly physical. This is the strength you speak of. It may be a difficult pill to swallow, but when it comes to violence men have the upper hand. That’s why they are committing these terrible crimes. This is nothing for us to be proud of, but it is an undeniable fact that must be addressed. You can’t deconstruct into non-existence a measurable truth. I will add that there are other instances of bias, on your part, but this one suffices for my point.
This and other cues lend me to think that you have a violent (not physically violent) approach towards ridding men of their masculine identity, which is admittedly heavily related to the oppression of women. However, though it is related, it should not be conflated. Equality should not be had by reducing another group. It must be had by raising up and empowering the group of people being oppressed and teaching, that anyone with any kind of advantage, physical, intellectual, economic etc. has the moral obligation to protect others. That is what the ads in question are doing, but your statements do not acknowledge. Sadly, there is no literal equality, it’s a moral and ethical construct. Everyone is different. We must, therefore, teach everyone, that regardless of our advantages or disadvantages, we are all responsible for helping others live free of oppression and abuse. It make no sense to tell the wild dog that it doesn’t have the right to bite you, and that’s what many men are. If we wish to tame and educate an entire class of people, we must accept and work within the bounds of who and what they are instead of trying to convince them that they don’t have certain advantages, when they do. These advantages just come with greater responsibility.
I agree that violence against women and children has to stop. I just don’t think you have to do it by destroying the concept of masculinity. Redefinition is in order. Men don’t want to stop being men, we just want to become better men. Better me, better you and better them is a world I’m comfortable living with.
Thank God someone with a bit of Insight. Because this article is nothing more than advocating the “De-clawing of a cat or Muzzling dogs”. To take away ones natural ability/instincts simply because you dont have the patients to “Train” or have long suffering toward those who still need time to cope and realize their abilities. In this case it seems that, regardless of the effort put forth…we are damned if we do and damned if we dont.
I wonder how many would choose to say they don’t need to be protected in the event that an attack has actually taken place and men standby and watch another man attack a woman? If we didn’t help simply because you asked us not to, we’d still be considered cowards.
Did you seriously just say that men are ‘wild dogs’? Seriously?? I’m pretty sure men are human. A large part of what separates humans from animals is our self awareness and abiliy to use reason. Men are NOT wild dogs who react purely on instinct and any allusion to that being fact is disgusting and, quite frankly, offensive to men.
Thank you, Naomi.
Exactly. As a mean, men have more physical strength than women, and this facilitates violence against women. To ignore this simple and central truth is utter folly. “Real men don’t…” doesn’t position men to be some “hero” or other nonsense like that, it is an admonition for restraint, nothing more.
Reblogged this on lassie11.
There are so many things wrong with this article. If Feminism can actually launch a #banbossy campaign I sure as hell need to launch a #banprivilege campaign.
You want to know what males don’t have privilege? Those same males who are sold into sex slavery. What about them? Are they privileged to let other males and women take away their right to choose who their sexual partner is? Oh. Right. We don’t bring that up because that would mean talking about homosexuals who buy boys and women who buy boys.
That would just crumble your little world of how the “cis gendered” are the real criminals. Give me a break. This is why I believe firmly that feminism is going to hopefully implode within the next few years. Feminists continually cry about how women are the victims, but then target lock their hate towards men and tell them to fix it.
The problem is they demonize and ridicule and otherwise tell those same men they target to “fix it” by pretty much telling them they are the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the world and if they don’t bow down to the mighty vagina then they are disposable. Even though 99% of men are disposable.
I get it though. I really do. You’re plucky. You have the “I’m going to change the world!” attitude but then as soon as life gets a little bit hard you get a tear forming in the corner of your eye and then look around for some “daddy” to make it all better. Right?
The only problem is you can only call your dad “a piece of shit” for so long until he turns his back on you. There are 3 types of male feminists that can be seen behind every rally:
1. The normal male feminist is that kid in high school you knew who you “friend-zoned” but never fully pulled himself out of that mentality of “if I’m nice to her and do everything she says maybe she’ll date me!” phase.
2. The celebrity feminist knows not to go against the latest trend. Remember a few years ago where Haiti was the big cause? Everyone needed to help Haiti. Haiti is in ruins! A lot of celebs were on board with that because saying “they don’t care” would ruin their credibility. Justin Timberlake holding up a sign saying “Real men don’t buy girls” was a damn intelligent marketing tool. The irony is I’m pretty sure half of his female fans would want him to buy them dinner.
3. The defeated/married/LGBT feminist male is the one you see in the background either looking disjointed, keeping his eyes straight at the ground so his wife does not think he’s looking at the 1000 women around him in fear she will smack him for “straying” and the LGBT community who believes feminism actually cares about their right to marry or not be discriminated against. Here’s a hint for the homosexual males out there: Feminism in America is run by rich white women. They really don’t care about you.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a strong woman wanting fair rights. The issue is, however, when you get a bunch of delusional men and women yelling at the top of their lungs about a cause that has male victims as well you tend to look like one giant douchebag.
“The problem is they demonize and ridicule and otherwise tell those same men they target to “fix it” by pretty much telling them they are the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the world and if they don’t bow down to the mighty vagina then they are disposable.”
WWTTTTTTTTTTFFFFF are you talking about? Man oh man, some people *reeeealllly* feel the need to play the victim.
Get ridiculed much? I wonder why…..
“WWTTTTTTTTTTFFFFF are you talking about? Man oh man, some people *reeeealllly* feel the need to play the victim.”
It’s called equal rights. If the entirety of feminism can be built upon the victim card I would think men would have some rights to claim ‘victimhood’ at some point.
If you feel like you need to defend masculinity, privilege, etc., which has been historically captured around the world – then you’re probably part of the problem. Cody.
Considering I’ve been slapped, beat, stabbed and kicked in the testicles by women all because I looked at another woman on a television screen yes, I do believe I need to defend masculinity.
Privilege? I’m a white male making under 20k a year because I couldn’t get into college until I was 24 years old. Why? Because I’m a white male that didn’t come from a rich family.
Don’t speak to me about privilege because I have had NONE my entire life. I would say privilege would be what my ex had when the cops didn’t arrest her for STABBING ME.
Cody, you should read up a little about privilege. You can be oppressed in one way, and privileged in another. You are poor. That means you don’t have class privilege. You are white. That means you DO have race privilege. I struggled with this myself at first.
I am oppressed as a woman, as working class, and, some might argue, as a left-handed person. I am privileged as white, as able-bodied, and as cisgender. My experiences with oppression do not cancel out my privilege in other areas.
Your personal experiences, whilst they sound truly terrible, do not represent the staus quo.
Women are also privileged in ways that men are not. That is to say that you have entitlements or rights that men do not. If you do not believe me I can give you a link to a few sites but I am sure you are intelligent enough to research this on your own.
If we accept Naomi’s premise that people can be oppressed in one way and still privileged in another, and the ways you are oppressed do not cancel out your privileges, then we must also accept that at least in US society, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, “protected classes” etc. represent privileges for women, people of color, the disabled, gay people, and increasingly transgender people. These are all de jure privileges granted to everyone except abled cis white males, and on top of that there are de facto privileges granted to these protected classes, such as public opprobrium of any perception of discrimination, or even “microaggression” these days. Though cis white males had the lions’ share of de jure privilege (women being protected from being drafted to use as cannon fodder being one of the notable exceptions) and there was a byzantine system where white men had a lot of de facto privilege while white women had other de facto white privilege, there is no more de jure privilege for white men, and de facto privilege is vanishing. With protected classes getting so much de jure and de facto privilege, soon we are going to have to ask ourselves how long we will keep up the outmoded beliefs of where the distribution of privilege lies in our society.
Just like it is not call to be racist it is becoming cool to speak out regardless of your sex.
Very important message to be had here. We all have a real side to ourself and showing emotion is important.
I’ve got a T-shirt that says “Real men change diapers!”
Reblogged this on senjaturun and commented:
Reblogged this on theordinarygirlsite and commented:
that’s what guys must know
very inspiring article
Reblogged this on onesharperworld.
I’ll say one other thing: As a woman, I believe we are all capable of all sorts of things based on our individual characteristics, not limited by gender (or color or religion or sexual orientation or any of that other stuff people have used to keep other people down). However it is also true that men and women are fundamentally different. The presence of two X chromosomes versus an X and Y chromosome, versus XXY versus some other presentations, has some pretty profound biological effects on neurological, biochemical and physical development. The differences, the non-obvious differences, are too complex to be generalized and have nothing to do with who can run for president or be a math genius but they may very well have to do with how psychological issues like aggression, history of abuse, depression and even in utero drug exposure manifest. If we as a society shy away from acknowledging and researching these important areas we will be doing a great disservice to all our future generations.
Men and women, children, humans, (of all kinds) are precious. None fundamentally better or worse than any other. But they are different and we need everyone to understand. Right now medical knowledge is based primarily on white middle aged males. That’s not good.
Acknowledging differences will improve things for all of us.
I’m not sure how to respond to a response?? I’m new to blogging so I hope this goes to the right spot… I like the idea of “people don’t buy people” but unfortunately I think it misses the point. Having worked as a physician and psychiatrist in the forensic system with perpetrators and victims I understand the need to get focused messages out there to men. The ugly truth is that the vast majority of victim and violent crime, including sexually violent crime (which includes rape, of course) in this country is committed by men against women and children. No bias here, honestly. It’s just the fact. We cannot address a problem by whitewashing it. I don’t really think the message “real men don’t buy girls” is giving men permission to be jerks.” I suppose it is appealing to the less than most highly developed among us but that may be ok. I don’t think its the guys with tremendously developed superegos and higher order defense mechanisms that we are worried about. Right?
According to the united states victimization statistics men and women murder more men every year than women. In fact, all violent crime has more male victims than female except one crime rape. However, if you count how many men are raped every year in prison, and if you count other forms of rape like coerced sex, you will find many more male victims. Did you know that during the days of slavery, wealthy white women would coerce sex from black male slaves under the threat of rape? Which, of course, would get them lynched? I am not saying it was as much as female slaves but the fact that it happened and not talked about is interesting.
Also, look at how many male victims there are of false rape charges. This is emotional rape. A woman or a man who is drunk can certainly be raped. There is no doubt about that. However, Just because her alcohol level is over the legal limit it does not automatically make it rape. What about his alcohol level? if he is drunk and she is not can he sue her for rape? Personally, I would love to see men turn the table on women and start doing this but 2 wrongs do not make a right. Also, How many women have had sex with their students only to have the media call it “a sexual relationship” and not what it really is “Rape”.
ALSO, look at how many women commit child abuse, child neglect, child endangerment? Then add to that the number of women who abuse the child before it is born. I am pro-choice but we should still consider it abuse for statistical purposes even if we do not prosecute. The child lives with it and we end up paying for it. There needs to be consequences.
Also, it is a well known fact that women hit their husbands and partners just as much if not more. You have to look at actual data that comes from direct interviews. In these interviews women report hitting men just as much if not more. I know some women do not report it but many more men do not report it. When women abuse men it’s always under the context of, “He deserved it.” I remember a female radio host had women call in if they had ever hit their spouse and female after female would call in and laugh about breaking their husbands noses and hitting them in the head with blunt objects. Of course, they all felt justified. None of those women were ever reported by their husbands, according to them.
Also, look at how many of the reported abused women were abused by another female. You may see more female victims from male perpetrators from where you stand but that is not the whole story.
I have worked in DV shelters with children and none of the abuse by mom’s is reported because women like you are convinced that they are victims. While working there I also, ran across women who were the abusers them selves but lied because they wanted to move out. In the DV world there are 2 beliefs that you must have in order to make it in that field:
1) Women are always victims
2) Women never lie
If you can convince yourself that these are true then you will do just fine. It sounds like you already have.
I work in a Psychiatric Hospital with women and men.
So…instead of saying “Real men don’t buy women” what would you suggest?
As a woman, physician, feminist and defender of all things human I’m stumped on this one. Thanks.
Maybe we could say “People don’t buy people”.
Sometimes I think that the challenge of feminism don’t stop on fighting for women’s rights and for respect, but also that it can show that the gender roles created two types of human beings and demands that everyone get fit on one of them (depending exclusively on what genitalia nature gave you). And more, one of the two genders has domination over the other. This gender idea itself must be broken, so maybe one day we can purely live as humans, not forced into predefined shapes, but just being who we choose to be along our growth, being free to express our sexuality and do what we want without the fear of being accused, humiliated or hurted for that.
Reblogged this on politicallyanalyzed and commented:
Language of Dude Feminism
Reblogged this on Dr. Andersson's class blog.
Reblogged this on But not all men….
Reblogged this on The Point.
Thank you for this wonderful insight into the ‘male message’. Women have been speaking out and campaiging against violence against women for so long….often their voices are silenced or usurped by well meaning males with distorted messages
I was told about a website last week where men are selling sexual pics of their x girlfriends. I couldnt believe it. How sad. I enjoyed reading your story.
Reblogged this on The Reader Voice.
Reblogged this on jen's juggarnaut and commented:
I AM PROUD TO SAY AS A TEACHER WHO TEACHES FROM A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE, MUCH TO THE CHAGRIN OF MY CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATORS, I HAVE CREATED MANY MALE AND FEMALE FEMINISTS OVER THE YEARS…ROCK ON !!!
And why is it that you feel the need to express yourself in ALL CAPS?
RIGHT ON!! If females want to do something for themselves why add men to help and support!!! weren’t you just trying to are that you are enough ???
yup… you are absolutely right
This sucks monkey balls.
Buy girls? Oh you mean pay for sexual services from a willing female. My my, how misogynistic, exchanging two things that each person values.
And just so you know, not just women sell sex. Men do it to. Nor are men the only customers.
Feminists claim to be pro-equality, yet they always seem to want to tell women and men not to willingly engage in sexual activity with one another if there is money involved. Well, fuck you. If two adults decide to exchange money for sex, and you have a problem with it, how about you but out and let them do as they please.
Real men don’t buy girls. . . . Real men don’t tell girls what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, nor do they do so to other men. Real men mind their own damn business. And the same can be said of those who support real gender equality. Legalize prostitution, keep porn legal (and expand it), and get the state out of everyone’s pants.
Oh, and stop shaming people for fulfilling their sexual needs. Is an elderly man paying a woman $150 for some intimacy and sex really such an abhorrent evil when one considers that that same man is alone and unloved? What if an old woman, horny but unwanted by most men, were to hire one to sleep with her? Would she be doing the wrong thing by trying to get some joy out of life?
This is part of the reason I have such a disdain for feminism. It tends to be filled with whinny, self-agrandizing (or in the case of male feminists, self-loathing), kill-joys who see patriarchy and rape in every facet of heterosexual sexuality. You people are the new puritans.
Feminaziopposer you sound like you sell sex for money. Maybe if you spent a little time on educating yourself instead, you would be a little smarter. I won’t even try to reason with you, and explain why selling sex even as you put it “two adults decide to exchange money for sex,” is a bad idea, but……
You missed the point entirely. The sign refers to “sex slaves.” And yes, there are many sex slaves, it is a booming business right now. Woman, and girls kidnapped, and forced into sex slavery.
“…Feminaziopposer you sound like you sell sex for money….”
One does not need to be an apple farmer to support the rights of people to buy apples without attracting harassment and violence.
“…I won’t even try to reason with you….”
Best argument ever ;)
“….. and explain why selling sex even as you put it “two adults decide to exchange money for sex,” is a bad idea, but……….”
There is no such thing as a bad idea. There is only a bad idea for YOU. If YOU don’t want to pay for sex or sell sex then don’t do it …… problem solved :)
But if you advocate laws against prostitution you are – in a very real sense – pointing a gun at everybody and saying “Do as I say otherwise I will put you in a cage, and if you resist me I will shoot you”. If you get government to point that gun and make those threats ON YOUR BEHALF it really makes no difference morally speaking. It just adds cowardice to your aggression.
The question is this: are YOU personally willing to INITIATE FORCE against two mutually consenting adults to prevent them from transacting voluntarily and peacefully?
If person A is mugging person B I think we all can agree it’s OK to use reasonable force to ‘neutralise’ person A and protect person B. But if person A is selling sex to person B and both parties are consenting adults how much force is it OK to use against them to prevent this transaction from going ahead?
My answer would be: ZERO amount of force. No harm is being done (unless they have sex on top of your prized flower bed or while driving). How much force are YOU willing to use against them? Pulling them apart? Slapping them? Shouting “Stop this is a bad idea!!!”? Pointing a gun at them and threatening to put them in a cage if they don’t stop? Please be specific.
Perhaps I do not like you paying for a pedicure, or buying a pound of potatoes, or paying for a tattoo. Maybe I think that is a ‘bad idea’. Do I have the right to point a gun at you to stop you from making that transaction? If you go ahead and make that transaction, do I have the right to kidnap you and put you in a cage – and shoot you if you resist?
What if I get a third party (a friend, a street gang, a mafia, a government) to act on my behalf and do all the coercion for me? Does that make my aggression any more ‘civilised’ (moral)?
And what about all the millions of women who sell their bodies in return for a man paying for her dinner, theatre tickets, rent, bills, food etc?
If you are young, attractive and female you can sell sex (or even just the vague possibility of sex) without declaring yourself to officially be a prostitute. There are millions of women who offer their bodies to high status, well off men in return for financial support. If these women ever decided to just wear sweat pants, no make up and stopped having sex we all know that within about a month those men would STOP supporting them financially and go looking for another woman.
I’m not saying all women behave like this but millions of women do, to a greater or lesser extent. I mean, men do not generally support people who they are NOT having sex with, right? LOL
So if you think prostitution is ‘a bad idea’ then presumably you think men ALL examples of financially supporting women in return for sex is a bad idea….. which covers millions of ‘perfectly ordinary’ relationships and marriages.
In many ways prostitution is a more HONEST transaction between a man and a woman, and this is often what disturbs them the most (even if they don’t fully realise it). If we can calmly and openly admit that women have something that men are willing to pay for then that sheds enormous light on ALL man / female relationships.
All women who spend hours a day (and a lot of money) making themselves attractive do so to attract the attention – and potentially the wealth – of the highest status, highest earning men.
Rarely – if ever – do you see a gorgeous women hooked up with a low status, low earning man. And yet you will often see attractive women hooking up with wealthy and high status men twice their age who look like wrinkly, fat, slugs. If those men did not have money and status those women would not look twice at them, and certainly not consider having sex with them (ewww…. vomit!)
Women are biologically programmed to seek resources and protection in order to secure the best chances of survival for her and her future offspring. Men are biologically programmed to seek out the most healthy and young (ie fertile) and attractive (ie good genes) women to mate with.
As I said, prostitutes do not attempt to cover up these drives or the interactions they produce with a bunch of euphemisms and social conventions. Rather than pretend a man buying a woman dinner is a sign of ‘respect’ or ‘social convention’ a prostitute will just be honest….. it’s because the woman has something the man wants (a vagina) and she knows he is prepared to pay for it (give her resources).
We hate prostitutes for forcing honesty into society, not for selling their bodies.
You do realize the signs aren’t about adult prostitution, right? They say “real men don’t buy girls”, as in, men should not buy children sold into sex trafficking. . . I’m hoping you also disagree with that issue?
As for your other points, I consider myself a feminist by some definitions, and I’m all for consenting adults having sex, whatever the circumstance, and, yes, I’m very much aware of the fact that both men and women sell and buy sex. I AM pro-equality, and, like any other group, there’s much diversity among feminists, and among the ways people define/interpret feminism. I am certainly not a new kind of Puritan, and I suggest you refrain from lumping all feminists under the same stereotyped umbrella since many share some of your views.
“..You do realize the signs aren’t about adult prostitution, right? They say “real men don’t buy girls”, as in, men should not buy children sold into sex trafficking. …”
So what you’re saying is that the slogan implies (in fact it asserts) that there are messages in society which define ‘men’ in terms of buying sex slaves, but that ‘real men’ should ignore those messages and resist the temptation to buy sex slaves.
OK….. so my question to you is: WHO or WHAT specifically is defining ‘men’ in terms of buying sex slaves?
I challenge you to find a single message in society which promotes that idea. Good luck with that.
If I held up a sign saying “Real mothers do not feed dog poop to their babies” it would imply that SOMEBODY is defining ‘mothering’ in terms of feeding dog poop to their babies, but that real mothers should ignore that message. Obviously that is absurd. In the real world nobody defines mothers in those terms.
So by spreading the message “Real mothers do not feed dog poop to their babies” all I am doing is shaming the group ‘mothers’ for doing something which mothers do not actually do – and which nobody is telling mothers to do either.
In the same way ‘men’ as a group do not buy sex slaves, anymore than ‘men’ as a group rob banks, climb mount Everest or breakdance well. Only a tiny fraction of the group ‘men’ actually do any of these things.
And nobody in society (except a few mad feminists like yourself) go around defining the group ‘men’ in terms of buying sex slaves.
You are just trying to shame the group ‘men’ by getting all men to associate – or even define – their male sexual urges and male sexual behaviour in terms of rape, abuse, exploitation, violence and theft.
Now I want you to think of the teenage boy who is starting to feel strong sexual urges and the desire to get intimate with girls. These are intense and often confusing times for boys and girls. What you (and feminists like you – including that prat in the picture) are basically doing is associating that boy’s blossoming and perfectly natural and healthy sexual urges with rape, abuse, exploitation, violence and theft.
And that is -in itself – a form of sexual abuse. You are making impressionable boys and young men feel ‘dirty’ and ashamed about sex. So dirty and ashamed they will attack their own (perfectly healthy) masculinity. This is what feminism does to boys and men.
Sexual ‘needs’ aren’t needs, you gross goon (and unrepentant punter, correct?). They’re luxury wants, and yes, you are bad for buying them within the context of a system that’s rampant with human rights abuses.
Biological processes…..yes, those are definitely luxury wants.
Spot on! Thank you! There is no such thing as ‘real men’, only humans.
Reblogged this on Belles Of Distinction.
Reblogged this on CALYPSO COULD NOT.
http://www.joelino95.wordpress.com visit me
Reblogged this on isolationroom.
Reblogged this on thinking2hard.com.
Feel I am
So I am far from a “man’s man,” being much more of an intellectual/thinking sort with not much use for physical strength, though I’m not horrendously out of shape. Even still, I wonder if it is not appropriate for men who are physically powerful to vocally lend themselves to support of feminist causes, perhaps even in the ways depicted.
Hormones being what they are, it is simply a product of biology that on the whole, men will build more muscle mass, and thus it makes little sense (to me) to denigrate the use of the power which accompanies muscle if one applies it toward other causes.
When it does become something of dudebro feminism, where there is a ubiquitous Form of Manliness to which all men must aspire and which necessarily governs all society, then I obviously have a problem. A guy like the one depicted, though, isn’t necessarily saying anything wrong unless he goes further and suggests or insinuates that all men must be dudebros and use their physical strength to protect those helpless ladies.
Just my thoughts here, and I agree with the observations of the post while wondering if there is room for the people being discussed to fit within the ideal, especially if they happen to be physically strong or something like that.
Reblogged this on senciblekonsepts's Blog.
Brilliant. I agree, it’s a start, but it needs to go farther. Equality will never be equality under the constraints of gender norms.
http://4superbux.blogspot. com/ visit here and register tnx
This isn’t bad, but I think it falls short in a few areas. The mechanics that contribute to the ‘status quo’ are myriad and endlessly complex, while I agree that the ‘men don’t buy women’ and other such ads are trite, it isn’t why so many men think feminism is the cause of their marginalization, nor why women think sexism is the cause of theirs. One of the best feminist authors is the last psychiatrist, definitely check out his/her (they intentionally remain anonymous) take on cyberbullies, where he very deftly deconstructs the strange motivations of people like Joe Andrews, above:
Also look for ‘Amy Schumer Offers you a Look Into Your Soul’ and ‘No Self Respecting Woman Would go out Without Makeup’, both offer some incredibly illuminating takes on the vectors of “gender issues.”
This article sends shivers down my spine. To read a male author making such extreme generalisations about his half of the human race – to refer to his own sex as vile without thinking to be ever-so-slightly specific by writing ‘abusive men’ or ‘domineering men’.
No. I find this incredibly degrading to me as a man. Yes, there are issues within this article of interest but this writing is ill-conceived and inflamatory as it stands. How on earth am I to consider this a dialogue worth my time when such virulent and utterly sexist ‘tarring’ is taking place. I am a man and I AM human damn it, I was born human along with my vile own drive for power and dominance, patriarchal and matriarchal both.
I ask one thing. If a desire for dominance is not in the feminine makeup as appears to be the assumption here then why is there an issue in the first place? Either way this writer clearly seems to be stuck with the idea that it is up to men to grant women their power. No. Power granted is no power at all, if women wish for power they must embody it on their own terms, through their own confidence and, if needs be – abstinence, disobedience, self promotion and whatever means are necessary to achieve that end if such power is desired.
And one more thing – I really fail to grasp the point made here about changing the message against abuse from ‘shouldn’t’ to… what? ‘Can’t?’ …….The simple fact is that a humans CAN and do have the capacity to inflict harm on other humans, creatures or environments. To propose a campaign whereby this fact is negated is negating reality to a ridiculous extent and, in my view, bordering on brain-washing. Men CAN be violent – Fact. Women CAN be violent (I have experienced it) – Fact. What is this?
Hopefully men can learn that physical domination is not the way to interact with the feminine OR the masculine – yet physicality is part of the human condition, part of biology, it is the universe. It’s a bit frightening, a little bit mad, maybe a little bit tragic to propose otherwise, to hear that LIFE force denied in this way by a man, woman, human.
For Christ’s sake man, do you have sex? Have you never dominated, for fun? I suggest you try it, and then allow her to physically dominate you…(I’m sorry but unless you’re with someone bigger and stronger than yourself than it has to be ‘allow’) ……Go and see Michael Angelo’s David…. Watch a gymnast on the rings…. Whatever, do it and then look at this article and negate all masculine force as a negative aspect.
Bloody tragic, that’s what this is.
Well, he really got your goat!
I think you missed the point of the article. The author was stating that the framing of the ‘real men don’t buy girls’ is not flattering to men.
…I’m saying that whilst attempting to make that point he threw such insulting and incriminatory accusations against the entire male sex that that point fell dead in the water. His article instead only served to alienate me as man from him, the author. ….And, since he provided neither sources nor data to backup these degrading generalisations this led me to question his own self image, as a man – does he see himself in this light? …A vile, dominating, abusive rapist only held back from the forceful subjugation of women by a few internet memes?.
I’m also saying his apparent drive to aid in the empowerment of women is predictably misdirected (though admittedly in line with that which I hear many self professed feminists to state) in the fact that this drive appears to rely on a patriarchal assumption that it is up to men to grant women power.
I have been surrounded by very ‘strong’ outspoken women all my life and, in my opinion, it is through their relations within their own sex and with their own self that they come to a place of empowerment.
The sad fact is that 99% of humans play power games and very few willingly submit to a path of action which does not appear to be in their own best interests. As a man, in the work place and in social and sexual relationships I too have been subject to such games of power and status all my life. So, I can state with certainty that, if one is not to be ignored, pigeon-holed, abused and generally subjugated it is up to the individual to oppose when faced with domination and ensure that this is not allowed to happen.
Now, though he didn’t take the time to be specific, I will be: I am obviously not speaking of physically abusive situations which are, anyway, against the laws (of man) within Western culture – as is sexual discrimination. He may possibly have been talking about child brides in The Middle East but he did not specify this nor hint at it so I can only presume the ‘vile guardians’ he is generalising about are those of his fellow man in his own culture.
In light of these glaring oversights and the thus negatively inflammatory nature of this writing, yes, I missed his point entirely.
…The only reason I can actually think that this site would publish this article as it stands is that they knew it had glaring oversights in there and thus was going to piss an awful lot of people off and so generate a lot of traffic.
Anyway, that’s me unsubscribed.
‘She thinks, she says, she writes.’
…And he ^ pissed me right off.
[1) “I ask one thing. If a desire for dominance is not in the feminine makeup as appears to be the assumption here then why is there an issue in the first place? Either way this writer clearly seems to be stuck with the idea that it is up to men to grant women their power. No. Power granted is no power at all, if women wish for power they must embody it on their own terms, through their own confidence and, if needs be – abstinence, disobedience, self promotion and whatever means are necessary to achieve that end if such power is desired.”]
*Sweetie, your argument goes circular here, in the most superfluous way possible. The fact “women need to embody it [power?] in their own terms,” is an explicit denial of the entire history of feminism, women’s rights, and human rights at large. They haven’t been struggling for power; they’ve been struggling for basic human rights, starting with the fundamental notion of recognition of their humanity, even before accounting for their gender, and the fact that gender has historically placed women at a disadvantage in terms of political influence, educational and professional opportunity, encouragement in sports and athletics, and just about any other scale by which the Western world has come to judge a productive member of society who enjoys the full access and utilization of civil liberties. The way you phrase your statement, whether you intended to communicate this, sounds as though feminism has been a struggle for domination over men. Frankly, it’s the men who see this as some sort of tug-of-war between male vs female, female-wins-by-trumping-male, who also fail to understand, not just the struggle of women through the centuries in defining themselves by their own humanity, but also fail to see the plight of many disenfranchised groups throughout the world. Which in turn, becomes expressed as “the reverse victim-poor-suffering-little-man-syndrome.”* I refer you back to that ‘plucky’ little bumper-sticker–“Feminism: the radical notion that women are people too.” This is about resisting an inherent domination of one group of humans over another–a social justice issue, to look at it more globally. I think many first generation feminists especially, would be quite insulted by the implication they haven’t utilized “whatever means are necessary”, in their struggle for equality. And, they continue to do so, not just for their own gender, but for the many disenfranchised groups throughout the world.
[2) “The simple fact is that a humans CAN and do have the capacity to inflict harm on other humans, creatures or environments. To propose a campaign whereby this fact is negated is negating reality to a ridiculous extent and, in my view, bordering on brain-washing. Men CAN be violent – Fact. Women CAN be violent (I have experienced it) – Fact. What is this?
Hopefully men can learn that physical domination is not the way to interact with the feminine OR the masculine – yet physicality is part of the human condition, part of biology, it is the universe. It’s a bit frightening, a little bit mad, maybe a little bit tragic to propose otherwise, to hear that LIFE force denied in this way by a man, woman, human.”]
*I couldn’t even begin to line up the fallacy (‘phallacy’??) in this statement, b/c I can’t imagine how one jumps from a conclusion that b/c humans can commit violence against one another, automatically assumes the human condition, driven by physicality (whatever that ambiguous term is meant to imply: do you mean sexuality; the desire to mate in order to reproduce; the need for alpha males to somehow prove their strength, or women to trade-off sex for protection?) is consequently reduced to a need to dominate…w/ the caveat, “hopefully men can learn…this is not the way to act w/ the feminine or the masculine.” While conditions and societies have existed, and continue to do so, where this may be the prevailing acceptance of normality underlying a certain belief of human nature, this is not a universal nor a predestined condition of the human species, particularly as society has evolved alongside our biology in the myriad geographies throughout the world. Cutting to the chase, you overlook the one big issue of that little “lifeforce”: it’s the fact that alongside apologists who promote the flawed view of biological determinism in dictating our roles as men and women, there is also the existence of our minds, to reason, think, to empathize, and judge before acting. One example, which is the chief one you fail to illuminate in your digression on conflating physical domination and male/female interactions, is the existence of Consent. If a person does not have another’s explicit consent, as equal, autonomous, mutually discoursing adults, in whatever human interaction one speaks of, presumably here, in the sense of sex, then they do not have any right to dominate, no matter the scale of ‘physicality’ you say dictates their actions. Reductionism of human behavior to “genes and hormones” is a dangerous argument. It may offer a framework, and one which has some validity, some times, for certain foundations of human existence, but the real picture of our evolution is a much more complicated and profound process, and NEVER is it something which is meant to rationalize exploitations of vulnerable populations, nor justify the abuse of power dynamics which are endemically designed to elevate the advantage of certain privileged individuals over others, especially when they reap a material/physical/psychological benefit from that oppression.*
Reblogged this on The strength in The word.
Reblogged this on Gilded Doorknob.
Thank you for articulating what I’ve had so much trouble putting to words. This movement is, perhaps, a step in the right direction, but like every step, it’s not the last.
Reblogged this on MY MAM SAYS AM DIFFERENT and commented:
l like this
l like this stuff
Reblogged this on bees inspired and commented:
An interesting read. Looking at gender roles and rights of all people.
This is what’s called “concern trolling”. Oh, you’re *so* worried about these campaigns reinforcing the ‘masculine mystique’ . . . you appreciate their good intentions, but they don’t realize how much harm they’re doing, they should really stop trying to communicate this message and instead pursue a highly insular intellectual dialogue full of new concepts and big words. . . . But you know, of course, that “real men” like this don’t use big words. What you’re really doing is daring them: I dare you, if you think you’re defending the rights of women, to come join me in learning a new vocabulary and methods of literary and cultural analsysis and put aside any conception of yourself as distinctly masculine, and join neutral humanhood. (But, haha, I know you can’t do that and will never do that! So I still have one up on you!). Maybe you aren’t interested in the rights of women, maybe you’re interested in creative ways to think of yourself as better than other men since you resent not being at the top of the man-hierarchy.
This is a mans world! Don’t like it? Tough crap!
I’m into scat too. We’re a perfect match :D
I’ve seen other pictures from the campaign, but the links to the images in question aren’t working. Anyway, the “REAL MEN” parts certainly blare the masculine mystique’s “’x’ behavior is what makes you a man” foghorn, but I’m not seeing how the syllogism “because other men might do it to THEIR women” is a valid thesis or valid general claim of the article. The “how would you feel if someone said that to your mother /sister /girlfriend” messages, while (at least arguably) incomplete, don’t automatically or implicitly harken to a kind of retaliation via “because someone did/might do it to my mother /sister /girlfriend.” They do, however, speak toward empathy training, hence “how would you feel,” rather than jumping to some simplistic fear over eye for an eye “justice.” That’s probably why they’ve been successful, but that’s just my opinion as a Psychologist. Where they do fail is not taking the next empathetic step of “how do you think she feels.” In essence, the complete message, without belligerently overgeneralizing with that heinous male=transgressor bullshit, would read something along the lines of, “How do you feel when someone says that to a woman you know? Guess how she feels!” Though it makes the statement wordier, like magic, it covers all the bases without malingering on all men as “the problem.” If there’s no reason for someone to feel ashamed, there’s no valid reason in trying to shame them. All that does is piss people off, make people defensive, generate resentment, and subvert your own intended effect; effectively making you part of “the problem.”
“By flattering men’s strength and asking them to use it to protect women, we once again place men in the driver’s seat of culture, asking for them to renounce violence and be less vile guardians… Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.” – Bravo! I can’t applaud you enough for saying that.
Suck it up you god damn liberal pussy.
I’d suck your pussy for free :) I’d even put a wig on for you babe.
(I realise these are quotes from the post itself, but you endorse them at the end so I’ll address my points, questions and criticisms to you)
“…By flattering men’s strength and asking them to use it to protect women, we once again place men in the driver’s seat of culture.”
And who is the ‘we’ that is placing them there? The answer is …… women.
And so it is women who place men in the driving seat of culture. That is a perfect description of ‘patriarchy’… but also of feminism. The two are essentially one and the same.
Feminism/ patriarchy DE-emphasises women’s agency and responsibility, and transfers the majority of agency and responsibility onto men’s shoulders. In patriarchy/ feminism men are defined by their affect on, and service (or disservice) to women. In patriarchy/ feminism men do not exist as individuals in their own right, separate and distinct from the needs, wants, feelings and judgements of women.
“…Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. …”
Yes. This is the essence of morality. Moral standards are only measurable then we CAN behave immorally. The INABILITY to rob a house (due to locked windows or armed guards) is not moral behaviour. Only the REFUSAL to rob a house even when you CAN easily enter through an open window IS moral behaviour.
Men CAN commit, just as women CAN commit rape too. This is not a statement of entitlement – it is simply a practical fact of life.
Anyone (regardless of gender) who is willing to use coercion, violence, drugs or some other immoral means CAN potentially commit rape – or certainly attempt it. Saying people ‘can’ do X is not the same as saying people are ‘permitted to’ do X.
One day we might even see feminists placing EQUAL moral responsibility on women who also CAN and DO commit rape. If that ever happens feminists can finally claim to be all about gender equality (ie holding both sees EQUALLY morally responsible for their behaviour). But at the moment feminists STILL make excuses for women who commit rape (google Adele Mercier).
“…Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.”…”
WHO specifically is telling us that women do not have intrinsic rights, such as the right to not be ‘hurt’? That is a very serious claim. Where is the evidence? Who is being accused?
Rape of women is against the law. Women are classified as human beings and human beings are acknowledged to have basic human rights – including the right to not be raped. That means women DO have intrinsic rights, including the right to not be rape. That is a fundamental right which is acknowledged by everyone. Even rapists understand that what they are doing is wrong and violates the human rights of their victim.
The insinuation is that men as a group do not recognise women’s basic human rights, and that they believe they have the right to ‘hurt’ (ie rape) women. Without any EVIDENCE to support this claim (and lots of evidence which refutes it) we must regard this claim as a vicious hateful rumour, and in many ways a form of (pre-emptive) false rape accusation against half the population.
Telling a boy (or heavily insinuating) that his natural blooming sexual desires are, in reality, a manifestation of men’s ‘patriarchal’ disregard for women’s basic human rights IS ITSELF a form of sexual abuse. It makes him associate sex, sexual desire and sexual behaviour with rape. It makes him feel his natural drives and loving urges are are actually the warning signs that he is a rapist.
In simple terms, it makes him feel dirty.
Another example of how feminism poisons everything.
Exactly. And the most frightening thing is that this article is written by a MAN – which, for the lack of sources, implies he is writing of his own self-image – a vile, domineering potential rapist on held back from the forceful subjugation of women by a few internet memes… It’s utterly tragic. I want to give the guy a hug, and then have a play-fight with him… And then give him a big homo-erotic kiss and a cheeky slap on the arse. Ha! (Joke) …But honestly, the poor guy to view his own sex, his innate masculinity with such horror and disdain!
I’m so glad that other people have picked up on the utter stupidity of this particular campaign! For a while I couldn’t put it into words, but I just wrote about it yesterday in my own blog: http://becausestupid.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/real-men-dont-buy-girls/. Your opinions completely back me up and I’m very grateful, so thanks!
Wow, the commentary here made my head spin. You made them think. I like that, and I like you too. Make them fight some more.
I, a man, and apparently ignorant since I just learned the term ‘cis-gendered’ even though that is what I am, do hereby swear that while I am not a big football fan and only marginally interested in cars believe that I should protect men and women alike, which is why I joined the Navy when I was much younger… Yes, I also believe in chivalry. *gasp* I believe in opening doors for people and in helping others as I am able, not for any reward other than a smile and a ‘thank you’. Perhaps feminism is to be thanked for this attitude within me for while not exactly youthful, I am not as old as the movement. Yet I do believe there is a place in society for male and female gender roles. The very term, ‘feminism’ would seem to imply that females have power, but still acknowledge their feminine physique at the very least which still smacks of role.
Perhaps it’s Ok to hang on to some roles loosely enough to acknowledge their good in society without frowning at people who do or do not hold to them? Is that not the nature of freedom; to let good people remain as allies even if we do not agree with everything they stand for? Feminism has done good in society and I constantly remind my daughters to aim higher. But I am not for the total elimination of the better parts of roles in society. I may be decent at nurturing, but I have to acknowledge that women who choose to do so just seem to come by nurturing far more naturally than I could dream of doing… and I suspect that is true for most men. Conversely, as awesome as it is to see women in construction, more often than not, the physical traits of many men (not me, I’m below average) will give them an edge. Denial of these physical differences that bring a tendency toward roles will frustrate people every bit as effectively as the extreme opposite attitude did to those in more rigid role-centric societal norms of previous generations… and yes, these sorts of attitudes will alienate people who might have otherwise been sympathetic to a more rational gender equality ideal. I believe the most successful equality goal will acknowledge physical and physiological differences while rewarding drive, achievement and merit without destroying positive gender roles which do no damage to over-all equality.
I am un-apologetically chivalrous while fighting for women to excel where ever they feel lead. It was never Ok to rape or buy sex, even if some in society (western or otherwise) thought or think otherwise.
With regard to your thoughts on roles, I think feminism: 1) recognizes the categorization of certain traits and behaviors (but, ultimately, wishes the labels would become obsolete); 2) seeks to achieve equal importance of traits and behaviors regardless their category (tough is not better than nurturing, and vice versa); and 3) stresses that any person may freely choose these traits or behaviors (e.g., strong, nurturing, tough, gentle) regardless their gender. What’s considered problematic is society’s current tendency to urge women or men to select from one category over another because of their gender—and then police that selection.
Grow a sack you faggot!
Reblogged this on rimless17's Blog and commented:
Real Men Don’t Buy Girls
Real Women are not bought by Boys
Reblogged this on stephanielove760 and commented:
“Real men don’t buy girls” says a placard held by Timberlake, a man who has been successful in no small part due to the way that he looks. Moral posturing is easy and cheap if by the (at least partly hard-wired) norms of sexual society you are ‘a winner’ and have easy access to the flesh of others. Who cares if it dehumanises those with no options but to settle for celibacy or pay for the services of an understanding sex-worker, when there is ethical status (a sort of capital) up for grabs?
Just no, The first premise is false, this assumes that men are entitled to access women’s (and others) bodies, whether by purchase or other means otherwise it is ‘dehumanising’. No one is entitled to that, not men and not women. You do not lose your intrinsic humanness or your rights by virtue of whether you have access to others’ bodies for sex or not. The other premise also false, and plays on the myth that the amount of sexual activity one has has something to do with social status/prowress (and correspondingly women experience the double standard that they more sex they have, the less they are worth). How about taking on the message of the PSA, that women have intrinsic worth of their own and that they are entitled to their own bodies instead of taking the leaf out of the useless PUA playbook that dehumanises not men but women and reduces them down to something to extract sex out of and treats them as a single block on which a set of techniques will work on.
“this assumes that men are entitled to access.. bodies, otherwise it is dehumanising.” No. The concept of entitlement was utterly absent from what I wrote above, and my point does not rely on a standard of entitlement, but instead a standard of compassion for sexually frustrated purchasers of sexual services. My accusation of dehumanisation applies not to sexlessness itself but to aggressive moral interpretations of voluntary transactions between free individuals in the form “X pays for sexual services, therefore X is an oppressor of women” and “Y provides sexual services, therefore Y is necessarily a victim of sexual-capitalist society, who can’t possibly have freely consented to providing the services she does”. THIS I claim is dehumanising because it fails to respect client and service-provider as autonomous moral agents. I didn’t make that particularly clear I know.
Reblogged this on PUNKNDISORDERLY.
Reblogged this on VOMIT.
haha…good way to put it
Reblogged this on uniLag's Blog.
“Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.”
You’ve said it all with this one paragraph… so well put for such a bad thing. Kudos to you.
I’m currently studying feminism as part of my cultural influences upon writing and the media PR module (UK based University) and this is a really interesting viewpoint and addition to the debate. It’s certainly made me think of things from another angle! Especially everyone’s comments :)
I am an old-timer who has spent much of his life on the internet since 1995 and I must say, you are easily one of the funniest trolls I have ever read. Kudos on the unrelenting deadpan ironic cynic thing.
Late to the comments, still:
You wrote, “In this dialectic, men’s protective abilities and ravaging urges come from the same place and are both aimed squarely at women. Language, of course, did not create the patriarchy, but language is a powerful method of inscribing the possible, shaping how and what we think, and justifying the status quo.”
Not aimed only “squarely at women” but at everyone identified as (not sufficiently) male or simply not adequately human (LGBTQ, people of color, children, the poor, other males, &c).
But the larger point I want to disagree with–even as I find much to commend in your article–I question the assumption that language did not create patriarchy.
In the first place, as you somewhat acknowledge, the discourse available to us does not just shape but originally forms how we think of things. The notion, for instance, “men are stronger than women” is obviously perfectly tautological at best. Which men? Only the one’s who are stronger than women. Those who aren’t stronger, aren’t men. &c. A good portion of your article attempts to keep this in the foreground.
In the second place, however, one might fruitfully examine how even the structures of language themselves support a premise of subordination, of necessary kinds of ordering and arrangement (in order for communicative, i.e., social, coherence to occur and continue to be transacted), and so forth. Language, as a human invention, gets used as a carrier for making claims about the truth, and to the extent that it supports those truth claims, that gives it (and its speaker) an “authority” in the social world: such as when someone says “men are stronger than women”. Without language, one couldn’t say that (obviously), so it is not simply a matter of how humans USE language. And I think this holds because language itself has a reifying function that operates even when a speaker of it doesn’t want it to.
If I wanted to make this argument seem more “reasonable,” I would say that actually writing marks the moment in the history of language when its absolute truth value gets concretized in it. Since that time, we have encountered language primarily (or perhaps only, or perhaps in dialogue with) in a form that now carries all of hte traces of writing in it. We do not encounter any word that does not have the markers of writing inscribed into it. Maybe this is a less reasonable sounding argument after all, but when someone says “men are stronger than women,” who exactly is talking? It is not only the speaker, clearly.
So I’m quite skeptical that language doesn’t create patriarchy. Because patriarchy doesn’t exist so long as we do not assent to that description of our interactions with other people. Am I being patriarchal to you now? Must I be (i.e., do I have no choice in the matter?) This doesn’t mean structural patriarchy vanishes simply because I refuse to let it shape my interactions (here with you, with others). It does mean I don’t have to re-create patriarchy in the moments between us and others.
You ought to be beaten to shit
Reblogged this on adeda.
So, shall we dismiss masculinity and dominion. With what shall we replace it? This is a rather confusing post. I shall hope that the author will find what they are really looking for eventually.
Do you want the chicken or the egg? Should we kill both because they both have tasty parts. Or should we leave them alive because they both have crunchy inedible parts?
Leave masculine and feminine roles alone bro. Just because you can’t figure out who you are doesn’t mean you have a right to neuter the world.
I’m irked by this blog, too. I am a single woman, self-sufficient, educated, by some people’s measure I’d be considered successful without having to have leaned on a man to protect me from the big, bad world. I am faced with a relationship in which I, by a feminst’s perspective, would be subordinate to a male who feels the need to protect and provide for me (*GASP!*). I am not offended by this as I understand that his desire to do such things are of a deep-rooted desire to ensure I’m secure in life; not owned or purchased. With him, I am comfortable walking away from a career to pursue a traditional female role though in past relationships there’s no way I would have given up my job to keep a home. I am aware of how feminists would look at me with either pity (for supposedly being subordinate) or scorn (for supposedly having set the movement back 40 years) yet my life is not dictated by them.
If they were writing on the injustices of women in 3rd world countries where rape is culturally accepted such as in countries of Afria, South America, or India, then I’d totally be in agreement with them. But why are they attacking men as flattering themselves when they’re helping raise awareness and support for women? There’s always some man-bashing spin that feminists put on their arguement, something to continue being unhappy about, which lessens their crediability and support from the general population who can tolerate uncomfortable topics but not being berated at all times on all levels. It’s like that friend that everyone has who uses FB to post all their gripes and never their happiness. Just shut it already!
Amanda, I am a male who is only 53 and I live in then a very 1st world country. I went to an ordinary high school and I can asure you that it was very culturally acceptable amongst my peers, their fathers to encourage non concentual sex (rape). Even today the ‘she’s asking for it’ is still very much alive and well. The use of coercion, wearing down and inebriation to have sex is still rape.
So it is just not countries in Africa, South America or India where rape is culturally acceptable.
As a feminist, I’d like you to know that, as with any label/group, there’s diversity in opinion. I love men, plan to be a stay-at-home Mom when I have kids, and think that every person, regardless of sex, has something to offer. Not sure what the author’s intent was with his discussion of men protecting women, but I personally took it to be more about the assumption that men have more power overall, and not about specific instances in which a man (or woman) is able to provide for someone they love and care about in a relationship where each person is bringing something to the table and is valued for whatever it is he or she is contributing. To me, and to the majority of feminists I know, feminism is about choice for both men and women- men should be able to be stay-at-home fathers if they choose, or soldiers, nurses, school teachers, show a full range of feelings, have whatever hobbies they like, and so should women have these options. The type of feminism I think you’re referring to also bothers me- the implication is that the only way for women to be powerful is by taking on traditionally masculine roles, and that’s simply not true.
I don’t necessarily agree with the article, but I found it interesting, and would also like to point out that the particular campaign featured in the picture is about sex trafficking, which is prevalent in the US, as well as other countries.
In short, best of luck, and hopefully you’ll reconsider your blanket dislike of feminists.
“I am aware of how feminists would look at me with either pity (for supposedly being subordinate) or scorn (for supposedly having set the movement back 40 years) ”
lol they’re not actually feminists telling you that…May I ask, where the hell are you getting this idea that feminists are so interested in, and critical of your sex life? Trust me theyre not lol
How about we replace them with humanity and stewardship?
You can be masculine and humanitarian.
She’s just a typical “nothing better to do than bitch about it” liberal cunt who, like the others, has nothing better to do than bitch about how man holds her down even though women have “equal physical strength”, which is untrue. It doesn’t take much common sense to understand that men are and always will be stronger due to our chemical build. Nothing more, nothing less than a bitch.
You’re so cute when you’re angry!
“Feminism has made great strides against patriarchal oppression in much of the world…” the one part of this essay I do not agree with. Girls have been shot and/ or kidnapped because they were pursing an education. Feminism has made great strides in Western culture, but still has a long way to go.
Good boy .
Reblogged this on INDIGO and commented:
This is a really well articulated and valid argument.
I gotta I’d never thought I see something like that from Timberlake but he got it right no lie haha ^_^
this is what men really needs canal minds mens , you can have more @kisse&huggs http://teamanointed.wordpress.com
Reblogged this on teamanointed and commented:
yes it’s a law
im so confused….why do i love boobs so much?, is it wrong that i love boobs?…am i a bad person for enjoying boobs?……i know gender should be irrelevant (i met a drag queen in a gay bar and fancied her lovely woman bit bitchy but lots of fun, didn’t get physical but contemplated it….am i gay? and what does that label mean?) and i am trying not to objectify ladies but i really do love many ladies bodies, love the curve from the waists to the hip to the thigh. I also love the spark of lunacy many women have, the kind, nurturing, coy, darkness and light. What is feminism anyway? I don’t really understand it, but I know to run and hide like a coward when it is released because of the hatred and bile possibly directed at me for what my sex represents. the stats don’t lie there are more men in politics and men still earn more. but that’s not my fault in fact i earn so little, many women in my social group earn far more than me, which means im less of a man again. so as a white heterosexual male i am either impotent, unattractive and pathetic because i earn less the the ladies in my social grouping (view of many ladies in society) and if i earned more i would be perpetuating male dominance over women. So either way I am still going to be perceived as an eijit and an asshole. so best to stop worrying what other people think and just try not to be an asshole. I feel the world is filled with labels that are slowly becoming outdated and don’t properly represent the world, words like “feminism” and “gay” and “lesbian” and “male” and “female” they are old fashioned and too general, too black and white, well i suppose the term “feminism” has so many different meaning to so many different people it looses all its integrity. Just because you are born with male genitalia, it doesn’t make you masculine or a man and the same with female genitalia. so the words man and woman are inaccurate. what i do know is that many women have the option to become pregnant which makes it difficult to work in a demanding career.
For many women, feminism means gender equality. What you just described, about “not being a man” is a result of the patriarchy as well. It hurts all of us, just some more than others. And while you may not earn as much as your female counterparts, at least you are earning something. There are many women of all races, and men of color who can’t even get an interview.
As for loving breasts, no one said that was a bad thing. It’s the expectation that your love for breasts means you get to do with them what you want without consent…that’s the problem. Looking at a woman as only the body parts you enjoy and nothing else, that’s objectifying her. Try to get to know a woman who has the bits you like.
I agree with you on many counts. I agree with this article as well. We live in an age of immense transition at the dawn of not only a new century, but a new millennium. A lot of the old ways of thinking are shedding like snake skin. You hit the nail on the head i.m.o. The words we’re using just don’t seem to fit anymore. But, they’re what we have right now, because they’re what people understand. It’s ok to be confused, or disagree.
When I think “patriarchy” I think of the dominance of one group, over the rest of us. Not necessarily male (though that is where the word comes from) but this illusory idea of who is at the top of the pyramid, and how you must behave to stay. It hurts males, females, non-gender binary people, LGBT, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, the poor, etc.
It’s in your nature to love boobs biologically, don’t feel guilty. As a bisexual women, it’s in my nature as well. Appreciate the human body as nature, it IS sexy, it’s supposed to be. All feminism is to me is recognize that there is individual behind the breasts, a human just like yourself who has an unalienable right to have dominion over herself. Just like many women need to learn that a male body means nothing more than xy chromosomes and possibly a penis. There is no default MAN, or mystical masculine strength or a legitimate reason why women don’t need to pay for their own dinner.
We are all just bags of carbon filled with feelings. Nothing more, nothing less. That simple truth demands equality for all of us.
This is a great insight, and it goes straight to a frustration I’ve commonly had in feminist conversations, and sets a much stronger backdrop than I’ve been able to for an argument I’ve been trying to make: how women are treated is as much about how men are gendered as anything else.
The language is all there, and it’s always there. The gender box of masculinity is used to talk about how men harm women, to equate male sexuality with rape, and to silence male voices that are otherwise trying to be a productive ally. But the language and ideology of current internet feminism wants only to deride men as aggressors. “It’s not about MEN” I’ve been told too many times.
It starts with allowing society to view men as other than protectors, aggressors, etc. When we start to teach our boys that it’s OK to play with dolls, to play games of empathy then they can grow to be nurturing, kind, gentle, social, empathetic, expressive … all those things that are “girly” … and we’ll find that the next generations treat women as equals.
But that starts by recognizing that it’s about ALL OF US, and the harm that gender roles do to all of us.
Reblogged this on Robert Attard.
Reblogged this on timothy256 and commented:
So well said! You really made me see things differently, and help me realize why it was I wasn’t loving those campaigns. Hit the nail on the head.
If your campaign asks men not to rape women, then you’re not empowering women and you’re putting the fight for equal rights in the hands of men. BUT if you try to empower women in this situation, suddenly you’re blaming the victim. The fact of the matter is that you can’t stop rape without targeting male violence, without letting men feel like they can be a part of the feminist discussion without being attacked. Yes we want to empower women, but equality will take effort on both sides.
I so agree with you. Very well said. What we need is a social change and what we trying to do is change men. So, we have a situation where the good men are being very defensive and the bad guys don’t give a shit anyway. The education should start from really early on at schools and family environment plays a big role too.
An insight I’ve had recently is that, when you tell a man he’s engaging in sexism, you almost WANT him to have a defensive reaction. Chances are that means he cares, and that he doesn’t want to be viewed as sexist. Self-reflection and correction don’t happen in the seconds after a criticism … you’re in knee-jerk, self-protection mode then … the good stuff happens over the following hours and days. But it’s that defensiveness that’s often used to subsequently shuffle men out of the conversation.
People need to go after that defensiveness like an educator treats a 2-year-old’s tantrum. Acknowledge the feeling, and address it. “I understand that you don’t like being told that … what do you think makes you feel upset?”
If I hear the word “mansplaining” one more time, I might just explode.
Sarah: I hear what you say and would point in the original article to the author’s emphasis on HOW the language of these campaigns gets constructed. Clearly, if men didn’t commit sexual assaults, we’d only have the sexual assaults by women left to deal with. The author is pointing to the fact that the language of these campaigns casts the social work to be done in shallow terms. They recenter men as the solution to the problem, rather than as the problem itself. Just as politicians can’t not vote themselves pay-raises, just as hte prison system can’t reform itself, why should we expect males to finally and absolutely eradicate patriarchal violence, so long as the approach asks them to “manage those impulses” rather than “transform themselves into someone who doesn’t have the capacity for patriarchal violence?” (to put the point extremely). And why is this framed (or why is the discussion only framed) as only men having the power to do this? This is where the equality drops out.
When it comes down to the brass tacks of behavior–not the discourse about behavior in culture–the best way to prevent sexual assault is for those who commit it not to. This makes it incumbent on all allies (male and female alike) to (1) educate and dissuade those who commit sexual assaults from acting (prevention, including self-prevention) and (2) not letting such assaults likely happen where they’re likely (protection).
“best way to prevent sexual assault is for those who commit it not to.”
This is such a ridiculous cop-out. I’ve never been entirely sure how to address it rationally. It’s such a big discussion that you’re reducing to a stupid tautology that: 1. accepts as truth that men are men and that’s just how they are (ironic!); and 2. denies any social, cultural, or inter-personal contributors to the problem of sexual assault, reducing it to a question of the choice one makes in the moment (never mind how that choice is informed by a lifetime of social reinforcement!).
Yes, of course, Eric. The way for sexual assault not to happen is for rapists to rape and then we will, um … do something after the fact. That will surely prevent sexual assault.
At some point in your objection to tautology, you are going to have to become a rape apologist by (1) blaming the victim as somehow deserving the sexual assault or (2) making the familiar sort of “boys will be boys excuse that the rapist simply HAD to do it.
The overwhelming amount of rape in our culture is not violent stranger rape. You want to pretend that coerced consent is consent? Why do you insist on living in a world where some guy wanting to fuck provides an unassailable green light, and any sort of hesitation, ambiguity (or unconsciousness) on the part of the other person (male or female) further lights up that green light?
Exactly what entitlement do you feel males have that because they (1) have received consent, (2) believe they have received consent, or (3) construe things as received consent that that demarcates some “point of no return” beyond which a retraction of consent (real, imagined, or coerced) gets ruled out? On some sort of spurious argument, the type which you seem to want to reject, that “a man has needs” that a “man can’t help it” that “there’s a biological imperative” or some other foolishness?
Or do you think that because occasionally some woman (or man) regrets after the fact giving consent and (1) merely regrets it, (2) due to socioeconomic or personal reasons sees fit to raise a stink about it in the direction of hte male that this somehow green-lights ny male entitlement or has even the smallest of things to do with the vast, vast portion of sexual assault where this comparatively very (statistically) rare circumstance is the case? If I want to denounce as scurrilous a false rape charge after the fact, how does that have anything at all pertinent to say about the overwhelming number of cases where this does not apply? The very invocation of the argument points to victim blaming: denying the reality of rape because a very small percentage of women lie about it?
*Heavy sigh* Your facile moral relativism can’t stand up to scrutiny. The most overwhelming way to avoid a rape charge is not to be in any circumstance where a rape charge applies. Sadly, it /is/ that black and white. The drunk woman who gets in the taxi with you leaving the bar, in any case, is far more likely to be raped than are you to be tagged with a false charge.
I explicitly reject the notion that “men are men”. Why you think you are arguing against that notion as you busily veer off into the territory of rape apologetics is disheartening..
“The best way to prevent sexual assault is for those who commit it not to.”
The best way to prevent murder is for those to commit it not to.
The best way to prevent theft is for those to commit it not to.
Sweet! So I as soon as we can convince people to stop murdering and stealing, we won’t need police or locks anymore.
I work daily so that society might be arranged in such a way that the wants and desires currently met by murder, theft, and rape–as well as the desires and wants met by despair-based cynicism and sarcasm–are met more productively by other means and in other ways.
That will be more helpful than you talking to murderers, thieves, and rapists, especially since you think that’s a waste of time.
“The most overwhelming way to avoid a rape charge is not to be in any circumstance where a rape charge applies.”
The most overwhelming way to avoid being raped is not to be in any circumstance where rape is likely.
Oh, wait, that would be giving women responsibility for their own safety, a.k.a “victim blaming.” Can’t do that.
Thank you for saying this!!!!
Your thesis, “by flattering men’s strength and asking them to use it to protect women, we once again place men in the driver’s seat of culture, asking for them to renounce violence and be less vile guardians” is a paradox; you are essentially implying that whenever a group of people oppresses another, asking the oppressors to stop oppressing is oppressive. Men are already in the driver’s seat when it comes to physical strength. Where do you think people got the idea that men are stronger than women? From a hat? The campaign asks men to exercise self-control and restraint, inexorably leading them to question the idea of violence-against-women/sexual over-dominance as a defining characteristic of masculinity.
Well put Blahblah. I agree with you
To me, it is pretty useless to battle gender-inequality, because we are not equal. We are actually pretty different in many (often subtle) ways. Denying this is like swimming against the tides. You might last a couple of hours at best, but nature will contradict and undo your efforts, however earnest they may have been.
What’s not useless to battle is:
– the notion that females have any less value than men as human beings.
– the idea that men are ‘placed above’ women (a very common belief in religious circles).
– basically the notion that it’s ok to be a d*ck because you happen to own one.
Ideas rule the world. Let us be men and women that will go down in history as those that held on to ideas that made this world a little better. And let us target ideas that seek to destroy or hurt others. Period.
Reblogged this on demonicnergal and commented:
Reblogged this on whereiszainee.
Man, people will just turn everything positive into something negative, won’t they? I understand that your ideal is that gender biases do not exist. However, this campaign was clearly aimed to do good and just because it insults, what looks like to me, as the most minor of feminist sensibilities, you must denounce it? In the perfect world, people good the right thing for exactly the right reason and in the exact right way. In the real world, you take the victories you get, because they are rare and at least people are trying to help. I know you will never see it this way, but you are part of the problem.
I don’t mean to rant. I really do hope our society will continue to evolve for the betterment of women, but the attitude taken by this article is going to do more harm than good in rallying people to your cause.
It seemed to me that the author went to grain pains to say these messages are positive and helpful. We’ve come to this place in public discourse where if your not 100% in support of something than your 100% against it. It is responsible and healthy to challenge ideas and campaigns that are good to be better.
I wish I could live in a world where people aren’t shitty to me because I’m a person, not because I might be someone else’s female, which is the entire point. Good job missing that.
I want to live in a world where people do not think of men in such limited terms “men are asked simply not to buy people, physically abuse people, or rape.” In point of fact, the actual sexism of this statement and its un-examined cultural stereotypes is more than a little offensive. Men are and have been asked far more than that by the feminist movement through out its history while still being labeled as violent, rapist, oppressors. Ironically, when men and/or masculine language rally behind feminist causes they are frequently berated or belittled for the efforts while being isolated into the same limited traditional ideas of gender roles that the feminist movement seeks to over throw, and this article really is a great example of that kind of behavior. I would like to say to anyone still reading that it is okay to both be traditionally masculine and respect women as human beings.
pretty much exactly what i was thinking. fist bump for thinking logically. quite a rare thing on now a day’s c:
reblogged on carajones88
Reblogged this on carajones89 and commented:
this has become modern society and an acceptable thing to do.. were has our values and sense of moral gone?
What has become an acceptable thing to do?
That society turns a blind eye to these things yet their always preaching bout rights and equality,how about those that don’t have a voice and neglected in other parts of the world that have never k own what freedom is.
Reblogged this on nunniie's Blog.
Topics like this just make me sad.
I’ve spent much of my online activity fighting the absurdities of religion, but have always assumed nonsense would gradually give way to enlightenment, especially given the availability of information in this new interconnected world.
Yet in the midsts of social and intellectual progress a new religion has emerged. Feminism has all the attributes; an ideology, based on nothing, and asserted as fact; then all evidence must be ignored or contorted to be viewed through the lens. Just like God and theology, feminism is the detailed study of a fictitious entity. It even has the invisible man in the sky controlling us all.
Has anybody here considered ‘the patriarchy’ doesn’t exist? And I mean really considered it. Not argued with those who make the argument, but actually considered what it looks like from the other side?
Instead of trying to bend and twist everything to maintain the belief, follow the evidence where it leads. It’s called ‘rational enquiry’, and it both; works, and prevents people wasting their life on unproductive and insulting nonsense.
Men aren’t assholes, we just live in an imperfect world where bad things happen. Men are just as, if not more, oppressed than women; they certainly endure more obligations and responsibilities; and have less privileges and freedoms; and receive less respect, attention, funding and programs.
To a rational person, this disproves feminist theory outright on the first pass. But to the religious mindset the initial assumption must be protected, so they fabricate a convoluted rationalisation and claim ‘patriarchy hurts men too’. To call this system ‘patriarchy’ and the cure ‘feminism’ is a divisive word game that demonstrates clear misandry. Sexism is alive and well, but it is on your side of the argument.
Why not work together without the hate and assumption that men are subhuman creatures which deserve to be slandered at every turn, usually for fictitious crimes?
Your real enemies are:
* The oligarchs and the corrupt politicians they buy (they are protecting the wealthy and powerful – not men – they merely want to hold onto power. The fact they are often, but by no means always, men is a deeply, deeply flawed argument.)
* Religion (oppressing women is literally in their holy scriptures)
* Ignorance and misinformation (it holds us all back, and the latest wave of feminism is a major contributor)
Lying to and about men will not aid your cause. Instead, it will create enemies. If you haven’t noticed there is a growing movement against feminism, and it involves many who used to call themselves feminists, and genuinely believe in equality, fairness and social progress. Feminism is becoming a dirty word, and justifiably so.
I disagree. Women are the sole source of incubation and the reproduction of further humans. Their bodies twist and contort, while significantly reducing their quality of life and life span, to reproduce. Men simply do not have to face this biological reality and are thus free to pursue their own interests and goals throughout their life.
In order for us to be truly equal society would need to take into account the unique biological and social conditions that are relevant to female potential. It must stop demanding that women must behave and act more like men in order to succeed.
Lastly there is the weight of history that works against women. It is absurd to deny that women have been dominated by a male power structure throughout history, and not some distant history but quite recent, which force women to tie their very existence to the potential of their husband, father, brother or whatever other male in their lives. To ignore the weight of history is not “rational”, it’s just plain well ignorance of causation.
We must take conscience action to avoid what has been shelled out by history and ensure women are treated fairly in respect to their unique conditions as women. Power structures were inherited by males for males and continue to be that way, a lot has changed but it’s far from equality.
To hinge your argument on ‘history’ is to punish innocent people for things they had no say in.
Refer to my point re: religion
In this case it’s ‘the sins of the father’ narrative from the bible. The book which enforced the system you lament.
Where exactly is this alleged inequality? No answer offered to this question bears out the facts (unless you are referring to discrimination against men).
Women may be the sole source of incubation and reproduction, but speaking as a woman who has produced, I would have given up the experience in a heartbeat if I could have, so, Jon, please don’t turn it into a noble undertaking.
Wlikipedia has it that: ‘An artificial uterus (or womb) is a theoretical device that would allow for extracorporeal pregnancy … (that is), outside of the body of a female organism that would normally internally carry the embryo or foetus to term.’ I read online about research that was close to making this hypothetical idea a reality. A female lobby group however was worried that women would no longer have the upper hand if any old uterus could do what they make a virtue of doing.
I’ve been searching and searching for years without success to find that article and any other information that’s available. I suspect that the article and the research has been buried.
It’s funny how if you take a hard line on one side you start to believe your own rubbish.
This has happened in both sides here.
Whilst there are valid points made, here’s a couple that seem, well, strange;
Jon: women’s life spans reduced? Last time I looked, women live a fair bit longer than men.
But really, that’s a minor error.
Steven, I don’t know how you can even try and make out that men have it harder. We have held power and privelege forever pretty much. It’s changing, but still a way off.
How is it deeply deeply flawed? It’s pretty simple.
Men hold far more positions of power. And they want to hold onto it. Read my earlier post. It explains it simply. Us men have always been in priveledged positions, so we don’t even think about an alternative. But as soon as it gets threatened, we scream reverse discrimination. It’s such a crock of shit, that it’s laughable. It happened with black rights, women’s rights, anyone’s rights that threaten our domination.
I do, however agree that feminism is not what it used to be, but unfair inequality still exists, and any group that still hasn’t quite reached it, has every right to keep pushing.
And if you’re still not convinced about men holding power?
Men still rape women at alarming rates.
Men still abuse their partners at alarming rates.
Men still abuse power far more than women.
Men kill millions of innocents every year around the globe, in one way or another.
Argue against the way the feminist movement operates by all means, but don’t be selective or argue against facts you know are true.
Oh and Steven. I am not responsible for the sins of my father, but have an obligation to make things right in my time.
If we all used that convenient phrase, nothing would change.
And religion does not hold any evils. It’s the power and mis-representations within the religions that are evil. And these evils and so called ‘rules’ of religion that oppress? By a long long majority, these evils were started by those in positions of power within the religion. And unfortunately my friend, those positions have/still are, held by men.
Misuse of power is pretty much at the heart of any injustice in the world. Religion, equal rights, crime, oppression. All of it.
You do realise women abuse and men are victims too right? The stats say it’s about 50/50 and women are usually the provocateur. Uncomfortable fact for the feminist side. There is more physical and emotional abuse in lesbian relationship than gay ones, and combined lgbt abuse occurs at the same rate of straight abuse. The ‘male’ side of that argument is both a red herring, and an insulting example of institutionalised misandry. The whole world scripts that lie. Feminism has too much power and has jumped the shark. Abuse of power is not only from the oligarchs which you also pin on all men. It’s shamefully illogical and hateful.
Some men still rape women at alarming rates
Some men still abuse their partner
You might want to offer some independent statistics that prove that ‘Men still abuse power far more than women.’ I’ve worked in a department that was predominantly female and that included the head of that department. I can tell you that the abuse of power is equal.
This is the most mind-numbingly sexist and ridiculous thing I have ever read. So some people said that men are assholes, and suddenly you’re “more oppressed than” women? Give me a break. Just because your feelings got hurt doesn’t mean you’re oppressed.
Men still occupy 80% of the positions of power in the world. Are these the “more obligations and responsibilities” that you claim that men have? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps women might want to share some of these (vastly superior, apparently) responsibilities, but are systemically prevented from doing so? You seem to think that women do nothing but sit at home and clip their nails all day, when in reality they probably have *at least* the same amount of obligations and responsibilities that men have.
What are the “less privileges and freedoms” that you claim that men have? Is it the fact that they get paid $1.00 for every $0.77 that women make? The fact that women are passed over in favor of them for a multitude of jobs? Or is it their ability to receive Viagra under insurance when women can’t even get birth control? Seems really tough for you, I don’t know how you do it. Same goes for the point where you claim that men receive “less respect.” I don’t understand how a person can live in a culture that routinely portrays women as vapid sex objects and only sentences ~3% of rapists to prison (and this is only a minuscule snapshot of examples), and still claim that men receive less respect. Across the globe, women are raped, abused, murdered, trafficked, and kidnapped at alarming rates and because someone called you an asshole once, you’re a victim of oppression. You’ve got some terrific observational and critical-thinking skills there.
Yes, men and women are expected to perform in gender-specific ways and are ridiculed and/or alienated if they do not. Yet these gender roles are a symptom of patriarchal values on both sides. It is not “misandry;” On the contrary, much of it is more likely to result from misogyny (ie; femininity is bad and masculinity is good, so if a man is too “feminine” then he should be ridiculed). To fix these issues is not to raise women above men. That is not what feminism is about. It is about raising women to equal status with men and destroying a traditional patriarchal system that disadvantages all genders.
Thank you. You put my thoughts into words far more eloquently than I ever could have.
Did you even read my comment? It contained nothing sexist.
Thanks for your examples, they prove you know nothing of the topic.
Women CHOOSE to work in less powerful positions, it’s a freedom men don’t have. This CHOICE explains the pay gap. It is not oppression, it is proof that worm have equality when they want it, and special privileges when they want them instead.
Your point on contraceptives highlights my other point about political corruption. America is the worst nation in the world for it, and that is the result. In the civilised world, either both genders are covered, or it is only women who receive free contraceptives.
Maybe this debate is more an example of Americanisation, than gender. America leads the conversation and the rest of the world follows even though the arguments dont apply.
As I said, you need to fix your politics and oligarchs. This man hate it’s unproductive.
Saying that women actively choose to live and work in less powerful positions is putting quite a lot of words in womens mouths that just aren’t there. I don’t know a single female who seeks out or chooses jobs specially because they know it’s one that would be viewed as a less powerful position than other opportunities. That’s ludicrous, really. Women aren’t actively self sabotaging themselves. I have a gender bending name (I’m often mistaken for a man based solely on my name, say on a resume) and have quite a great deal off personal experience with the simple fact that men get preference over women in many jobs. There’s no smoke and mirrors here, just cold hard reality. I’ve been called regarding positions I’ve applied for (field happens to be chemistry), the caller has asked for me, by my name, I’ve responded that I am she, and thus ensues an awkward conversation that begins with “oh…I thought you were a man”. Please, explain to me how that isn’t gender preference in the workplace, but instead is women just not going after the tough jobs.
Also, where are those special privileges you talked about? Last time I checked, I still have to work really hard for everything I have, which is exactly the way it should be for EVERYONE.
Should be noted that I never got any of the jobs I’ve had a mistaken gender issue with, despite positive feedback in non verbal communications.
You are making way too many assumptions based on small scale examples. Your life isn’t proof of anything. Every man is in the exact same position of missing out on things they believe they earned or deserved. There is no evidence to support the notion that women are oppressed in today’s world. I personally have experienced that my boss hasn’t hired a man in over 8 years, does that prove male oppression? No, it’s choosing the right employee for the role.
A woman can be anything she wants, our last prime minister was female, above her was a female governor general, above her was a female queen, and the richest person in the country? Yep, she’s a woman.
Women have the option to get married and never work, or to work but take a few years out and play with children, possibly never return, return part time, or return with their career as their 3rd or 4th priority. There is a choice for women to work in service jobs which are more emotionally fulfilling but less financially rewarding.
Why do you assume these don’t account for under representation or lower average pay? Those who have run the numbers confirm there is no bias and the story only remains by a biased over simplification which ignores the contributing factors.
When Obama included the pay gap nonsense in his state of the union address there were articles by progressive/lefty scientists (who call themselves feminists) rebuking the divisive gender agenda tripe. He was lying to mobilise his base, he’s a politician, it’s his job. You aren’t supposed to believe it.
An example on under representation. Women make up about 1/4 of our government. Does that sound bad? To feminist campaigners, of course.
But what they don’t tell you is that women are nominated to stand in elections at a rate higher than they apply, and they are elected at a rate higher than they are nominated. Neither the system nor the voting public keeps them out of office. It is 100% their choice not to pursue a political career.
Equality means equality of opportunity. From there ambition and ability are the determining factors. It does not mean equal outcomes!
If that is your measure, the fact 90% of the prison population is male is unequivocal proof that men are being systematically oppressed by society. Do you believe that? If not, don’t use the same argument for women.
One thing people really need to do is stop sticking the term “real” in front of the word “man” or “woman” when they see someone doing, or not doing, something that doesn’t mesh with their own particular definitions of the terms. It’s an elephant in the living room if there ever was one. Nobody needs or deserves that nonsense from anyone.
All humans, regardless of the gender or other societal labels they hang on themselves, are all out there basically doing the same thing: getting through life and trying to forge some sort of unique identity for themselves.
Frustratingly; there’s no shortage of other humans ready and willing to tell another that a “real” man or woman would or wouldn’t say or do this that or the other. Sadly; if you let these people who think they’ve got the definition of the “real” man or woman pinned down talk a bit, you find out how limited their views really are.
Infuriatingly, a lot of these same people claim to be from the “open minded”, “enlightened” and “Liberal” camps of thought and spout of words like “acceptance” and “tolerance” while clearly practicing neither. Quite often, if you call them out on it, you’re met with a variety of empty sloganism and dogma to justify such hypocritical smugness on their part.
Such tactics as the above make it very difficult for me to throw my support behind people who use them even if I do, in principle, agree with their cause.
This guest piece you’ve published has left me with a similar bad taste in my mouth.
As much as agree with the principle of equality among all people, the immaturity and lack of self control your guest writer has exercised in his piece simply leaves me cold and of little inclination to support his views.
He should not be talking about any other group not being “at the big kids’ table” when he very clearly wasn’t sitting at it himself when he wrote the piece.
Speaking as someone who does support the principles of equality, I must say that you do yourself and your cause no favours by publishing such clearly prejudiced and uncontrolled rabble as that.
Thank you J.A. McCarrol – you are Spot On! We are all implicated in an opressive supremacist system, but it is possible – even for the privileged – to step out of or ‘positions’ to adress our own and each others’ lazy attitudes to justice and equality, not as men or women, but as human beings. Well Done. Here are some of my own thoughts on this same age-old problem of Patriarchy (as applied to “the North’s” intrusion into the ‘gender troubles’ of poorer societies): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1759-5436.12076/pdf
It’d be nice if we could minimize linguistic offenses, but the best way to do that is to help people get their hearts right. “In all things, treat others as you would have them treat you.” Offenses are bound to come. Drawing near to God will help us avoid most of them, though, through forgiveness and good works.
Have you ever met a straight male from the working class? The REAL working class, as in didn’t go through higher education, isn’t an intellectual, and doesn’t own stock or have rich family.
Some poster Probably being a bit harsh on the writer.
It’s always a hard battle to get the last 10% or so of ‘true’ equality. Yes there are laws etc, but there is abuse of power. And like it or not, heterosexual white men hold most of those titles. And why not? If you hold a all the aces, you’re not going to just fold them without a fight. And especially given that men got to those positions, by, well, being men.
Doesn’t make it right at all. But it’s out of fear of losing the priveledged position.
Unlike pure bigotry and equality, the gender debate is more complex. You can’t argue whether a black person deserves absolute equality.
But you can’t expect absolute equality on gender, as obvious, accepted, biological differences, will always keep that equality definition on a knife edge.
One of the most common things I have seen in my life is the number of feminist minded women, who usually lean heavily to the ‘upbringing’ theory, cannot believe what they see when they have their own little boy, and see the way he naturally behaves. It usually shatters their long held opinions.
I am not saying for a second that women do not deserve every opportunity to aspire to whatever they want, and to have a level playing field. That is true equality. And they outcome will be the outcome. If it means men will still hold the majority of power, then so be it. If women still want to be ‘pursued’, then so be it. (If women will always have this disposition, which they always will to a point, then the behaviour of men will reflect that.)
The bottom line is, like it or not, men pretty much behave how they do, because they think that women want them to behave that way. It’s pretty simple. If women suddenly wanted men to dress in pink pajamas, then men would do it.
Now us men are not necessarily a smart lot, and extremes, total lack of interpretation, etc., lead us to behave like tools. But in all but extreme circumstances, we want to do the right thing and be seen as attractive. All humans do.
In the end though, you need extreme pushing of boundaries to get anything done. No movemt as succeeded in being moderate. You need the fighters, misguided or not, to take it up.
It’s a balancing act all round, this masculinity thing. Keep pushing, but this will go on forever. Men, whilst wanting to be moral, fair, etc, will also never give up the upper physical hand. It’s nature. It’s just a matter of getting rid of the excuses to abuse that power, that some men continue to live by.
Easy as that :-)
Would you think that a black man is more underprivileged than a white woman? Would you think white race as a whole has majority of the world’s wealth with them and hence we have a slightly unfair world? So, should we then first listen to women of non white races before addressing the issues of white women? all these arguments are absurd. Everyone is trying their best to be happy and most of both men and women are not. What we have is a social issues and not a gender issue per se. We need to fix our society and not just men. Most of injustice and inequalities come from insecurities. Men i think are generally are unsecured when it comes to dealing with women. A lot of men use force against women because they can not beat them intellectually. And this society (comprised of both men and women) have trained men to be a winner at all cost. Losing (even an argument) means losing their face. If women think that all faults lie with men, things will never change. The system will always divide and rule and take advantage of all citizens. The only way this movement can really succeed if women can demand the guys to join their hands to fight against all these inequalities of all kinds together. At the moment, it just feels like men are being accused of all the things that are beyond the control of any one individual man.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong, but for a singular reason. You make a completely pig-headed statement: “Male privilege is re-defined… in a way that leaves masculinity unchallenged and still dominant. The… language of generations of queer, trans, intersectionalist and sex-positive feminism and human-rights dialogues is thrown aside completely in favor of a request that straight, cis-gendered men join the rest of the world at the big-kids table.” What you reveal about yourself in this obscenely bigoted statement is that 1–you don’t understand straight men, 2–you hate them, and 3–you don’t know how the world works. “Masculinity” isn’t dominant, you moron. POWER is dominant. Anyone who has the ability to exercise power over another is dominant, hence the definition of the word. It is not masculinity that gives a man power–it is his physical strength that allows him to dominate. Likewise, bureaucratic power or economic power or governmental power can have the same affect, such as when the lesbian Attorney General Janet Reno physically abused and even tortured her straight male staff purely for the evil pleasure she got out of it. Your idea that all non-straight males are angels and the only devils in the world are straight males and evil by definition of their gender and sexual preference is the height of prejudice. You are disgusting. And stupid.
Oops who upset the straight dude. This article is targeting the cishet male community because they, as a whole, are the most sexist. no one is saying there aren’t problematic people with other genders or sexualities. What I’m getting from this response is that you seem to think cis straight men AREN’T automatically privileged because of their gender/sexuality. You obviously need to do some research on feminism, you don’t seem to understand patriarchy at all. also, about the Janet Reno example, did Janet’s action against the straight men she abused empower all other lesbians to be able to do the same thing to men? No. So is this example relevant to a discussion about feminism? No.
Mary, I agree with you that he needs to do some research to develop a further understanding, but the patronising, derogatory comment on his sexuality and gender? Do you not see that any hate that is classified as OK or acceptable only leads to other types of hate becoming acceptable? That marginalising someone based on their gender and sexuality is what we as a feminist movement are against? In doing this you have undone whatever progress you might have made by leading him to more knowledge and resources, as he now believes that he is unwelcome in the feminist community. Be careful not to get angry at people that don’t know any better (it’s a problem for you and me both – I know how difficult it is from experience).
This kind of strikes me as being very analogous to the people who complain when a charitable donation or act is done not out of pure altruism, but out of some other motivation.
I think part of it stems from an assumption I think you’re making: traditional gender roles are inherently bad. While I do definitely believe that people should not be pigeon holed into gender roles, I’m not convinced yet that the roles themselves are inherently bad if done by choice.
So my point is: I don’t really see the problem with wanting to engage men who view themselves as traditional men and thus frequently feel that they don’t need to concern themselves with “women’s issues” by painting equality for women as a traditional man’s issue too.
Isn’t this just an application of a tactic used generally in any sort of proposal/pitch? You appeal to the listener on their terms and frame the proposal with their view in mind. You can’t just jump straight in. You have to set up the issue in the first place to hook them.
Reblogged this on noor almukharreq.
This guy’s a friggin’ tool. It goes both ways dipshit.
If you really want to educate yourself on how men are treated in today’s society, rather than listening to some mangina sporting flamer, go check out Spetsnaz’ youtube channel,the man has credentials that actually allow him to debate the topic, rather than some wannabe hipster writer douche from new york.
Thank you. Fuck sake, this is the kind of shit that pisses me off.
You are an ignorant little bitch. Go hang yourself.
Reblogged this on PhDs for Social Justice.
Real men don’t give a shit about feminists, they only care about real people.
Is that Justin Timberlake? If so, I have a serious problem with the hypocrisy in this picture.
“Rather than attacking the institution of masculinity itself, several recent campaigns have attempted a sort of masculinity triage, trying to eliminate violence against women, while still flattering men with the label of protector.”
Attacking “the institution of masculinity” won’t get “feminism” anywhere. Masculinity and Femininity are two parts to the whole of humanity–and I for one much appreciate any efforts made by men to discourage the purchase/rape/abuse of women. THANKS JT.
Well obviously discouraging rape and abuse of women is a good thing, but when you think about it, a picture saying that ‘real’ men don’t hit girls is just ignorant and counter-productive when challenging gender inequality. By saying that there are ‘real men’ you are still distinguishing between man and woman, and that the power lies with the men to make the difference. Rather than blurring the line between the socially constructed roles of masculinity and femininity (which needn’t be related to biological sex), it reinstates that men and women are different, and consequentially unequal.
Your opinion represents what is probably minority, Clifford. Your arguments drive themselves off of several assumptions that you treat as prima facie, when in reality, they are not. Particularly:
– The line between masculinity & femininity should be blurred, this is what is best for society. (Off which you make the argument: Culture should be recrafted to blur the line)
– Salience of difference equal consequentially unequal (this is antithetical to acceptance of diversity, btw)
I for one, and as I’ve seen from my peers, would much PREFER a more defined sense of masculinity & femininity, particularly when it comes to relationships. This is because the majority (vast) of all people are heterosexual, and would like better understandings of their preferred role, i.e., how to make their partners happy, and what they should trade for what they’ll get.
This idea that feminism is destined to trivialize any definition of gender roles is simply ABSURD. Is this a result of the LGBT movement hijacking the gender equality movement? LGBT-involved women are a minority, so any attempt to change the agenda to align with that movement is incredibly undemocratic and disingenuous.
Women and men are statistically different. This is a biological fact. They have different tendencies when it comes to psychology, and as such, should have different roles in order to account for and appease those interests. Women like to be protected, and feel protected- every women I’ve had a relationship with has expressed her wish for MORE masculinity in the average male, so to try and eliminate that, you would not be representing FEMALES, in fact, I have no idea who you’d be representing. Trans? Not females, don’t call it feminism.
My take is that men are being encouraged to hold other men to a higher standard. All too often there is this “good ole boy” philosophy that encourages men to overlook the inappropriate behavior or comments of their peers. As a result, some men will allow themselves to be silenced by peer pressure, rather than risk ridicule. This is a human issue, however there are only men in the men’s locker room where a lot of conversations take place (men will say things around other men, that they will not say around women). It is among this group that men have the opportunity to take a stance for what is right. It is not about being a protector, but being willing to confront the issue.
i think you nailed it.
That works both ways.
I understand your frustrations. The feminist movement is still young in its activities though. One step at a time. I do not believe your demands are unreasonable, but your accusations are. To say that men who are making these comments subconsciously reinforce patriarchal values is unfair. The message of these campaigns seem more to be along the lines of: Come on, this is common sense stuff. Yes, it is sad, but that does not make it untrue. There is still a huge human slave trade around the world. The point of these campaigns is awareness, and recruitment. By pointing the finger and saying “You’re not doing enough” you’re creating a schism in a group that is essentially on the same side. I do not believe anyone posting these photos is thinking, as they’re doing it “Yeah, I love women, but they’re still less intelligent, less important, and lesser human beings.” Instead, I feel as if these campaigners are thinking the same thing you are: “Wow, I cannot believe I need to be saying this in 2014.” So please, do not attack people who are on your side. Instead, we need to focus on ending sex slavery, inequality in the work place, and sexist policies in place both here and abroad. Thank you for your work.
Reblogged this on fidepoetica.
So, in essence:
“Women, empower yourselves.
Men, how dare you point to anything specifying that you are a male!”
I’ve finally figured it out… it’s not Feminism people are irritated by, it’s the holier-than-thou, hypocritical attitudes that are extolled by some of the extremely vocal minority within the fight for true equality.
If you are actually scoffing at someone like Justin Timberlake, and how up a simple photo as an example of “not-good-enough” from a pop-culture talking head then gee whizz… you need to stop reading buzzfeed and go talk to some real people.
Reblogged this on The Santa Fe Post.
This is brilliant. I always wondered why these types of messages still did not rub me the right way. And you explained it perfectly int his post.
You’re an amateur and a fool. Die please.
Reblogged this on caringheartfamilylifecare's Blog and commented:
The Language of Dude Feminism and the underlining importance of women
It always amazes me; the lack of cognitive dissonance in the minds of feminists.
At once you eschew the male desire to protect women and then denounce violence against women.
They say women can do anything men can do but women need special help because of the evil men stand in their way (compete against them).
Women are the equal of men in every way but men are immoral, base, and violent.
And as always you are wrong. Women are not the equal of men because men and women are not equivalent. Women will always be protected because women are essential to reproduction.
Society will never view women to be as competent, capable, or accountable for their actions as men are because women will never be punished for their failures the way men are.
Women can’t “win” unless they have something to lose. Women who succeed are great. Women who fail are victims.
Women who play at anything expect to get a pat on the back and an award for participation. No one got to the top of a hierarchy by just showing up.
At the heart of what makes men great is our disposability. It’s what allows feminist bigots to slander an enter sex for their own benefit. It’s what allows governments to hurl us at their enemies. We have more laws to protect women from being asked out by some “loser” at work than we have to protect men from collapsing mines.
Every man knows he has something to lose. Every man knows he faces many forms of destruction for failing. This is why we are better than women. We have no choice.
Call it what you want. Just remember all you white privilege feminists that some day you will have sons and they will have to live in this world. A world full of prisons, wars, dangerous occupations, and women and men just like you who hate men.
I think you mean “cognitive dissonance”. Not “lack of”. Truly, you make an moar excellent point. But wow did you make yourself look dumb in the first sentence.
a most* <– and then i go and make a damn typo.
I believe if you were to look up the definition of cognitive dissonance you would find that the use of the term fits with their argument. The same way your use of the term in your counter argument is contextually appropriate. It just depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on in terms of perspective.
Curious is correct, it is the lack of cognitive dissonance, because cognitive dissonance refers to the stress caused by (not the existence of) contradictory beliefs.
i don’t think Jean Valjean would talk this way….
He’d probably talk in French, for one thing.
There seems to be a tendency, to describe feminism as it existed in the 70’s or 80’s, in order to discredit the idea of gender equality. Feminism doesn’t have to be perfect for gender equality to be a valuable goal. Feminists mess up too. Some feminists overreacting in some cases does not mean a gender pay gap is acceptable, especially considering the number of single mothers raising little boys. If we want children to have a good upbringing then, equal pay for equal work, is a portion of that equation. This anger at feminism isn’t really about what feminists have done or said, it’s about the propoganda of the feminist backlash. Which feminists said these things about men? Can you point me in their direction? Are they feminist leaders?
Also, professional equality isn’t the same as sexual or romantic relationships. We are humans and sex runs on the deeper hormonal level where interactions can have a power play that aren’t desirable in a work place.
Despite the numerous laws that supposedly protect women from harassment. I myself was hit on and kissed by coworkers in the service industry. I get hit on in Linkedin when I’m trying to do business. I’ve lost the ability to connect at networking events because it moved to a ‘dating’ thing. It’s simultaneously a hinderance and an aid to my career. I want it out of the equation but it’s there.
Ok, I’m not much of a feminist, and I don’t really know all of the arguments for or against all of this, but I do take issue with someone saying that feminists, as a group, hate men. You are doing the exact same thing that you suggested that you dislike: blaming an entire group for the failings and inappropriate actions of a few. Not every woman is a feminist and not every feminist hates men or even takes their beliefs to an extreme.
It was always my understanding that the goal of feminism was equal rights, such as the right to vote and the right to get a job if they were qualified for the position. There was a time when women were not allowed to get an education, a college degree or to work. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote. The original goals of women’s rights were not necessarily about gender differences so much as having the same basic rights that men enjoyed, like voting for elected officials or being granted a degree when they went to college. There was a time when women were allowed to take classes, but colleges would not grant them a degree after completing all of the course work. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that you would obtain a degree after completing all of the educational requirements?
Also, I think you misunderstand what women are fighting for. I have traveled to different countries and I have seen and heard of some pretty terrible things that happen. Abortion rates for girls in countries like India and China are much higher than the rate of abortion for boys, which has resulted in a population that has a greater number of men than women. Furthermore, many baby girls are murdered shortly after birth solely because they were born a girl.
You said “Women will always be protected because women are essential to reproduction.”
That is not true everywhere in the world. In fact, there are cases of women in India being murdered by their husband or their in-laws in very brutal, painful and violent ways because their parents couldn’t pay an exorbitant dowry or the in-laws wanted more. That is not “protected.”
You also said “women will never be punished for their failures the way men are.”
That is also not true. A woman who murders will still go to jail and still has the possibility of facing the death penalty depending on the nature of the crime (i.e. premeditated murder may result in jail for life or the death penalty, accidentally killing someone with a car might not result in a life sentence). A woman who breaks the law will face the same consequences if she is caught and proven guilty. A girl who fails a class will be required to re-take the class or will be held back a year in school, just like a boy. A woman who fails while starting a business will face the same problems that a man faces when his business fails.
If you fail, you fail. If you succeed, you succeed. That really doesn’t have anything to do with being male or female.
I realize that there are good men and they do not deserve to be slandered. I would never tolerate any man or woman slandering my husband, my brothers or my dad because they are good men. It is my understanding that these campaigns are designed to raise awareness of a persistent problem, not to slander good men. And there are places, even in the United States, where women have a high rate of abuse, domestic violence and rape.
I am a girl from india and i agree with you that a lot of women are even burnt alive for not being provided the groom’s family with sufficient dowry. But i need to clarify that not only husbands are the culprits here. Even mother in laws and sister in laws are sometimes involved. Sometimes, these women commit these heinous crimes even when the groom is fighting and trying to protect his wife. I had a friend who had to go through the same ordeal.
Totally. The slogan should be ‘real men exist in
all humans, female or male, just as real women do, and only in synergising these two halves of the human psyche can any individual attain a state of true freedom.’
I like it.. but how are we gonna fit that on a t shirt? ;]
How about just “Real humans don’t hurt humans” and remove gender bias from the statement entirely.
because the shirt is talking specifically about white slavery for the most part, and you are talking about revolutionary generalities. I am a feminist but there is a little dividing line here that wasn’t really addressed in the article.
@Evan Warren And what dividing line is that?
Reblogged this on Think MGTOW.
Reblogged this on kingtomix's Blog.
There’s an episode of ‘Rescue Me’, the Season 3 finale, where Tommy gets date-raped. I thought that was one of the best ways to humanize (as opposed to feminize) the experience of being a victim – it was someone he knew and he didn’t see it coming. Although, it was “karma” for sexually assaulting his ex-wife in a prior episode. So… grain of salt.
But it is interesting that victims are generally “feminized” whatever their gender, as various cultural representations make clear – as in this particlar example where “real men” aren’t portrayed as fellow victims and nor do they identify AS victims, but as those who refrain by choice from victimising others. F
Apologize for double, half-finished cost – should not try writing on this phone.
There are no “real” men. Period.
My point exactly. If you can’t define “real” than how can real men exist? Hardly a stable or enduring category, as history makes plain. No need to parse the ontology or lack thereof any further.
I find it a little ironic and a little pathetic that Justin Timberlake is helping promote such a noble cause. He had no problem with recently collaborating with Jay-Z the world famous rapper, responsible for such songs such as “99 problems… but the bitch aint one”, a contributing factor in to why language has surpassed any form of evolution in relation to how women are perceived.
I am a 25 year old male student studying English Literature, and though I think some feminist views are fairly far fetched ( HIStory to HERstory), I do believe there is a massive distinguishable difference in how male and female use language. Referring to Robin Lakoffs ‘woman language’ theory, this can be simply boiled down to expectations of the said sexes back when the term housewife and dominant breadwinner were rife in our society. Though equality has improved and the term ‘Ms’ has been instigated, I believe language has yet to catch up.
Men supposedly naturally seek dominance more then their female counterparts, does this mean they leave the ‘lesser’ decisions to the women. Does this consequently lead woman to use more tag questions out of a lack of confidence? “the film starts at 9, doesn’t it?” Without rambling and comparing countless theories, I believe language has a substantial amount of catching up to do, unfortunately I don’t see it happening in the near future.
Ask yourself, if you heard both your 12 year old son and daughter say, “Sh*t, I’ve left my lunch at home”, who would you be more disappointed in?
that song by jay z is about a k-9 unit a police dog. not defending them or anything.
No it isn’t. although i think this is all a load of bollocks, you are wrong the song goes “if your having girl problems i feel bad for you son, i got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one,” this implying that a bitch referring to the girl in the before line
I’m kind of tired of the bs shaming of rap. If people would take time to actually look at songs such as 99 problems, they would see that its not a song that deprecates women. Following is a link with analysis of the song. http://rapgenius.com/Jay-z-99-problems-lyrics. Before stereotyping and entire genre and race, can you think a little bit and actually know what you are talking about? Rap is in no way inferior to any other genre of music, and anyway, who cares who JT associates with? Even being African American, I have a friend that will not date black girls. I think that this is wrong, but we can still be friends. People can have faults, and associating with a person with faults (in your case, which turned out to be unfounded), does not make you evil, ignorant, or stupid. In conclusion, if we all got off our high horses and stopped judging people so much, maybe we could make a bit of progress with womens’ rights.
Thanks and God Bless.
The more this type of bullshit article by women or faggots gets out, the more people will understand that we have to fight feminism and it’s urgent.
That the faggot posting this article is a sub-human scum who probably believes everything the medias says and still is in the closet, is not important.
That feminism is tool that is oppressing is completely fucking up the mind of young boys who will get their hate out on girls when they discover the truth way more violently that our generations did, is the real danger.
Feminism is and will be doing extreme arm to women themselves, and some of them don’t deserve it, some are not feminist and are smart.
I seriously hope that’s a fake account, but i should know better.
By definition, feminism defends that both men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
If you don’t believe that women should have the same rights and social status as men do, you don’t deserve to be spoken to, treated by, and definitely not touched by a woman.
Society is still incredibly messed up if people like you are still out there thinking the way you do.
That’s completely false, by definition AND semantic, feminism defends the oppression of women on men by completely distorting logics in an irrational way only women are susceptible to believe.
Oh don’t worry for me, I have several fuck friends and occasional night stands, and I don’t even ask for it because I know how women work. And I treat them as women should be treated: with respect, care but also asshole humor, indifference and verbal violence if it’s needed.
“Faggots”… I used to get embarrassed for people like you, then I grew up! After a breakup my dads met each other in Camp Bastion back in 2007. Yes, my mother was upset, only difference is that she said it to his face. lol “faggot”
Ok stop, nobody uses the term faggot as derogatory term for gay, except maybe few isolated tea baggers.
In fact we could use it for woman too, to design human who are so low below animals that they’re not even worth saving, because in the difficult cognitive dissonant state of crisis and corruption we are, some people like them help the media and elite do the corruption job and it’s unacceptable, in Europe we call them “collaborator”.
In 2014, “faggot” is not used as a derogatory term for a homosexual, nor a “bag of sticks, and not for “cigarettes” either. Anyone “offended” by the word faggot is obviously completely full of themself. And anyone saying “lol why are you talking about cigarettes or sticks? because that’s what it means hurr hurr” is probably some MMO loving neetface who needs to get the fuck out of his basement.
Reblogged this on ermayankaggarwal.
LET’S MURDER ALL FEMINISTS and BE DONE WITH IT!! No-more of these stupid bullshit websites then. GET YOUR GUNZ FELLAS. IT’S HUNTING TIME!!!
If you don’t like the website, don’t look at it. Your comment is so incredibly ironic, this article is about tackling male ideals of domination through violence, which is in essence what you have voiced here, that you want to “murder all feminists and be done with it” well let me tell you one thing, men and women across will never stop fighting for inequality, never give in to patriarchy, never conform to your outdated close minded ideals of what men and women, masculinity or femininity should be like, never let stupid comments like this stop them for fighting for what’s right. Problems like this won’t just go away, we can’t just be ” done with it” and sweep it under the rug. Violence is not a joke, and never will be a joke either. Please think before posting such an ignorant comment. Thank you and hopefully you will really think about everything I just said.
Violence kicks ass!! REVOLUTION THROUGH VIOLENCE!!!
You shouldn’t “feed” the trolls. They only vomit more nonsense.
Thank god for you message! Yes we must fight feminists, glad more and more people are realizing it. But we must think about a real way to liberate and empower woman against this propaganda as well.
Don’t “fight” just feminists, but any short-sighted ignorant twat who is gender biased.
Reblogged this on Blog of Jess the Paralegal.
Reblogged this on Apps Lotus's Blog.
Sooooooo….who photoshoped out the “JK” on on the back of the sign in the mirror? I know it’s there, I have seen this picture before.
Maybe that one was photoshopped. Just because u saw that one first doesn’t mean it wasn’t photoshopped.
There’s another point the author is missing — that is, redefining masculinity. Part of the power of the campaigns referenced in this article — ‘Real Men Don’t Buy Girls’ and ‘My Strength Isn’t for Hurting’ — is in redefining masculinity to mean something more than being entitled to have sex, whenever, wherever, and with whomever, and thus, going out and buying sex; and as something more than men using their power and strength to force women (and other men) to have sex.
Redefining masculinity isn’t just good for women, it’s also good for men. When we think of boys bullying one other, committing school shootings, or abusing their partners, we have to look at the WHY behind those acts — that is, why are men committing those acts. If we consider research from sexual assault and dating violence attackers, as well as notes left behind from school shooters, they all point to a common idea — men, asserting their power for glory, control, retaliation or revenge; because they felt entitled, because they felt someone provoked them, or because (sadly) they could.
So, instead of condemning the campaigns for not going far enough, a richer way to analyze these ideals is — what ELSE can we do to redefine masculinity and reach the masses (we ARE trying to reach men, who don’t label themselves as feminists, to become allies and supporters!). In doing so, we have to reach men (or any audience, for that matter) where they are. Any trainer or teacher or educator will tell you, if you want to be successful in getting buy-in and engagement from your audience, you have to meet them where they are. So, if you are doing programming for Domestic Violence Awareness Month and you want to reach men, you appeal to something that is deemed a masculine trait — in this case, strength — and you use it, to get men to join your team. My Strength Isn’t for Hurting. This isn’t the same as expecting less from your audience (or men), however. Instead, it is about being creative and finding out what motivates people, to get them to WANT to become your ally and supporter!
I really enjoyed this post. As a Canadian woman I feel a responsibility to create change for women living in societies where a woman’s rights remain just our of reach. It is a complicated issue with education of women as the foundation of change. Balance the yin yang energy. It all comes down to marketing in the end doesn’t it? Be it religion, equality, brands and even medication. Be well & blessings to you.
Violence against women is necessary. Men need to remain in complete control of the planet for the sake of the planet’s own safety.
Lol nice troll you asshole bet you havin a lot of fun watching replies flud in right? :p I know someone like you. A garbage man with a sad life in which he will accomplish nothing because he is, sadly, not much more than an asshole. His favorite hobby is trolling on the internet to watch people reply. That’s his life. It’s probably similar to yours, or it will be. Good luck in your search for the slightest bit of amusement in your life and for people that actually give a shit about your ass.
Actually I’m a published poet. Not much money in poetry. But its something I love doing. I doubt if you’ve ever achieved anything noteworthy.
Reblogged this on kitchendreaming.
Is “masculine mystique” in and of itself a bad thing? Should we not appeal to men’s sense of individuality, the “I’m special” notion that drives our society, in the same way that women’s liberation has appealed to a “feminine mystique” or a sense that women, too, are special? Just as there is “what it means to be a woman,” there is “what it means to be a man.” Both sexes (and everything in between) should feel comfortable with whatever version of masculinity/femininity they like; we don’t have to tear one down to empower the other.
I like this^
Whoa whoa, get that logic out of here.
The goal of feminism is to both destroy the feminine and masculine mystique, if you will call it that way. And the damage it has and will down will only blow back hard in the face of all women
“Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.”
I don’t know how this particular baking anthropologist can come to such a conclusion. The message I see doesn’t give a reason at all. It just says it is wrong, and I think we can all agree on that. Honestly, why bitch and moan about the reasons men feel they shouldn’t hurt women (in the Western world) when outside of our blissful little sphere girls are having their genitals mutilated (female circumcision), women are being stoned to death, girls are raped for lacking modesty or belonging to the wrong religion, killed for “dishonouring” their family, sold into slavery…I could go on.
I fucking hate social justice hippies and their willful ignorance to actual issues in pursuit of self gratifying superficial bullshit. Get some damn perspective, McCarroll.
I think because somewhere the problems are worse doesn’t mean it’s ok here, and if we can’t help there (although many people try to help out there, it’s hard from distance), we should do our best to change the situation here.
Overall I agree with part of your comment; but I also agree with this post… if we focus on what’s in our reach, it still doesn’t mean we have it worst, obviously. :)
The ‘its worse somewhere else’ argument is bullshit by itself but what bothers me is that a lot of “social justice hippies” ignore what’s going on in other parts of the world not because ‘it’s hard to reach’ because they’re afraid to criticize other cultures or religions. They don’t want to speak ill of Islam or China because that’s someone else’s culture or religion and we need to respect that and be tolerant and accepting blah blah blah when those religions and cultures have some of the most backward practices in the world.
Oh. Thank you for explaining your point of view! I understand that better now. :c Just reminds me, I’ve read somewhere that fgm (I don’t wanna spell it out loud ugh) shouldn’t be stopped from abroad because it’s their culture and their right to do whatever they want. But where are the limits? I’m too young and not enough educated to understand the whole problem, but as you describe it, I agree people shouldn’t ignore it if they talk about equality and whatever.
So caring about one problem that is immediately relevant to you and people you know precludes you from ever caring about any other problem that might affect other people? Dealing with an immediate situation that you’re familiar with means you think that you’re condoning every other problem in the world?
That’s bullshit and you know it. You can’t fix every problem on the planet simultaneously, and not everyone feels qualified to help with problems outside of the western world. Note: a lot of people outside of the Western world really don’t LIKE it when clueless white guys come in and try to “save” them by enforcing Western values on them.
This white guy is complaining about a movement led by white guys. He’s pretty much only qualified to critique those kinds of movements. And he has some legitimate points.
Well, that depends on where you stand on cultural relativism.
Don’t offend people who don’t look like you, or stop women being stoned to death, raped, and sold. Which one is more important to you?
Pretending it is more important to not criticise other cultures is typically just cowardice. There is a very real fear of being branded a bigot that people need to overcome in order to tackle real issues. It took me a while to overcome. I honestly don’t care about how people view me as long as I am speaking from the heart about issues that I believe need to be spoken about. I know I am a good person.
I agree, though, that we shouldn’t be imposing Western values on the rest of the world. But why is our culture subject to change and all the others sacred and beyond criticism unless it comes from within? EVERYONE has a free pass to criticise us and what our culture was and is. Why the double standard?
Reblogged this on jacknmoran.
First off, I want to declare that I am a male from a minority group. I recognize that the declaration of my gender will, in itself, cause certain readers to view my post with their ‘taboo and oppression goggles’ on, but this post is really aimed at you people, so read and scoff away. I am always passionate about fighting for equality in more than 1 basis: gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity etc. I don’t bring my own rights and thoughts to the table (or try not to anyway) and in many cases I find myself, as a blank slate, sucked into a cause. I empathize because a cause is aimed at fixing something, and the message is of fairness and equality, and in that sense I find many feminist claims and declarations beginning to overstep my tolerance.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully support gender equality and I appreciate that viewing people first by their gender before anything else is in itself completely misleading and harmful. However, this article frustrates me in a few ways:
1) It is counterproductive. I refer to queueblog’s earlier post in saying careful whos’ toes you step on, and for what cause. True, there are men who phrase words either deliberately or unintentionally to reflect their patriarchal thoughts. However, it is a dangerous move to criticize all men, ESPECIALLY THOSE INTENDING TO HELP, simply by interpreting their words in a narrow, cause-serving way. The claim is that there are other ways to phrase ‘real men don’t buy girls’ that do not imply underlying power relations. True, there are better ways to say it, but the author fails to realize the aim of JT’s message and the good it does. It may not be as big a leap as you desire, but it is a step forward. Don’t criticize it simply because there are other steps available that are bigger. You will run the risk or antagonizing the people who are actually willing to make these bigger steps, JT being one of them.
2) It is unidirectional. What do I mean? All it does is turn down current efforts. Men thinking their superior to women, argh it’s unacceptable. Men protecting women, argh it’s unacceptable. Men not wanting to hurt women, argh that’s condescending. Men spreading the message of not hurting women, argh that’s even more condescending. So if everything reflects male dominance and oppression, regardless of what the male intends, what exactly do you want males to do? All the article did was bash on anything a male tried, without providing any productive alternative, which was grossly insufficient if the article aimed to achieve anything. Even though I agree with certain elements of the article and the cause it supports, I find it a rubbish article aimed (probably unintentionally) at setting things back.
3) Its extrapolations are borderline petty. I read the entire article and agreed with the logic. It is sound. However, if you take a step back and look at all the possible interpretations of ‘real men don’t buy girls’ and ‘my strength isn’t for hurting’, do you realize that out of the huge pool of possible interpretations, this is probably just a tiny, petty angle and, more importantly, furthest from people’s readings of it? I think it is bizarre to suggest that people read it and go ‘ahhh. See, I am stronger but I shouldn’t use my strength like that’. People will read it and go ‘domestic violence is bad’. Be careful when you use phrases like ‘men are told…’ because that suggests that most men read these messages this way, which I find personally insulting and condescending. I see the worries about the implicit message of male dominance behind the slogan. However, do you not realize that in current context, the good from the message (if it spreads) will actively tackle a very current and unjust problem in society? Fine! Take away the implicit message, replace the slogan with something fairer in a gender sense. I promise that if you say ‘individuals with strengths greater than their partners in a relationship should not harm said person’ or any other, more ambiguous catchphrase, it will not diffuse as well. What does that mean? You solve your outcry about this harmful implicit message, which has no immediate threat to people’s lives (as in life and death), while diminishing the efforts to combat domestic violence. Sure, the cause is a good one, but in comparison in today’s context, some priorities need to be made. Your specific cause might be more effective and relevant in future contexts when we have reduced domestic violence.
People who post articles like this simply end up creating a banner to rally under. However, this banner has a message that purely criticizes in an untactful, counterproductive way. There is no real content to this article and the only purpose is to provoke a response. It’s like one of those people in a crowd who screams ‘JUSTIN BIEBER!!!’ and everyone else does the same purely because they are fans of Justin bieber. But the message itself is zero. Don’t ask why I used that example, beats me.
I am someone who is trying to rally under this cause. True, I am not completely well versed in it, but I am open to education and productive conversations with people. I find articles like this discourage people like me from wanting to learn or contribute more, which is upsetting because of how much the message speaks to me.
Feminism is a true cause worth fighting for. If all you are trying to illicit is cheers of endorsement from feminists, then you’re doing a good job. But when you are done having fun, there is real work with real progress to be achieved in this area. I’m pretty sure I am not the only person who thinks this.
You’re going to learn misguided that an actual liberal or progressive who fundamentally believes in individual liberties, equality for everyone, and social change based on their personal convictions and principles is a very rare breed. It’s usually the same thing with conservatives, quite frankly, as well. The majority of the public takes whatever view they do because its convenient, whether politically for whatever respective “group” they identify with or socially–because its cool to be all counter culture man when you’re living in Williamsburg and like baking and anthropoligizing and “writing” and stuff. They don’t actually believe in those concepts beyond that it advances and rectifies their perceived slights as an individual, or because it is socially rewarded among their peers. I have no clue which group Mr. McCarrol falls into of those two, and I’m not going to speculate, but you can always spot these people by the fact that they are completely unaccepting of the differences between different social groups (whether it a sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or what have you), they belittle actual progress, and they seem to somehow consistently ignore the fact that it takes a large part of the population (a multiplicity of viewpoints, dialogues and yes, even language) to change laws and social mores over time. They’re essentially idiots and hypocrites. You can’t logic or reason with them because their beliefs are not based on principle, logic, and reason. They didn’t actually come to their convictions independently, they just believe them because of some emotional social reward system So don’t bother. When you see someone like Mr McCarrol here babbling away at a party, just roll your eyes and move on.
It’s always amusing to see an indictment of the entire human race from someone on the internet who’s DEFINITELY got it all figured out.
Garret, I want your babies. You REALLY have your thoughts ironed out.
You are very very nice with McCarrol in your diagnostic. He is just a stupid dumb fuck, exactly for the reasons you exposed.
Well said, Garret. I must say you have really thought this out deeper than I have imagined myself doing. I’m inclined to agree with you. However, I always try and stay optimistic on the nature of people, especially when it comes to this form of vital reform.
I guess this is similar to a debate about altruism and, congruent to my stand there, I always like to think genuine progressives are more abundant than you say. To admit those people are rare is to admit that such movements fueled by them will go nowhere. As much as the realist argument makes sense, I’m afraid taking that stand for me means giving up on equality movements.
Well said comrade. Violence against women is unacceptable, because violence against humans is unacceptable. What we are dealing with is Male behaviour, and it’s their attitudes that require change. Calling the place of males in this discourse “privileged” is childish, and discouraging..
No, it’s pointing out facts. Privileged isn’t an insult. It’s a description. It’s just say that you’re lucky enough to not have to deal with certain problems, which is a fact.
Bucky, the majority of male don’t ever feel privileged except for the fact that being able to pee anywhere is awesome. Whenever a guy hears someone tell him he’s privileged it always feels like that person is personally accusing him of making it that way, which is an INSULT. So is when someone says I’m part of, or even worse, upholding the patriarchy. That’s just lumping me and all the other perfectly normal and equality minded gentlemen out there in with the all the assholes who rape and sexualize and objectify.
Lemme guess, you taught English Comp 1 and your petty narcissism lost you your job.
Great post. Loved reading it.
I would be obliged if you could also check out my blog DoubleThink. I’ll drop its link below!
DoubleThink is an up and coming blog that is extremely satisfying for every kind of a person, be it the thinker, the optimist, the pessimist, the poet, the musician, the couch-potato, the bookworm or the photographer.We are a bunch of people with different backgrounds, contradictory opinions but one voice. And this blog is our voice.
Come hear us at :
“Finish the job”? Asshole, there’s still women being stoned to death and having vitriol thrown in their faces.
Cunt: you missed the second half of the sentence, “…to make a world of true equality”. That is, “world”. The fact that he says world, and as you (ironically, with vitriol) say that there are still women being stoned, does indeed imply that there is a job that is unfinished. I think that if you were a little more restrained in your reactions – count to ten, before posting maybe? – then these meaningless posts of yours might start to have a little more intellectual force behind them.
I know you’re passionate and it’s important to be passionate. But when this seems to make you look reactionary and offensive for the sake of it, then people that aren’t already a part of the debate will see you and think that the way in which you speak is representative of the debate that they’re trying to get into. You ought to be passionate about educating those people, and inviting new people to join the debate and think for themselves. Instead you’re alienating people and giving them a completely false picture of the actual, intellectual debate that is important and which you might not actually be helping at all.
“count to ten, before posting maybe?”
Yet you still call out someone as a cunt. Educate yourself.
The point being made here is that the author would rather attack social injustices than tackle real-world problems that kill literally thousands, if not millions, of women purely for their gender, because it is so much easier to big yourself up as a SJW than try to make a difference where it actually counts, where lives rather than decency are at stake. It’s all very well looking good flexing your ‘I’m for equality’ muscles, but the fact that the writer tries to sound so passionate yet lacks the view to see the true heart of the problems – that is somewhat pathetic.
Jimmy her username is Cunt. Maybe you should follow his advice and read before posting.
In Washington and Colorado that’s legal now…
Jimmy rustles. That is the name the person posted under. Try reading things properly
Here here. Why do the social justice crew only seem to direct their energy at superficial bullshit? The “Republican war on women” seems to be more of an issue than genital mutilation or stoning. Where the fuck are the priorities?!
Reblogged this on clearance champange and deep fried love handles.
Reblogged this on The Student Becomes The Teacher and commented:
This is an incredible piece on feminism in the male perspective that needs to be displayed in every men’s magazine, sports publication, newspaper, TV show, movie trailer, etc.!
At first I just assumed this was the usual feminist hate speech / victim narrative (“men are evil, sociopathic oppressors with agency and responsibility for their lives AND the lives of women ….. whereas women are weak, innocent, objects and helpless victims with no agency and no responsibility for anything” blah blah blah)……. but then I realised it was written by a man.
Oh, the poor creature. He has been assimilated into the femiborg.
He has defined his masculinity – his very selfhood – in terms of his service (utility) to women and in doing so he has taken on the role of super ‘white knight’ and protector of women. He has done this because he has swallowed the feminist propaganda that he (as a man) is somehow guilty of great crimes against women….. such as being willing to do all the manual labour (mining cola with pick axes, ploughing fields, fishing the open seas in wooden boats, building stone roads by hand, maintaining the sewage system) for centuries in order to build a functioning society and put food on the table every evening (gasp! the evil patriarch!!)
In is broken mind women were clambering to do these jobs, but the evil men throw them back into the kitchen and said “These backbreaking, dangerous and gruelling jobs are our male privilege!”
In his feminist infected mind, women throughout history had no say in their own gender roles. Women were weak, idiots – mere objects – receptacles for sperm! He will not consider that idea that, actually, women were adults with a mind of their own, and perfectly capable of defining and negotiating their own gender roles with men….. and to a large extent defining men’s gender roles too through the avenue of shame / approval.
He has not considered that women – as the primary caregivers of boys and girls – actually had a rather large influence in defining female AND male gender identities, and gender roles…. these things being established as they are i early childhood.
He has been distracted by feminists from the obvious fact that in general “men propose and women dispose” and women’s ability to select a mate from a range of potential male suitors all keen to be picked by her is yet ANOTHER way in which women have always influenced male gender identity, and gender roles. The type of men that women pick as mates tells other men how to behave in order to be attractive to women. It defines what being ‘manly’ is. And throughout history (ie before all this great modern technology) being manly (ie ‘being attractive to women’) meant being OF USE to women as a provider of resources, a protector of women, and a maintainer of the infrastructure. All of these things were achieved best by rugged, decisive, strong, dutiful men who had little regard for their own comfort, security, well being, self expression, wardrobe and protection. Hence the stereotypical ‘patriarchal man’ – the one CHOSEN by women for centuries! The one RAISED by mothers for centuries.
Then along comes technology (invented mostly by men) and suddenly you have a bunch of feminists claiming the CHOICES OF THEIR FEMALE ANCESTORS never existed and that the traditional male was a form of oppression…. and that women throughout history were actually dumb, weak, poor, oppressed objects chained to the kitchen sink while their male counterparts skipped and cavorted through the mines and across the open fields in the driving rain laughing evil laughs….
And this poor idiot actually BELIEVES this pile of feminist nonsense (which is insulting to both men AND women).
And so having swallowed the feminist pill of male shame, this poor bloke now desperately wants to re-gain the approval of women (and thus give himself a male identity again) … and he believes he must attack his male sexuality, his male personhood and even his own male genitalia to do it.
And that is how feminism attacks men. It shames men into attacking themselves. It exploits men’s natural tendency to treat women as valuable and their natural desire to protect women – and uses it against men. Feminism is in a very real sense a form of ‘false rape accusation’.
The irony is completely lost on this poor brainwashed man that no one is playing the role of ‘white knight’ (honourable male protector and server of women) more than he is, even though he appears to be criticising that very tendency in other men.
My oh my…… This is like feminism squared….. feminism within feminism…..a feminist feedback loop….. feminism inception!
It is actually very sad, and hugely destructive.
I would not actually consider myself a feminist, but it seems that you are forgetting the initial causes of feminism.
You are saying that women have always had the choice in who they married and what they did with their lives. That is not true. Historically, women were considered property. There was a time when it was legal for a man to hit his wife and children with a stick, as long as it was not wider than his thumb.
Let us not forget that it was a woman’s father who chose her husband in most cultures. It was RARE for women to have a choice in who they married, and most fathers did not ask for a girl’s opinion on the subject. Haven’t you read Romeo and Juliet? Juliet’s father was trying to marry her to a man she didn’t want to marry. He didn’t even ask her opinion on the subject. How is that having a “choice”?
The reason feminism started was that women wanted to make their own decisions. They wanted the basic human rights that men were granted. The right to vote, the right to representation in government, the right to work. There was a time when women did not have those basic rights. In fact, women were not allowed to vote until the 1920s.
Saying that women had choices in history is false. The women’s rights movement was not an effort to eliminate masculinity or even dominance in men. Women only wanted to be seen as free adults who were capable of making their own decisions.
There are many things I disagree with when it comes to modern feminism. But, I don’t think it is wrong to ask for basic human respect. Perhaps you are a kind man who would never harm a woman. But that is not always the case. Maybe you have been raised to respect and honor women. There are men who have not had the same experience, and do not give even the smallest amount of respect to a woman. Rape still happens. Domestic violence still happens. These are problems that impact women far more than men.
Maybe there are women who blow things out of proportion. But that does not mean that feminism started with the goal of eliminating masculinity. Frankly, I do not believe in eliminating gender roles. There are things that women simply cannot do; however, the original goals of feminism were equal rights. I don’t think it is wrong for women to ask for the right to vote. And that was one of the main goals of the original women’s rights movement.
“..Historically, women were considered property….”
Not true. Women were considered to be under the care of their husbands, ie men were duty bound to provide protection. That’s a HUGE distinction. Men had a responsibility of care. That is not the same as owning property. People do not ‘own’ the foster child that they are legally responsible for, do they?
Feminists have once again twisted history to depict women as VICTIMS and OBJECTS. What a surprise!
In reality is was a PRIVILEGE that only women enjoyed. Today that privilege might seem restrictive, or just plain weird, but if a meteorite struck tomorrow and sent us back to a more harsh and primitive age with no technology you might find a lot of women (including ex-feminists) actually quite amiable to the idea of their husbands being duty bound to protect them and provide resources for them.
The difference between this ancient form of ‘patriarchy’ and the current form of ‘patriarchy’ is that in the old model women were protected by men who (hopefully) loved them and did not use violence to gather resources. Men had to actually do something worthwhile to earn the money to provide for his family.
But in the modern post-feminist system women reject help from men, but they do not always become fully independent ….. many women (and many men too) demand protection and resources from governments – the ultimate patriarchal alpha male!
Governments do not love the single women they give benefits (welfare) to, nor do they acquire this money by creating things of actual value, lie men have to. All the money which government gives to women (welfare etc) is stolen from the population at gunpoint, or else it comes from government debt which is how governments steal money across time and space from future generations (the unborn!) at gunpoint.
An ’empowered’ feminist single mother who has kicked out her ‘boring’ BF/ husband and is now claiming welfare, is literally living off the future earnings of her children which will be stolen from them at gunpoint tin the future to pay back the government debt (plus interest) Can this in any way be called progress?
Feminism is as they say, ‘socialism in panties’. The huge expansion of government over the last century (with its massive debt to pay for social programs) has very much been the result of giving women the vote. This is just ‘the way it is’. Women are inclined towards socialist policies, and socialism is dependent on big violent governments. Feminism/ socialism IS patriarchy … only with with added guns, tasers, money printing presses, propaganda and cages.
So the patriarchy still exists today….. except that feminism has made it 100x more violent, and 10000x less loving.
Hopefully we will soon evolve beyond feminism and legalised violence and theft (AKA governments) before they both destroy society and the planet.
“…Let us not forget that it was a woman’s father who chose her husband in most cultures. It was RARE for women to have a choice in who they married,..”
Where choice in marriage was dictated by parents / the community the same applied to men and women. So it wasn’t oppression of women specifically. I don;t disagree that life was more ‘oppressive’ in the past. But feminists ONLY focus on how that oppression affected women. And they assume that oppression was the result of men. Both assumptions are wrong. Men AND women AND children AND animals were all oppressed by the harsh lifestyles of the day. And it was LACK OF TECHNOLOGY which was the oppressive force, not men. Arranged marriages (and marriages in general) were first and foremost a SURVIVAL STRATEGY for both men and women – primarily to ensure the next generation was provided the resources to make it into adulthood. *All* social conventions and gender roles were based primarily on survival.
“..The reason feminism started was that women wanted to make their own decisions. ..”
Not quite. The reason women (and men!) started to become liberated from from their respective rigid gender roles was because of new technology which made day-to-day survival less of a pressing issue for everyone.
Feminism GREW OUT OF the increased opportunities and freedoms which new technology provided. People became feminists WHEN THEY COULD AFFORD to be feminists. We only became animal rights supporters when we COULD AFFORD to treat animals better. We only gave children worker’s rights when we COULD AFFORD to give children worker’s rights ….. and now we are so liberated by technology we don’t require children to work at all. And so we can now AFFORD to view children working in factories as immoral. Do you see how it works?
“…The right to vote, the right to representation in government, the right to work. There was a time when women did not have those basic rights. In fact, women were not allowed to vote until the 1920s…”
Women were excused being forced to go and die in wars. That was a privilege men did not enjoy. Have you considered the possibility that women actually negotiated their gender roles throughout history, and that women CHOSE to give up a certain degree of ‘importance’ and ‘status’ in return for being exempt from having to fight in the trenches or mine coal with pick axes?
Once again, the feminist narrative depicts women as inert objects (or stupid child-like imbeciles) being totally controlled by men. I do not believe that was the case myself.
Ad what of those men who were forced to go off and die in wars? Were they privileged? Is that an example of ‘having basic human rights’?
Would YOU rather go to the front line of Iraq and risk being killed or give up your right to vote in the next election? I know which I’d choose…. (I should add that I do not vote anyway, because I view political voting as immoral).
“..Saying that women had choices in history is false…”
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that men, women, children and animals ALL had very limited choices, or no choices at all. Feminist theory claims women were special victims in this regard, and that men were especially privileged. This is simply not true.
“…But, I don’t think it is wrong to ask for basic human respect… ”
In what way do women in the west not enjoy basic human respect. That is a VERY serious claim. What EVIDENCE is that claim based on?
Rape, sexual harassment, discrimination of all kinds is not only AGAINST THE LAW, but it is universally condemned……. and far more so when the victim is a woman than a man. Male victims are ignored or downplayed or not even noticed. In most areas women seem to demand (and get) more respect than men.
“..Rape still happens. Domestic violence still happens. These are problems that impact women far more than men….”
Absolute rubbish. Men and women suffer these abuses in roughly equal numbers. The difference is society (and certainly feminists) only care when the victims are women.
And that’s fine. It just means feminism cannot claim to be fighting for equality. Nor can it claim to be based on reason and evidence or have any connection to reality. Not by a long shot.
Firstly, I don’t see him defining his ‘masculinity’ anywhere. Rather he is telling these campaigns to go beyond it.
Secondly, its interesting that you talk about women shaming men. This whole ‘real men’ thing is actually generally used in by a man to shame another man. And it entails an idea that you have to ‘become’ a man. As if you don’t trust your genitals enough. You have to prove yourself to be a man generally by doing things which are considered masculine. Like being aggressive or drinking etc. (Depends on what characteristics the culture bases its ‘masculinity’.)
This was precisely the point of the post. Talking in these patterns is being pressurised by patriarchal forces to mould your identity into predefined ‘types’. If you have male genitals you are a man. End of discussion. Any ‘real’ man definitions are all bogus pressure tactics.
Thirdly, if you go through your sociology books a bit, then you’ll be surprised to see how little choice women actually exercised through the centuries in choosing husbands. To be fair individuals have had little choice in mate selection, unlike in the wild. Its directly controlled by family, or its directed by unsaid norms of class, race, religion etc. Women didn’t HAVE the space to reject a man which the society chose for her.
Men indeed were also pressurised to take on certain characteristics.
But it wasn’t directed by ‘female interests’ per se.
Fourthly, there is something called as SOCIALISATION. Men AND women go through it. You seem to presume that women can’t be patriarchal themselves. Men OR women can be patriarchal and not be patriarchal. The main point is about the power relations oppressing a certain group in various degrees.
5) You seem to presume that women don’t do manual labour. Please take a look at African/Indian societies. There the peasent class labourers are both men and women. So women have worked for this infrastructure and have been deprived of many things. The women labourers are still paid less for equal labour. Will you still say that they made it so? There is a reason that certain things like dowry deaths, rape, and domestic violence are dominantly crime against women. There is a reason why in many countries women have to fight for basic rights like education and not men.
6)Being a king was being use to women? Being a soldier was being use to a women when they take the conquered women as slaves and rape them, often ignoring their own wives?And not to mention, the wars were waged by mostly male kings. Being ‘labourers’ as you say to earn money and deprive women of that same money? In many developed countries where the working class women work, the money is taken by the men. There is actually a movement of small self-organised banks so that this money which these women earn can stay safe.
If everything is decided by women, then how come there is a lot more percentage of illiterate women than men in the world? How come there is more malnutrition in girls than in boys in developing countries. If women decide what happens in the society, for their own comfort, then how come there is widespread SON preference? If women have historically decided the gender norms then how come sexual violence is so prevalent against women? If women decide then how come there isn’t a matriarchy.
Patriarchy is harmful to both men and women. And the author is raising his voice against this.
7) There is a very good reason why a man like the author is a feminist. Because the current conditions are still full of gendered violence and prejudice and inequality. He sees unjust conditions as they are. And there is a mountain of proof that women were deprived and still are. Welcome to the real world.
8) Talking of hard work and building infrastructure. After the feminist movement, women are being granted combatant status in various army/navy/airforce positions. SO regardless of any ‘comfort’ enjoyed by women earlier, they also are taking up roles involving hardwork. Then if that was your problem, the feminist movement is dealing with exactly that.
9) “It shames men into attacking themselves. It exploits men’s natural tendency to treat women as valuable and their natural desire to protect women – and uses it against men.”
You ARE yourself saying that men are protectors. Then you are blaming the author for being a white knight?
There is no unnatural desire. All desires have to be natural because humans themselves are natural beings.
The desire to protect your loved ones are present in both men and women. Then why should only men be the protectors? I personally find that a hell of a pressure to base your identity upon.
And this is exactly the authors point. Why should only men be protectors?
His whole argument was based upon this.
And I see no shame in the article.
He is just telling people to go beyong gender stereotypes and see humans as humans — individuals. Not as stereotypes.
‘Spinning for Difficulty’, you need to become more historically/politically or theoretically competent regarding feminism if you want to ever make a truly coherent argument.
You make so many problematic sentences that I can’t be bothered to list them all.
Let’s take this early statement (tip of the iceberg) and leave it at that: ‘He has defined his masculinity – his very selfhood’.
A lot of things are going on here.
1. The writer does not define his own masculinity.
2. Selfhood is a serious concept you throw into an argument but do not bother properly explaining.
3. You equate selfhood (i guess, i cant really tell) to masculinity – that is to say, gender – making both terms essentially interchangeable (literally, selfhood=gender). This is problematic because it makes your statement even more confusing, and it also makes the implicit claim that gender is important to personal identity, which is another massive idea to throw in and not explain. Frankly, it seems to me that you haven’t even considered the trivial difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’.
Judith Butler is good to read regarding this. And even if you don’t agree with her, you can’t talk about gender without knowing what it is you are referring to.
-a student, btw im male lol
Ahhhhh….. you again. Mr. top gun patriarch out to convince the world that feminism is the devil. I just spent some time commenting on another sexist post of yours. Let me use my male privilege right now to say that I am a male assigned person – that way you might actually listen to what I say. Lord knows by all of your responses that you don’t listen to those horrible women who threaten the world with their feminism.
“feminism is in a very real sense a form of ‘false rape accusation'” Spoken like a true sexist. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard someone try to reason out their sexism so bluntly before. I’m actually amazed. You go off for a painfully long time trying to call out this author because he dare speak up for women. Acting like feminism is this machine that takes poor helpless men through its assembly line and beats the masculinity right out of them. Luckily you sound so fucking stupid that I don’t think anyone will read your posts and suddenly feel like they understand feminism. “Great! This dude just explained feminism to me! Thankfully, because it takes a man to explain things….”
As I said before in response to another post of yours – I want to go line by line and just highlight your sexist comment one after another. That would take a really long time – and really, practically every sentence you have made here is just 100% patriarchal bullshit.
I pray that there are no female assigned people in your life. As you clearly would invalidate any experience they ever had relating to sexism – and then you would likely try to explain to them how its ‘them’ who are the sexists – destroying men and masculinity – crying out to the world to see how it’s poor little you who are oppressed. Poor little (I’m guessing) white, cisgender male. Oh praise it be that we have you to educate us all on feminist politics!
It’s clear to me you will not be changing your sexists politics, but could you at least stop referring to feminism as if there’s some unified group that makes official policies?? It’s rather annoying and truly just makes you sound really bad.
“..Mr. top gun patriarch..”
You assumed I was male for calling out irrational and hateful ideas and ideologies and trying to dig a little deeper (and dig more gently) than feminist theory does.
What does that say about your attitudes towards women?
Also feminism IS patriarchy! Patriarchy is a society which revolves around women’s needs and wants (due to the fact that this ensures the greatest survival chances for future offspring). The traditional patriarchal male (rugged, emotionally scarred (literally ‘callous’), decisive, aggressive, dutiful and physically strong) was in the past the kind of man best suited to provide resources for women (and future offspring). Yes he came with drawbacks, but when survival was paramount in harsh environments (little in the way of technology) THAT was the man women chose, and THAT was the man women raised their sons to be.
These days technology has liberated us all from our traditional gender roles to a very large extent and made the traditional ‘patriarchal man’ less valuable to most western women. This makes their flaws seem a lot more annoying. In addition feminists have realised modern day government are MUCH MORE capable of providing resources than ordinary men (even rugged, strong men). Governments have guns, central banks wiling to loan money and fiat currency and the legal right to use them. Governments like to bribe the population with ‘free stuff’ in return for votes. And so feminists have divided their ‘resource acquisition strategy’ into two parts – they make themselves into victims in order to compete for free stuff and special treatment from government…. while seeking out soft, emotionally sensitive, feminist men for husbands….. and if that gets too boring they sneak off to have an affair with some old school rugged dominant man (or they make do with Brad Pitt movies, porn/ strip clubs and other ‘real man’ fantasies).
So you cannot logically call me a patriarch for exposing feminism as The New Patriarchy of the 21st century. If you are a feminist you have not rejected the patriarchy, you have simply modernised it.
“….“feminism is in a very real sense a form of ‘false rape accusation’” Spoken like a true sexist. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard someone try to reason out their sexism so bluntly before. I’m actually amazed. …”
None of that qualifies as an argument. You’re just calling me sexist to shame me in public. What is your actual argument? Can you explain WHY it is sexist to equate feminism as a false rape accusation? Is my comparison flawed – if so explain WHY?
Here is my argument in case you missed it….
In a false rape accusation the accuser fabricates a crime which is universally condemned by society (ie rape) and gets a ton of sympathy and support in return. And the accused gets universal condemnation and punishment from all of society.
In a similar way feminism falsely accuses men as a group of oppressing women as a group and deliberately creating a society which benefits men at the expense of women. This gets feminists (and women in general) a ton of sympathy and free stuff – not least from governments. Feminists heavily influence political policy all the way to the UN level and many politicians openly admit to being ardent feminists (ie they adhere to feminist theory about the historical oppression of women by men).
The feminist victim narrative of male oppression is a LIE, just as a false rape accusation is a LIE. Both lies benefit the accuser and penalise the falsely accused. This is why feminism is comparable to false rape accusation.
‘..I want to go line by line and just highlight your sexist comment one after another. That would take a really long time – and really, practically every sentence you have made here is just 100% patriarchal bullshit…”
Again. You present no arguments, no facts, no reasoning. Just emotional shaming (ad hominem).
“..I pray that there are no female assigned people in your life…”
My life is full of wonderful male and female people. And – unlike feminists – I don’t consider any of them to be (a) weak, pathetic, inept, stupid victims incapable of defining and negotiating their gender identity and gender roles. or (b) women hating, oppressive, rape-y sociopathic bastards.
None of my friends consider themselves to be pathetic victims or evil oppressors…. and nor do I.
“…It’s clear to me you will not be changing your sexists politics….”
You still have not explained how my arguments against feminism are sexist.
“….. but could you at least stop referring to feminism as if there’s some unified group that makes official policies??…”
But it IS. Feminism has a HUGE effect on policies and on social norms and social attitudes and social behaviour. A HUGE tangible, measurable documented effect.
Feminism is a very powerful force in society. Sure, there are millions of ‘casual feminists’ who have been told that if they believe in equality, like kittens and don’t support rape they are feminists – but that is just to recruit mass support from the dumbed down masses. Beyond all the casual ‘feminists’ are the influential feminists who get published, appear of daytime TV, sit on committees, advise the UN, help set the state education system etc etc.
There were two types of Nazi inGermany. Those who believed they were Nazis simply because they ‘loved their country and supported an empowered culturally rich Germany’…… and then there were the Nazis who actually set political policy and actually carried it out. The later were enabled by the support of the former.
Whether you are aware of it or not, your blind support for ‘feminism’ enables the vile policies and attitudes set out in the following video…
for the “nice” feminists
All ideologies of hate disguise themselves with the banner of fighting good causes, and usually fighting against some group in society identified as a ‘threat’ to civilised society.
In recent history persecution and tyranny justified itself by claiming to be protecting civilised society from the ‘threat’ of savage, rape-y black people and the threat of scheming, controlling jews. The threat narrative is used to erase the public’s empathy for the target group. Once empathy is lost, vicious and brutal persecution is virtually guaranteed. Empathy and propaganda is what stops humans from treating each other this way.
If you combine these two threat narratives and direct them at the group ‘men’, you end up with feminism.
That’s all feminism is……. intolerance and hate justified by a threat narrative (propaganda).
I can only assume that you learned everything you know about feminism from reading the MRA handbook of a paranoid schizophrenic.
Bucky, do you have an argument, facts ……. anything… or are you just trying to shame me?
Spinning for Difficulty:
I found both your posts very interesting reads. Naturally I’ve always assumed myself a feminist but I also often feel some small, niggling sense of ‘is this completely right??’ about certain feminist perspectives, but I tend to instinctively dismiss these concerns.
I think a lot of it simply comes down to the fact that there is often more than one way of looking at things. You look at the history of gender roles from the man’s perspective; feminists look at it from the woman’s perspective. Both men and women have historically experienced difficulties, pain, suffering unique to their gender. (Most) women have not felt the all-consuming fear of being pushed over the front line of battle. (Most) men have not felt the all-consuming fear abused women feel when approached by their abusive partner (yes, domestic violence against men exists too and is more common than people think; but according to the statistics abuse against women tends to more severe, and abused women are more likely to fear their partner than abused men are. Obviously these statistics may be skewed to be more sympathetic to women since the charity is Women’s Aid but – http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220036)
I think the incentive behind feminism was that the type of extreme pain and suffering historically experienced by women, came from men (some men; cruel men, disgusting men – not all men). Moreover, it came from men closest to them. Abusive partners, fathers, relatives etc. And the way in which the law was structured meant that these abusive men could get away with their crimes. A woman’s word in these situations simply wasn’t taken seriously, legally or otherwise. I agree that there would be no reason to suggest that a traditional family structure (male breadwinner, female housekeeper) was unfair to women when it functioned well, with 2 loving partners who simply had different roles. I agree that in many situations men had it harder – your examples of mining etc. But when it was bad, women were powerless to do anything about it.
Men’s suffering was due to war, obtaining resources etc. These were often unpreventable situations. Wars were fought for a reason, resources were essential to survive and men were the most physically adept at getting them. We can in some way compare these pains to childbirth experienced by women – all of them are necessary in order to obtain some good or other. But sexual/domestic abuse etc. is merely sick men who believe they can get away with treating women however they like without repercussions. Feminism helped to draw this kind of abuse into the light, it gave women a voice to speak out against the injustices done to them.
Hey, I’m glad *someone* appreciates my non-vicim perspective on gender roles :)
“…You look at the history of gender roles from the man’s perspective; feminists look at it from the woman’s perspective…”
Please don’t think I’m being deliberately argumentative, but – I hope at least – I’m looking at it from a neutral perspective …. or a ‘equally biased’ perspective if you like.
I would also argue that feminists don’t look at gender roles from a female perspective at all, but from a ‘victim perspective’ (but of course in most feminist’s minds that amounts to the same thing!)
From a female perspective much about traditional female gender roles did (and still does) qualify as *privilege*….. it’s just that feminism works very hard to downplay, ignore or draw attention away from those privileges and focus ONLY on the down sides of female gender roles – while focusing ONLY on the benefits of male gender roles, and never their down sides.
“..I agree that in many situations men had it harder – your examples of mining etc. But when it was bad, women were powerless to do anything about it…”
Doesn’t that apply just as equally to men too though?
And as for domestic abuse specifically, I think we need to be cautious. Men WERE often punished severely (and by other men) for dishonouring/ abusing/ raping women. Men were put in stocks, beaten or even murdered (as convicted rapists still are today on occasion).
There has ALWAYS been a taboo against men hitting or raping women. And women’s obvious physical weakness relative to men has ALWAYS been as much as source of strength / protection for women as it has been a vulnerability. What I mean is, society (including the vast majority of men) have always offered to protect women from violence and abuse *because* of women’s obvious physical weakness.
But the same is simply NOT true for men. Not only have men never had much in the way of protection from abusive or violent women OR men. It’s only in the last few decades that the idea that men CAN be victims of, say, domestic abuse or rape has even been accepted.
Even today some feminist statistics on rape fail to categorise ‘made to penetrate’ as rape. I kid you not. And by contrast ‘sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol’ IS considered rape for women.
When women on daytime TV discuss (genuine) news items about women cutting off their husband’s penis they are allowed to laugh and cackle. Can you imagine if men behaved that way on TV about a similar story involving a man genitally mutilating a woman!
The double standards are so ingrained that even when you can see them intellectually, it’s still hard to actually FEEL sympathy towards male victims. We’ve all been so thoroughly indoctrinated to think of men as these de-humanised monsters – rather than as PEOPLE in their own right who also have feelings and who can be victims too.
Sure, I agree that many husbands did get away with beating their wives (and many still do today). But many did not, and when they WERE caught they were condemned and punished by society – including other men. Laws and social conventions AGAINST hurting women were invented and enforced by men.
That makes a total mockery of patriarchy theory.
We know that today domestic abuse is split roughly 50/ 50 between men and women. Can we assume the numbers weren’t all that different in the past? If so the next question is: throughout history how many husband abusing women got put in the stocks or thrown in jail? And how many abused men got sympathy and support as victims? …. I’m guessing ZERO.
So men who abuse women got punished and condemned by everybody, and women got sympathy and protection from society… but never the other way around.
Is this another example of this elusive ‘male privilege’? Looks a lot more like a female privilege to me.
And if it’s bad for a man to hit a woman due to their superior strength, then logically it’s many times worse for a mother to hit an infant or child.
And yet even today 90% of mothers ADMIT to hitting their infants and children. In the past it was even more prevalent and much more brutal.
So forgive me if I don’t join feminists in regarding women of history as these ‘poor fragile, helpless, innocent, downtrodden victims of patriarchal violence’. They hit their own children which is (IMHO) man, many times worse that a man hitting a woman. (although obviously both are wrong).
Women in the past were AT LEAST as violent and brutal as any man of that age. Feminists ignore this because it doesn’t fit their ‘patriarchy theory’ which depicts men as savage, brutes and women as delicate, innocent, weak flowers.
We know that violent, sadistic, abusive adults are always the product of violent, sadistic, and abusive early childhoods. So there’s your root cause of a violent society right there – a violent, sadistic and abusive upbringing. And women were always the primary caregivers to children (the men were typically out the house all day from dawn to dusk).
So women were (and still are) at least EQUALLY responsible for the violent societies of the past and the violent society we currently live in.
But do feminists acknowledge this? Do they look to the root causes of violent and brutal societies – ie parenting? Of course not! That would define women as in some way RESPONSIBLE and that goes against feminist theory which defines women as pathetic victims with no responsibility at all (it’s all men’s fault remember!)
Even today feminists refuse officially to condemn the 90% of mothers who admit to still hitting their infants and children. Feminist can go on daytime TV and admit hitting their children and justify it.
Feminists (and women in general) are the last group in society (barring governments) who are allowed to openly admit to being violent to other human beings (AND TO CHILDREN FFS!) without drawing a massive backlash and universal moral condemnation from society.
Sure, fathers can legally hit children too in most countries, but they do not generally admit and defend this behaviour on TV while claiming to be poor innocent sweet victims of a violent patriarchy at the same time.
Hitting on the (bare?) bottom is a sexual area which makes it sexually humiliating for a child. Humiliation is part of the punishment after all.
Hmmmmmm….. the men (and women) in society who sexually humiliate women (or men) and beat them up were almost certainly sexually humiliated and beaten by their mothers as infants on a regular basis…… can anyone see a possible connection here?
I’m NOT trying to make any excuses for bad male behaviour or depict mothers as the only ones to abuse their children. But if we are going to fix society we must stop this feminist nonsense of demonising men, while portraying women as angelic, innocent, powerless, caring, nurturing and responsibility-free victims.
“..Men’s suffering was due to war, obtaining resources etc. These were often unpreventable situations…”
In the past they were unpreventable. But these days we are well informed enough to know that ALL wars are a racket. They are first and foremost a business enterprise by the ruling classes (bankers, military industrial complex etc). The same banking families funded both sides of all major wars in history.
People in the past were not to know that, but in the post-internet age there really is no excuse for not getting informed. And that means there is no excuse for women to pant with lust over ‘men in uniform’ (men in the costumes of hired killers working for bankers). Drooling over these ‘men in uniform’ should be as taboo as drooling over high school shooters, mafia assassins or pedophiles.
Why does feminism not condemn modern wars – the inhumane slaughter of millions of families? Feminists go on and on and on about how men should treat them in the office (google – elevatorgate), or about the OUTRAGE of some low paid working class man (whom she treats like an object) wolf whistling at her in the street (ie treating her like an object too)….. but feminists won’t condemn our money being taken from us at gunpoint and spent on blowing the arms and legs of children in Iraq.
And now feminists are celebrating the army allowing women to serve in front line roles as some sort of victory. Now your daughter can also become a child murderer for the state, and return home with PTSD and minus a leg, to become a bitter alcoholic for life. Yay! Girl power!
“…We can in some way compare these pains to childbirth experienced by women – all of them are necessary in order to obtain some good or other. ..”
Birth – life
War = death
I see no connection myself. I admit, people BELIEVED war was necessary in the past and they did heroic things as a result of that belief. But that is no longer a justified excuse. We know better now.
We stopped burning witches a long time ago. And we should stop supporting wars too. If enough women between the ages of 18 and 30 closed their legs to soldiers, and crossed the street to avoid them, all wars would end overnight. Guaranteed.
“..But sexual/domestic abuse etc. is merely sick men who believe they can get away with treating women however they like without repercussions….”
And how did these men get sick? Mainly from their violent and abusive upbringing. Do feminists address this issue? No.
Are feminists interested in removing the main cause of violence in society – violent parenting – and thus SOLVING the problem? No.
Do feminists prefer to exploit issues like domestic abuse as a weapon to get more ‘free stuff’, sympathy, and special treatment ….. and to shame men into subservience with in the process? I would argue – Yes. Absolutely they do.
Feminists are like pimps in this respect. They keep rape and domestic abuse victims permanently ‘on display’ to generate a constant flow of outrage against men ….. and a constant flow of sympathy, resources and power in the direction of feminists.
They do not truly care about eradicating these problems at source because if that happened they would lose the very source of their income and power… and the weapon of shame they use to bash men with.
If we as a society REALLY want to end domestic abuse, rape, violence and war (against men or women) we need to ditch feminism, and start campaigning for REAL causes like peaceful parenting.
And that means if your friends admit to hitting their children we need to treat them the same way we would if they just admitted beating up blacks or attending nazi rallies. Tell them they are doing wrong and de-friend them. Socially ostracise them.
It’s only when you imagine actually STANDING FOR A MORAL CUASE like not hitting children that you realise how absolutely devoid of any morality feminism actually is. Feminism stands for complaining, bitching, moaning, playing the victim, me, me, me, me, me!!!!!
It does not stand for even the most simple moral standard of NOT HITTING YOUR OWN CHILDREN.
….. OK that was a bit of a rant (another one LOL), I hope you realise it’s not directed at you personally, but at the world in general.
You seem to ‘get it’, even if we disagree on some details. If you’re interested in a non-victim perspective of gender try this youtube channel ….. it opened my mind a lot and helped me see feminism for what it really is :)
So what you’re saying is essentially that gender roles should be fixed at what they were generations ago before modern technology came around. Because that’s what has been “chosen”, and that the most upsetting thing about this article for you is the gender of the writer? Wow. That’s amazing!
No, not at all. I was simply explaining why feminist theory is wrong. It was not men who oppressed women, it was lack of technology (and the knowledge that creates it) which oppressed EVERYBODY.
Traditional gender roles and traditional gender identity were just as restrictive and ‘oppressive’ for MEN as for WOMEN. Often in similar ways, and often in different ways.
What feminism does is to focus ONLY at how women were disadvantaged by their traditional gender roles, and ONLY at how men were ADVANTAGED by their traditional gender roles and then make the claim that men deliberately and successfully oppressed women throughout history AKA patriarchy theory.
I’m just pointing out that feminism is based on a FALSE view of history and a FALSE view of reality.
That’s not the same as saying gender roles should be fixed in the past is it?
You cannot judge past gender roles and social conventions based on today’s society with all our liberating technology and wealth.
Or to put it another way, if a natural disaster struck earth tomorrow and sent us back to the middle ages how many ’empowered feminists’ would stick to their feminist ideology and reject old fashioned survival strategies like marriage with its division of labour?
Let’s say all machinery is wiped out and all resources need to be gathered, mined, harvested and manufactured by hand like in the past.
And even household chores now revert back to being manual labour in themselves (no hoovers, fridges, washing machines etc)
And there is no more debt-based government welfare anymore to fall back on. If you want anything YOU have to pay for it and just about everything of value must be created by hand, often involving lots of hard manual labour.
Now, how many feminists are going to CHOOSE to carry on eschewing traditional division of labour (ie traditional gender roles)? How many feminists are going to CHOOSE to live on their own as single women – or even single mothers?
How many feminists are going to try and have a baby outside of marriage – with absolutely no welfare and no man to provide resources for her for the year that she is pregnant/ nursing?
It’s obvious that these traditional gender roles may have been restrictive by today’s standards – but they were the best deal at the time and women CHOSE to adopt traditional gender roles and they CHOSE men who were stereotypically ‘patriarchal’ men (strong, tough, aggressive, decisive, emotionally callous and dutiful). They chose these men because they were a woman’s best chance of securing the resources she needed to survive, and thrive in the harsh environment of the day.
Therefore the basis of feminism – the notion that traditional gender roles were men’s way of oppressing women – is a total rubbish. AND MORE THAN RUBBISH IT IS POISON.
Feminism poisons the trust and empathy between men and women. It pits men and women against each other. It disempowers women and it demonises men.
Feminism did not liberate women (or men) from their traditional roles – technology did.
Women (and men) could only afford to BE feminists after technology started to liberate everyone from traditional gender roles by reducing the amount of manual labour required to survive and hugely increasing our ability to be productive – and thus wealthy.
Instead of enjoying that liberation modern feminists use their excess wealth, free time and privilege (relative to the rest of the world) to demonise men, portray women as victims and objects and demand government violently interfere more and more in everyone’s lives in order to ‘help women’.
The only winner has been Big Government. Feminism is the fertiliser which grows massive socialist, and increasingly fascist, governments.
The only thing which looks capable of stopping feminism (barring a natural disaster) is total economic collapse …… and that now looks likely.
And feminists will undoubtedly blame that on men too.
I am completely on board with having a “Be a better human” campaign, for all humans. The other day in the car park a lady’s shopping bag broke. I picked up something that had fallen out to help her and she screamed at me thinking I was going to steal it. What is happening in the world that someone’s first thought is that someone would hurt them before helping them? It’s very sad! I think we could all use some re-education :)
We face a problematic time.
I see many women demasculine their men to a point where they are no longer interested in them.
Most women do like to have a partner who is slightly more dominant than they are.
Hell, EVERY RELATIONSHIP, not just sexual/romantic ones, needs someone who takes charge. That’s why we have leaders.
The best, most equal thing would be for the right people to take charge in the right situations (aka. do what you’re best at and step back to let others decide when you know nothing)
Being a strong man isn’t just about being physically superior to women and in a similar way female strength isn’t about demasculining men or necessarily adopting their way of being.
Because there is a different, even if slight. As we are different biologically isn’t it safe to assume that there’s a fundamental difference psychologically, ALBEIT SMALL.
I think the real problem is that these small differences have become an expected part of society.
If we EXPECT someone to be dominant or the dominated then that’s what they’ll tend to become like. Parents are the ones who give the girls the pink toys.
I think my point is that boys should be allowed to embrace female qualities as well as masculine. (We all should)
If a boy wants to wear pink dresses and makeup while going into the forest with a shovel and digging a big hole then that’s totally all right.
But I think there is a basic need in men TO BE masculine, as part of identity-creation, and there’s a need in women for them TO BE masculine, even if we deny it and thus beat it out of our boyfriends/husbands/lovers just to throw them aside later for some new, testosterone-filled plaything which we can then put under our matriarchy.
You’re making a lot of generalizations based on absolutely nothing there, friend. It’s pretty clear to me that you don’t know jack shit about what women want in a partner, or how neurobiology works. Or social science. Or the world. Or history, for that matter, if you think there’s such a thing as a matriarchy.
Woah woah woah, don’t just dismiss my observations. When I talk with my friends they all want a guy who’s strong, who’s taller than they and who will be “their rock”.
The comment about matriarchy is influenced by an article about japan I recently read. You should check it out. Very interesting.
Aside from that, to call someone a Bucky for raising an opinion that’s looked down upon is pretty anti-progressive. This blog post was shared on daily pressed. People from all corners read it, not just people who follow this blog and agree with everything ;)
Haha, sorry for the bucky comment, it was totally misrepresented in my feed and I hit up Bucky on urban dictionary :D
Reblogged this on enregistrezlejour.
Reblogged this on zeenablid18 and commented:
Trouble is gender campaigns need to hit home with men. Women are not the ones perpetuating gender equality. Selling the issue to women is easy – you don’t need to convince women that they deserve equal rights to men… but you do need to convince their male counterparts. Campaigns targeting women might help rally support, but they’re not targeting the problem – they’re not helping change the mindset of men. Interesting piece in the Guardian from the co-founder of :Lady Geek captures this point well: http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/jul/03/why-i-wont-speak-at-women-only-events
“.. Selling the issue (of gender equality) to women is easy..”
Then explain how it is possible that a feminist professor can claim in public – with zero backlash from other feminists or society at large – that adult women staff having sex with underage boys in a juvenile detention facility is NOT rape because (according to her) underage boys are able to give consent to female adults (who have them under lock and key).
The details in this video… (and in the video description)
What if you switched the genders around? …. what if a male professor and men’s rights activist had claimed in public that underage girls could give consent to adult men?
We all know he would probably have been fired, and the story would have got onto the news, there would have been angry protests – his life may even have been put in danger.
There IS a ‘rape culture’ but only with respect to male victims of rape. When the victim is female it is defined (by men and women) as one of the most evil crimes imaginable.
The same is true of assault or domestic abuse. Men are far more at risk of violent assault in public than women. The numbers of male victims of domestic abuse are about the same as women victims, and the same figures apply to rape too. Some studies in the US now put the number of male rape victims ABOVE the number of female rape victims.
And yet little to no resources or even sympathy are directed towards men to help them. Male victims of assault, domestic abuse or rape simply ‘don’t exist’ in society.
This is true in other areas too, such as the figures that show 94% of workplace deaths are men. If that figure was women it would be a ‘hot topic’. But because it is men nobody cares.
Logically, if feminism really was about ‘gender equality’, then feminists would campaign for equality for boys/ men as much as for girls / women. But feminists do no such thing.
Name me one example of feminists campaigning for gender equality where the current state of inequality happens to disadvantage men/ benefit women.
Just one example please.
I work with abuse victims. None of these “facts” are accurate.
None of your other facts are, either, but that one is the most glaring.
And every fucking person knows that the reason more workplace deaths are men is because MEN HAVE KEPT WOMEN OUT OF THOSE JOBS. Women were prohibited BY LAW from performing dangerous jobs for LITERALLY CENTURIES.
God, MRAs are so stupid.
Just real quick – you are wrong. Feminism certainly fights for equality for men as well – just not for patriarchy!!! So if you want to latch onto patriarchy, you are right, feminism won’t be fighting for you. If you want to understand how patriarchy oppresses all people, then maybe you will see how feminists have been fighting for you for a long time.
And an important fact you are leaving out of your point around men being raped as much as women is – that it’s by far and large mostly men who are doing all of the raping, regardless of gender. Which certainly elevates the idea that feminism is fighting for men too
“…Feminism certainly fights for equality for men as well ..”
Can we please have some examples of specific issues the feminist movement is actively campaigning for which would benefit men specifically without benefiting women, or even reducing women’s current unfair privilege, relative to men.
Let’s see your list…
“…So if you want to latch onto patriarchy, you are right, feminism won’t be fighting for you….”
Feminism IS patriarchy. Feminism is everything it claims to be fighting against. Most ideologies of intolerance and hate pretend to be the opposite of what they are really all about. They do this so they can recruit an army of casual (and often well meaning but naive) supporters from the masses, who are oblivious to the true nature of the vile organisation they are supporting and giving legitimacy to.
Just study history if you don’t believe me. Start with 1930’s Germany.
Feminism and its ‘patriarchy theory’ defines women as powerless, weak, victims with no agency and no responsibility. It claims women are so inept and useless they need extra special treatment and lots of ‘free stuff’ from whoever is most capable of providing them. In the past that used to be big strong, burly men …… but these days (now that we have machines to do most of the manual labour) it generally means governments, policy makers and anyone else who influences social attitudes and social conventions.
Feminism is not about liberation from dependency at all, it is transferring dependency onto whoever can currently provide the best protection and most resources.
The so called ‘patriarchy’ is a society which revolves around the needs and wants of women because this ensures the greatest chance of survival for the next generation (and thus the species as a whole).
Feminism is a movement which also revolves around the needs and wants of women. A man who rapes a woman is a feminist issue because it affects women directly. A man who is raped (by another man or by a woman) is not a feminist issue because it doesn’t affect women directly. Feminism is NOT about equality. It is even really about women either because a lot of women still do care about men and boy. Feminism is just about feminists.
In patriarchal society men are defined according to their utility to women. A ‘manly man’ is a man who can provide resources and protection for his woman/ family / community. The same is true with feminism. Men who can’t or won’t provide resources and protection for women are regarded as useless and pointless by the patriarchy and by feminism. Neither really recognises men as INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT – regardless of their inability/ unwillingness to serve women’s interests.
A 20 year old woman with no skills, no education, no personality who contributes nothing to men’s lives or society in general is still valued as full status person in a patriarchal/ feminist society…… but a 20 year old man with no skills, no education, no personality who does not contribute to women’s lives or society in general is hardly valued at all. He is considered a waster and a loser. He has no utility and so he is a waste of space.
Feminism and patriarchy are identical twins wearing different sweaters.
“..And an important fact you are leaving out of your point around men being raped as much as women is – that it’s by far and large mostly men who are doing all of the raping, regardless of gender. Which certainly elevates the idea that feminism is fighting for men too..”
So let me get your argument straight. You’re claiming that because there are more male are rapists than female rapists it’s OK for feminists to generally ignore and downplay the rape of men and boys, even to the point of classifying the rape of men and boys as “not rape at all” (which feminists have repeatedly done). It’s also OK to almost completely ignore the huge numbers of women who do commit rape, and pretend they do not exist, in order to perpetuate the reflex association between ‘rape’ and ‘male perpetrator’.
That seems to be your basic argument.
Recently a feminist professor (Adele Mercier) claimed adult women staff at a juvenile detention facility who were grooming and having sex with underage boys being held there were not raping them because the underage boys were capable of consenting to sex with their adult female captors.
Is that acceptable to you?
Is the fact that the university, the media and the feminist movement have all failed to call this woman out on her ‘rape apologist’ remarks acceptable to you?
What if the genders were reversed – what if it was adult men having sex with underage girls which they had under lock and key……. would that be a greater, lesser or equal crime in your eyes?
Isn’t ‘gender equality’ supposed to be about treating the genders equally – or do you agree with the feminists that rape is worse when it’s committed by males against females, than by females against males? (in which case it’a hardly even rape at all)
How many feminists have you ever seen who write books, do the lecture circuit, appear on daytime TV or influence political policy who actually raise awareness of male rape (by men or women) and try to direct resources to help those male victims?
If feminists are all about ‘equality’ shouldn’t they be blind to which gender is being raped and which gender is doing the raping?
The fact that feminists only focus on female victims and male perpetrators would indicate they are NOT about equality after all – wouldn’t you say?
False rape accusation against men by women is arguably a far worse crime than rape itself. Currently women who make false rape accusations are often let off without any punishment at all. Why isn’t feminism all over this issue?
You claim feminism is trying to address the issue of rape. The issue of rape is mostly an issue of violent and abusive childhoods. Virtually all rapists were violently/ sexually abused as children. Today 90% of mothers ADMIT to hitting their infants and children. Why doesn’t feminism try to solve the problem of rape *at source* by campaigning to end violent and abusive parenting?
If a mother repeatedly spanks a small boy on the bottom (a sexual area) and humiliates him in the process (it’s all part of the punishment) that doesn’t mean he will definitely grow up to become a rapist. But….. if he IS predisposed to being a psychopath it will train him in the language of sexual humiliation, domination, aggression, violence and control and literally rewire his brain and physiology so that he is in a permanent ‘fight or flight’ mode for the rest of his life. The science is quite clear about this. Hitting a child WILL re-wire his/her brain and damage his/her physiology for life.
Throw in a bit of sexual abuse as well and you’ve pretty much made yourself a rapist time bomb.
Why don’t feminists address these fundamental *causes* of rape and seek to educate parents – especially mothers – to NOT HIT THEIR CHILDREN!!!
Could it be because feminists actually have no interest in actually stopping rape, because the rape culture narrative they have so carefully crafted (men are rapists, women are victims of rape) gives femiists so much sympathy, power, control and moral currency?
You seem to insinuate that the majority of rapes are committed by men and that somehow means the issue of women rapists is somehow less important, or less of a crime.
In many areas of the world there are more black street criminals than white street criminals. Does that mean we should not treat ‘white street crime’ as seriously as ‘black street crime’?
Do the higher recorded levels of black street crime mean that black people as a group are more immoral than white people? Or are crime levels (and the types of crimes people commit) heavily influenced by social factors (upbringing, poverty, welfare programs which incentivise single parent homes etc)?
What about the issue of men / women and rape…. are you claiming men are genetically or biologically more immoral than women??!
I’m just trying to get a handle on your arguments and assertions.
I look forward to your answers….. as well as that long list of men’s rights issues that feminists are actively campaigning for…. (all in the name of gender wonderful equality)
“.. If you want to understand how patriarchy oppresses all people…”
The feminist definition of ‘patriarchy’ is a society BY and FOR the benefit of men, at the expense of women. That definition is the very core of the feminist narrative. It is the essence of feminism.
If the patriarchy oppresses *all people*, as you say, then you are literally arguing AGAINST feminist theory and you cannot claim to be a feminist or support feminist theory.
My definition of the ‘patriarchy’ would be a society which revolves around the needs and wants of women (even if women find this restrictive and annoying), because in times of scarce resources and a tough environment (ie most of human history) focusing on women’s needs and wants is the best way to ensure the survival of the next generation, and hence the species.
Feminism also puts women at the centre of the universe. Feminism does not recognise the concept of men existing in their own right, independent of women. Men are always defined and judged y feminists relative to their effect on women…. how they make women feel, what resources they provide to women and so on.
Thus feminism is just an updated version of the so called ‘patriarchy’, which seeks to provide the most resources and special treatment in an age of high technology, increased wealth and economic independence, less rigid gender roles for everyone, big governments and their socialist agendas.
Instead of seeking partnerships with big strong aggressive men based on division of labour, feminists these days seek partnerships with big, strong aggressive socialist governments based on playing the victim card.
Thank god there are smart people like you.
Wow….I can’t even believe I’m going to try to respond to you. You are doing a fantastic job of illustrating why on earth male people have gained a reputation for not being safe. You are posting essay long defenses of patriarchy all the while trying to educate us all on what feminism actually is. Let this be clear – you are NOT an expert on feminism, nor am I. We are both male bodied people (you are clearly a male – without a shadow of a doubt) who have and continue to benefit from male privilege. Since you seem to clearly deny that you have any privilege, we are not going to get very far in this conversation. My philosophy needs to bottom line commonality that we have male privilege. Since you seem quite passionate about your beliefs, try doing a little education. Here’s one link: http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
I encourage you to try to read that article, or any written by feminists for that matter, NOT from a place of defense.
You spend a lot of time writing out these long arguments, all based on your opinions – NOT FACTS – that feminism is patriarchy. And that patriarchy IS (and perhaps you would even say only is) a means of preserving society by protecting women. You also say that feminism promotes the idea that women are weak and powerless. You then try to break apart my and others posts with your opinions as if you are citing facts. You definitions are rather archaic, and do not reflect the world of today. And your paranoia of feminism is rather frightening. Seems you live in some delusion that feminism is out to get you and all of mankind. It is not. It is trying to address the deep seeded roots of patriarchy, and bring to light how this has oppressed and continues to oppress ALL people – especially those who do not benefit from the oppression = male privilege.
No, feminism does Not spend an equal amount of time fighting for male oppression. And that’s ok. Get over it. If you want there to be some more attention on male oppression, don’t expect women to do that for you – that is patriarchal training. Your drive for feminism to speak out “equally” for men and men’s suffering is like demanding anti-racist groups to fight equally for white people and the oppression white people experience. Do white people experience oppression? Sure, but NOTHING even CLOSE to compared to people of color. Same goes for this!!! Men have not and do NOT experience anything close to the same amount of oppression that women and transgender people experience. And no, I’m not going to list off facts after facts of proof for that statement – there are many if you need that, do some research yourself. I don’t have that much attention to point out just how inherently sexist your arguments are.
Feminism is not out to attack men. I’m sure that there are many hurt people do to the oppressions they have experienced that have “attacked” men, or I’m sure would love to do so. But if you were conditioned to believe that you were inferior, that you were property, that you are nothing more than an object – you would probably have some rage too.
Feminism does not have some official stance promoting the idea that women are inferior and weak. I can’t even fathom how you came up with that…. Being that feminism is the empowerment to break that conditioning.
Feminism is NOT patriarchy. I think you need a bit more of an up-to-date definition of patriarchy. Again, try doing a little research. bell hooks is an amazing writer, and has a lot to say on this matter.
And, as for male victims to abuse and sexual assault – this is also a result of patriarchy. Feminism does NOT turn a blind eye to this matter – regardless of how much you think they do. It’s pretty clear that you don’t really ‘hang out’ in feminist circles, so again, you probably aren’t the best person to be telling us all what feminists do and do not think. There is plenty of feminist philosophy out there to highlight how patriarchy oppresses ALL people. Do some research.
You give one example of a rape that the media payed attention to and ask why feminists didn’t call this woman out?? What about the countless amounts of rape of women and transgender people and men and children – by male assigned people – do YOU call them out?? Does this society call them out? Some, but the majority of rapes aren’t even reported. Do you know that? Why aren’t they reported? Because people are scared of patriarchal backlash – such as “false rape accusation” – or slut shaming – or victim blaming – or “she shouldn’t have worn this or that” Do you have any concept of what a rape culture we are living in?!? Your denial of it perpetuates it, so I pray that you do not.
I wish so badly that you – and all of the other male assigned people writing on this blog – could put down the defenses, actually admit that you have male privilege, and recognize how the denial of your privilege and the denial of patriarchy as the oppressive force. Any refusal to do so only perpetuates further oppression.
And really, your rather extreme paranoia of feminism isn’t healthy. You clearly seem wounded, and you deserve attention around that. But get that attention without trying to invalidate thousands of years of oppression. And please, seriously, read more about this – talk to more people about this – do some research. You seem so invested in your opinions and theories about it all, seems like it would be worth your time. And if you do so, just don’t expect women to answer this all for you….please.
This is great. Thank you.
Reblogged this on pumpylee9.
Reblogged this on Natural_Beauty and commented:
Such good words!
oh – and also – it should read – the matter becomes that of behavior and attitude.. . .
oops – that should say equal turf, not turg . .
I think that every human being is called to protect other human beings. This is what my faith tells me – we are created in the image of God, male and female, to care for one another – part of caring includes protecting . . . . I think the term ” real men’ is losing it’s effect. To act human sets men and women on equal turg and then the matter because that of behavior and attitude and developoing attitudes of non-violence will beget non-violent behavior. Is self-control is the goal then?
This is coming from a guy. lol.
Reblogged this on Colon101.
Reblogged this on bentatenment.
Reblogged this on nolongerasleep and commented:
I don’t agree that in this case it’s placing ‘…men in the driver’s seat if culture…’
I understand your thoughts and feelings towards this subject and to some extent, the conclusion you draw. However, in this instance, women standing up for their rights and calling for equality is being done and has been at the forefront of this campaign since Emily Pankhurst. Men want to get involved. Why? Because this type of man (myself included) wants to work and help against the wrongs of our sex before us. It’s not that we feel we can be more effective being the so called ‘stronger’ sex. We speak up against our previous generations’ gender. To belittle this is nothing more than the same inequality but in reverse. Very well written argument but IMHO misses the point.
Surprised that the author didn’t ask why these ‘men’ are specifically buying ‘girls’ rather than ‘women’. Another subconscious thing most of us do in our daily lives – the infantilisation of half of our race.
Not sure about the accuracy of the ‘male organ mystique’ comment either… what exactly was meant by that?
Men don’t ‘buy girls’ (I assume he is referring to prostitution).
To say ‘men buy girls’ implies he actually owns her after the transaction is made. He does not, anymore than I ‘own’ the plumber who I pay to come over and fix my pipes. I only own the plumber’s time and service which I have paid for. The same is true of the man who has paid for the prostitute’s time and service.
Also the phrase ‘men don’t buy girls’ implies the girls are mere objects on a shelf which men can buy. This is demeaning to women and it demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what prostitution is.
By definition prostitutes CHOOSE to sell their services. If they do not choose it then they are not a prostitute, they are a slave. Likewise, if my plumber does not CHOOSE to sell me his services, he is also a slave too.
As long as no FORCE is initiated against the prostitute or the plumber to make them perform their services against their will, then they are free agents simply selling their services for money.
So the slogan ‘real men don’t buy girls’ is insulting (and confusing) on many levels.
But it also contains a lot of truth. A lot of men DO NOT qualify as ‘real men’. Perhaps they are ugly (disfigured), or disabled, or extremely shy, or lacking social skills, or traumatised by some experience. Asa result they are not attractive to women, and so the only way they can get sex (and hugs, and affection and conversation and even meaningful eye contact with a female) is to pay for it.
A lot of prostitutes cater to these kinds of men, and some even specialise in the needs of the disabled,
The level of conceit and insensitivity of that young fit, good looking man holding up that sign is beyond words.
As for ‘girls/ women and the infantilisation of women….. it’s important to acknowledge that women themselves are by far the worst offenders (assuming it is even a crime). Virtually every beauty product is aimed at making women appear younger (ie more fertile) than they really are.
In addition women often assume a child-like persona in order to project an air of vulnerability and lack of agency/ responsibility as a way of provoking men to do stuff for them, protect them and provide them with resources….. and as a way to escape having to take responsibility themselves.
A simple tilt of the head to the side, for example, exposes the fragile neck area and makes up appear more vulnerable. Asking for favours from men is often accompanied (often subconsciously) by a tilt of the head to the side. “Look how weak and vulnerable I am – please help me”.
Being vulnerable and child-like is a very effective way to provoke men (or society at large) into helping, protecting, providing resources for or excusing bad behaviour.
It’s a double standard for women to use this strategy for their advantage AND THEN complain when they are not taken seriously as adults.
Of course there are women who do not use this strategy, and they do have a right to complain – but they should really be complaining about the women who do use this strategy, rather than the men who fall for it.
Why do you assume that he is talking about prostitution? I saw a program about modern slavery recently, and girls were, quite literally, being taken from their homes and sold. They were sexually and physically abused, and they did not have much of a choice in the matter. I will grant you that the program only discussed the cases of three girls who had that experience, but I’m pretty sure those girls didn’t go into prostitution by their own free will.
And also, the other example given in the post is probably related to domestic violence. Since I have worked with both the victims and the abusers on a volunteer basis, I can tell you that domestic violence is still a very big problem. But a large portion of the problem is related to education. Many of those who abused their spouses didn’t even know that they were doing something wrong. They had seen that behavior in their parents and assumed that it was appropriate. They never considered the possibility that it was wrong.
The comment that you tore apart was only questioning the use of terminology. Why girls instead of women? Why use those particular words? The word “girls” implies that the individuals involved are children. According to the Webster’s dictionary, a girl is a female child or a single, young woman. However, it can also be used as an insult against women of any age, according to the dictionary.
If the word “girls” is used, then it suggests that the individual involved is a child, not an adult. Another definition in the dictionary is a female from birth to adulthood, thus, a child. And therefore, the act of buying, even in the form of prostitution, is against the law and is wrong.
Also, about your previous comment to me. You say that falsely accusing someone of rape is wrong. That is true. It is wrong to falsely accuse anyone, male or female, of a crime that they did not commit. But, it is also wrong to assume that many women are falsely accusing men of rape.
There are women who are raped. And there are women who are abused. And I have seen, first hand, the effects of rape on a woman. I have watched as one of my loved ones curled herself up as tight as she could while she told me what happened to her. I watched as she struggled to come up with the words to describe her terror and her pain. And it was all I could do to offer her a hug and let her cry. Rape, whether it happens to a man or a woman, changes your life. It makes you afraid, it causes shame and it even makes you question if it was your fault.
I do not consider myself a feminist. But I believe it is wrong to rape. I believe it is wrong to hit, kick or otherwise harm another human. My beliefs do not have anything to do with gender. It is wrong, whether the victim of a crime is male or female. If it makes me a feminist to believe that violence, criminal behavior and crimes in general are wrong, then I suppose I must be a feminist. I don’t really have much of an opinion on the whole “equal rights” thing, since it doesn’t really impact my life very directly.
“…Why do you assume that he is talking about prostitution?…”
Because the kinds of people who ACTUALLY BUY/ HIRE SEX SLAVES are not the kinds of people who are going to be influenced by some picture doing the rounds on facebook of a student holding a placard.
“…I’m pretty sure those girls didn’t go into prostitution by their own free will…”
Then it’s not prostitution. Prostitution is selling your sexual services voluntarily. Sex slavery is being FORCED to give sexual services.
If you get kidnapped at gunpoint and flown out to Morocco that’s not the same as ‘choosing to go on a business trip to Morocco’, is it?
“..I can tell you that domestic violence is still a very big problem….”
I completely agree. I am saying it is a BIGGER problem than feminists claim. Feminists only focus on men who abuse women. In reality men are also abused in roughly equal numbers. Men are also raped and assaulted. So the problem is widespread violence, abuse and rape PERIOD. The problem is NOT men abusing, raping and assaulting women. That is only HALF the problem.
“..Why girls instead of women? Why use those particular words? The word “girls” implies that the individuals involved are children. ..”
Yes, and I pointed out that many grown adult women choose to PORTRAY THEMSELVES as girls, choose to act in a child-like manner and choose to present themselves in the most girly fashion they can.
And they do this in an attempt to (a) evade adult responsibilities and (b) to provoke men (and society in general) into giving them special treatment, more protection, less accountability and more resources (c) to make themselves more attractive to men (who are hard wired to be attracted to young, fertile, ‘girly’ women because they are the best bet for a successful reproduction).
I am happy for people to criticise the ‘girl-ification’ of adult women. I’m just pointing out that many women choose to ‘girl-ify’ themselves and each other. So it’s unfair to blame men as though it were some sort of male strategy of female oppression.
Switch on your TV and you will see a bunch of grown women acting like children (which is actually an insult to children). Why do feminists not call them out for behaving that way? Why is it men’s fault? That’s like saying a male chauvinist on TV is women’s fault.
Feminism strips women of their agency and reduces them to mere objects/ victims. According to feminism if a woman’s behaviour is flawed it’s because of the ‘patriarchy’ (ie it’s men’s fault). But if a man’s behaviour is flawed it’s also because of the ‘patriarchy’ (ie it’s men’s fault).
This is why so many women CHOOSE to act like girls. They are CHOOSING to evade responsibility. They are CHOOSING to portray themselves as innocent, naive, inept, shallow, ditzy, frivolous bimbos because it conditions society to remove all accountability and responsibility for the state of the world from their shoulders (just as we do for children).
To portray yourself as mature and responsible or immature and irresponsible is a CHOICE. Nobody is forcing anyone to do either. Both ways of being have their positive/ negative consequences.
“..But, it is also wrong to assume that many women are falsely accusing men of rape…”
Well, yes…. it is wrong to assume anything. I don’t get what your point is.
If someone claims a crime has taken place that claim needs to be tested against the evidence to find out if the claim is true or false. Rape should be no different to any other crime in this respect. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ must apply.
And yet we are starting to see female rape accusations against men treated differently to other crimes. I believe in some college campuses rape accusations are no longer dealt with as criminal cases (involving courts etc) but are now handled internally with the accused guy being effectively thrown out based on a mere (unproven) accusation.
Being accused of rape (for a man, more so than a woman) has the potential to destroy a man’s life. If he is sent to jail he will likely be repeatedly raped, and/ beaten up. He will lose his career, his family, his education (if he is a student).
So you could argue that the evidence against him needs to be MORE compelling than for most other crimes. And the penalty for making false rape accusations needs to be (I would argue) equivalent to the sentence the accused would have got. If your false rape accusation would have given the accused man 10 years in jail then YOU should go to jail for 10 years if it is proven that you accusation was false.
But instead we see the OPPOSITE happening. We see LESS due process than is required for other crimes, and we see VIRTUALLY NO negative consequences for making false rape accusations.
Plenty of women have made, and stuck by, their false rape accusations – only to be exposed as liars down the line. And generally they get off without any severe punishments.
If X number of women are caught making false rape accusations due to fortuitous evidence (a taped phone call, a CCTV camera, a friend who knew it was a lie and eventually went to the police etc) then it’s safe to assume the ACTUAL numbers of false rape accusations are far higher than the number caught. The same is true for ANY crime.
False rape accusation is a CRIME. It is arguably MORE despicable than rape itself. Rape victims are ‘set free’ once the rape is over where they get sympathy, compassion, resources and support from just about everybody in society.
Falsely accused rapists have to endue stigma for life, they might have to endure repeated rapes for years in jail. They receive virtually no compassion, support, resources and are at risk from both women AND men. (Men have actually murdered other men falsely accused of committing rape, believing at the time their murder was a form of ‘justice’ for the rape – which never happened).
If men who commit rape are evil, women who falsely accuse men of rape are beyond evil.
Would YOU rather be raped for one night….. or falsely accused, convicted and sentenced for BEING a rapist?
The feminist ‘rape culture’ hysteria is not only eroding proper investigations of rape claims, it is also encouraging women to make false rape by telling women over, and over and over again that anything other than carving YES I WANT SEX into granite, means she is potentially being raped.
If she is drunk, she may have been raped. If she had second thoughts during sex, she may have been raped. If she regretted it the next day, she may have been raped. If the guy turns out to NOT love her after all, she may have been raped. If the guy makes it clear that it was ‘just sex’ (just a one night stand) and she thought it was more meaningful, she may have been raped. If she never actually SAID “I want you to fuck me”, she may have been raped.
This is inviting women to FEEL like they’ve been raped, when in reality they’ve just had drunken, confused, impulsive, poorly negotiated, awful sex with some random dude and then regretted the whole thing the next day.
The fact is that if a woman has ‘regretful sex’ she has the option of redeeming herself by crying “rape” and everyone will side with her and assume the guy is guilty.
Social attitudes and the law need to treat false rape accusations AT LEAST as seriously as rape itself, so that women know that being caught making a false rape accusation could mean THEIR lives are destroyed instead of the man’s.
If you disagree with any of this, please by all means make your case.
“…If it makes me a feminist to believe that violence, criminal behavior and crimes in general are wrong, then I suppose I must be a feminist. …”
But that’s the whole point. It does NOT make you a feminist to believe that violence, criminal behavior and crimes in general are wrong. It makes you a humanist.
A feminist believes violence, criminal behavior and crimes in general are only wrong when they happen to women…. or that they are somehow worse when they happen to women.
Men get much longer prison sentences for the same crimes than women. Men are far more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted than women for the same crimes.
Women who have raped boys are not only able to usually avoid harsh punishments, they can (and have) actually used to law to get child support from the boy after he reaches adulthood, to pay for the child conceived during the rape.
In some places if a woman assaults a man and the police are called, even if the man is lying in a bloody mess with the woman standing over him holding a frying pan the police are obliged by law to arrest the man.
Studies with actors being filmed have shown that if a man hits a woman in public most people assume he is the aggressor and she is the victim. But if a woman hits a man in public most people assume SHE is the victim and he is the aggressor. And some people even cheer the woman on (“you go girl!”).
The feminist narrative of women being innocent victims and men being evil oppressors is so widespread and so overwhelming it’s hard to see the FACTS staring us in the face. In almost every case women have MORE privilege, MORE power, A GREATER presumption of innocence, and a GREATER ability to avoid responsibility/ punishment than men when it comes to these issues.
Crimes are crimes whether they are committed by men or women and they should be treated equally – don’t you agree? (feminists clearly don’t)
Nicely put, I like the angle and intent of this piece. If only Femenism wasn’t see by men generally as an attack upon them in some way.
You might as well just add, “if only racism wasn’t seen by black people as an attack on them in some way”.
Have you ever considered the criticism levels at feminism might have some validity? Do you even know what those criticisms are?
God damn! you are all over this place spitting out your sexist bullshit!! This comment is now not only sexist but racist too. I’m thinking my comment before about you being part of a white supremacist bigot political party might be correct…..
Racism is the oppression of people of color.
Feminism is NOT an oppression of men – it is the empowerment to rise above and dismantle patriarchal systems that oppress all people.
Have you ever considered that the criticisms of patriarchy might have some validity? Do you even know what those criticisms are??
“..Feminism is NOT an oppression of men – it is the empowerment to rise above and dismantle patriarchal systems that oppress all people…”
Feminism is based on ‘patriarchy theory’ the theory that men deliberately and successfully oppressed women throughout history, and created a society in the process which benefits men at the expense of women.
‘Patriarchy theory’ BY DEFINITION defines men as sociopaths. You cannot deliberately and systematically oppress the opposite sex without being a sociopath.
If you are a feminist at least have the balls/ ovaries to OWN your own theory.
If feminists are all about equality then BY DEFINITION they should also be men’s rights activists. They should campaign EQUALLY against inequalities which disadvantage men as they do for women.
But they do not. Feminists have never campaign to end ANY inequality which would benefit men and/ or dismantle a privilege women currently enjoy.
Feminists are not obliged to fight for men’s rights, but they cannot honestly claim to be about equality until they do.
Feminists are not obliged to stop promoting ‘patriarchy theory’ but they cannot honestly claim to be have any connection to reality until they do.
“..Have you ever considered that the criticisms of patriarchy might have some validity?..”
The so called ‘patriarchy’ is basically any society which revolves around the needs of women (because that is the best way to ensure the survival of the next generation – and the species as a whole).
The so called ‘Patriarchy’ is necessarily UNFAIR, because being a man or a woman (or chicken or a worm or a tree) is also UNFAIR.
NEWSFLASH: Life is unfair!
But what ‘patriarchy’ is NOT is oppression of women by men.
As a feminist you claim it is. I invite you to make your case. I’m happy to debate your feminist ‘patriarchy theory’. Please provide reasoned arguments and facts. Thank you.
Reblogged this on oscespi15 and commented:
I believe in women’s rights because is important and fear
I’ve always found feminism strange.. Often discrimination is aimed at the minority (there are more cisgender people than transgender, more heterosexual then homosexual) so you can see where the discrimination started (with someone being ‘the odd one out’, being ‘different’) yet women make up 50 per cent of the population so how did discrimination against women start? So often campaigns are aimed at showing there’s nothing wrong with being the minority, but feminism seems to struggle sometimes to agree on the best way to move forward
There isn’t really a place in history that you can point to and say “this is when discrimination against women began”. You can see inequality that goes back thousands of years. Women were usually considered property in ancient times, and those ideas carried forward.
I realise that. I’m meaning like usually the dominant group is the one who is the majority, but with discrimination against women isn’t. I’m thinking why did it start/develop that way. Why were men not treated like women’s property?
I saw this picture on the internet. I had a few thoughts.
Real men buy real women?
No. Real men don’t buy people?
Wait. What man (real or otherwise) stops in the middle of his purchase of a girl to think, “in spite of my own depraved moral code which allows for this behavior, I’m going to cancel my order because Hollywood stars think it would emasculate me to continue this sordid business”?
Oh, I’m missing the point. This is an awareness campaign. It isn’t (necessarily) aimed so much men who buying girls, more to generate and raise awareness of the fact that men in the world are buying girls. It later occurred to me that some men consume internet products that require the abuse of girls and perhaps this campaign would reach them and raise their awareness of the impact of their purchases and their participation in creating a demand for girls. An awareness they might otherwise have been holding at bay with the dissociation the internet allows.
I realized in this analysis process that the developers of this campaign used appropriate propaganda techniques. They kept it short, memorable, and provocative.
As for your objections to the language, I did not see a viable alternative proposed in your article. Perhaps it would help, to promote your idea of feminist language use in a campaign of this kind, to make a suggestion once the explanation of why one is necessary was executed.
I don’t have a suggestion for better wording, I think the campaign they came up with is effective for it’s purpose as narrow as that purpose might be.
“Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.”
I do really like the message that manhood and hurting women are not the same thing … but I do appreciate that there is an ultimate poison in insinuating that life is like some sort of Guy Video Game where women are the game pieces, and the point of the game is to violate as many other men’s game pieces as possible while preventing the same from happening to yours.
Wake-up call: Those game pieces are PEOPLE.
I guess I’m not sure where the line is between redefining the definition of manhood (good, for them as well) and reinforcing it by saying that there is a definition of “real man” in the first place. Which I suppose is ultimately what you’re asking here.
Are people okay with constructive criticism? (please don’t read on if you are not, thnx)
-this is meant as an ally working on “backlash control”, I’m actually trying to find good media to sort a number of particular issues out ‘in the movement’. One of which is how a lot of allys feel like they have to walk on eggshells until they eventually just completely give up and get douchy/republican-like. I feel strongly that we really need to be careful before we attack *well intentioned* allies, and spreading messages that promote very negative judgements for well intentioned behaviours results in all kinds of damage down the road. For instance:
Anyone male or otherwise that I’ve ever met, who said: ‘sexual violence must end, guys, these are our [family]’ never thought that what they were saying meant the only reason someone shouldn’t be assaulted was because there are men attached to them somewhere. It would be like if I said you were “down with patriarchy” because you said “down with patriarchy”, someone could literally interpret your message that way but at the end of the day you know what you meant along with [most] everyone else. We as viewers give you the ‘benefit of the doubt’, we don’t tell you that you’re not allowed to say that because we now interpret what you’re saying as meaning that. (just to be clear I do believe some things shouldn’t be okay to say…)
I know ‘manarchy’ is a very real problem, but I just keep observing that so many well intentioned males and others who try virtually anything to stand in solidarity, start off as total ‘newbs’ and come to find there is someone out there writing about how awful they are for some unforeseen interpretation of what they’re doing.
I’m also starting to worry about how much of this process is co-opt-able by ‘co-intel-pro’.. IN any case it seems completely illogical to interpret “men must stop rape, [maybe think of all women as your sisters]” as “[men can rape but shouldn’t because you’ll offend other men]”. I’ve never seen anyone mean it that way, and neither have the men who actually say it so if you want to inform them of how you see it that’s great, obviously remember they have the right to their own opinion and time for processing/thinking… But if you simply attack them for it, then tell me what exactly is really being accomplished? To many people already, it seems like everyone is a thousand times more ready to throw wanna be allys under the bus than they are to actually explain their expectations of them in terms that they can understand and not feel personally subjugated to, (because one is 100 times harder than the other BTW, maybe youtube Rosenberg’s NVC). Instead these fledgling allys get chewed off the instant they try echoing the ‘wrong feminism’ or something. This kills me and I want to find answers. We really need to be comfortable TALKING about these things, it is the only hope we have for making real progress. I really hope anyone who sees someone legitimately TRYING to be an ally, tries being the voice of reason because if they’re not going to, then who is??? !!! ??? (answer: loudmouth GOP who target disenfranchised males).
Cheers from a concerned ally
Reblogged this on maestrokan.
Im just going to say women in america have a level of power above men in some aspects and below men in some aspects. Women have control of sex, relationships, divorce and many social aspects while men tend to have control by having burdens placed upon them. they are expected to do this for a woman or expected to provide for the family or expected to never hit a woman even if she hits him. we need to erase all the expectations of men and women and start again. although women may not be a strong as men we are just as smart as them!
“Control of sex?” How? By having the temerity to exist while connected to vaginas, and imagining that we have opinions as to how those vaginas should be made use of? I’m sorry, but simply existing while connected to a vagina is not “power” or “control” of anything. That’s like saying that the California grey seal has “power” over a shark by virtue of merely being delicious.
I’m pretty sure “being connected”, as you put it, to your vagina means that you in fact have absolute control over it. Bodily rights are very much protected by law (I’m assuming because of the grey seal reference you’re american. This is not the case everywhere). Now yes, a fraction of the human population chooses to violate those rights, and make no mistake those people are committing an atrocity, not to mention a crime. And as such we should continue on and make every step necessary for those who commit such crimes to be held accountable for their actions.
But in normal, healthy interactions between human beings, all parties have absolute control over what happens to their bodies. The aberrant behavior of criminals does not change that.
Women in America have the power to stop using the excuse that they HAVE to turn to prostitution in order to make a living. Women also have a responsibility in this to not consider their bodies as a commodity and that includes stripping which in my opinion is the same thing as selling their bodies though there are always those who will argue that because they enjoy doing it that there is nothing wrong with it. It contributes to the objectification of women and that is the root of this entire problem.
You’re one dumb cunt who could use a smack around
How do women have control of sex and relationships any more than men do? Presumably, in order for heterosexual sex to take place, both a man and a woman must be available and interested- are you saying that women always get sex when they want it and never have sex when they aren’t particularly excited, while men don’t have those same choices? As for relationships, the entire point is that both parties make decisions together that benefit both as much as possible. I know I’m certainly not more in control of my relationship as a whole than my partner is, though not everything is always perfectly equal. In what way would you suggest that women control relationships, and why would you assume men have no control when they can choose to be in a relationship or not?
Reblogged this on Learning Love and commented:
A wonderful example of how learning love can mean learning appreciation of both self and others #loveit
Reblogged this on anadeconsuelo.
Reblogged this on Psalm I am Not!.
“freedoms that men take as a God-given right”
There’s the problem, you found it early in your article. There’s a book, an old book, one with dozens of authors and millions of interpretations, from which both sides of almost every coin quote mine their “proof.” And it claims zero female authors.
Can you imagine what a world we’d live in if “The Hobbit” was viewed as a holy text that contains the answer to every question? Try, for a second, to envision the level of lunacy that would spring from the interpretations of the adventures in that tale: a book written by a man, to entertain mostly men, with its own secret internal language, parables, characters labeled good and evil, and nearly zero women or reference to such.
While you’re at it, name three holy books that feature women at least equal to men in value if not greater, that currently guide the moral choices of a gigantic population of people, and are acknowledged by the world at large as being a valid belief system. Hell, name one.
Really enjoyed this post! Follow for follow?! :)
i just love justin timberlake :*
A thought provoking post.
Allow me to share these with you:
I’m rolling my eyes that _this_ is what feminists debate nowadays. Now get you bitch ass back into the kitchen and make me some pie!!
Reblogged this on A Source of Insight and commented:
Every person, male or female, has the potential to be an infinitely wonderful and powerful being. We all have to stand up and support the rights and freedoms of every individual.
The difficulties and intricacies that exist between the concepts of “should not” and “can not” are the most complicated part, however.
A woman CAN strangle a child.
It is physically within her capability to do so.
There is no divine authority that prevents it from happening. Not even the authorities that claim to be divine can actually prevent it, but can merely threaten punishment. Some of those divine authorities have text IN SUPPORT of that, but I digress.
Most of the things that are considered “can not do”, are actually “can do, but should not do”, albeit quite strongly.
“Should not” is simply more logistically accurate, no matter what moral concept you are deciding.
To talk about the incidence of women strangling children as if it’s comparable to incidence of violence against women and girls in its vast forms is a bit misguided. Women strangling children is not the result of ingrained privilege and structural oppression, and inequality against children. The men who hit/traffic/sexually assault/sexually harass women (and other men, too…) do so because of POWER.
It’s not about any divine authority that prevents things, but a structure that enables them to happen, and at a pervasive level.
I think you’re stretching a bit, in trying to connect the “real men” message with “male privilege” — this is a message from men to men. And instead of it being about power, it was about challenging what being a “man” means — to the types of men who already think (or have been led to think) what a “real man” is. It’s not advocating male benevolence towards women, it’s advocating that it’s okay to be a man and not -have- proprietary, or power-play feelings over women. It’s presenting another definition of a man, one in which patriarchal roles aren’t applied.
That’s my two cents, at least.
“Real men don’t buy girls.” lol. What a farce. You’re not “buying girls,” (ie, during prostitution) you’re buying services that girls — AND guys — perform. Prostitution-shaming is just another form of slut-shaming (obviously), and shows that society is still out to control women when it comes to sexuality.
This isn’t about prostitution (which should be legal in my opinion), its about trafficking of minors
This is true of one kind of prostitution – where you have a willing buyer and willing seller. Unfortunately the dominant kind of prostitution in most western countries involves trafficked women who do not consent to the selling of their bodies. Many women are also bought as wives, again where they have no choice. In these instances, I would say it’s more accurate to say that men are buying women – however illegal & morally outrageous that is.
I think the message here is stating that the definition of “Real Men” that we are creating should exclude those men who seek ownership of women using financial means. I don’t think it needs to be interpreted to be a negative judgement on women who choose to provide sexual services to men.
“..This is true of one kind of prostitution..”
There is only one kind of prostitution which is the *voluntary* selling of one’s services for money.
“..Unfortunately the dominant kind of prostitution in most western countries involves trafficked women who do not consent to the selling of their bodies…”
‘Sex slavery’ is not ‘prostitution’, any more than ‘car theft’ is ‘car hire’.
Sex slavery is minuscule in relation to prostitution.
You’re just repeating feminist propaganda. Feminists love to demonise prostitution by lumping it all in with sex slavery and then making out there is an epidemic. Feminists hate the idea of women selling sex to men in honest, no-hidden-agenda transactions.
The more men who are getting sex without strings attached means the less men available for feminists to control, ‘enslave’ in miserable relationships – and then potentially take to the cleaners when they get bored.
There was recently a bar which opened offering hugs for money (like the bars which have cats in them which you can pet). All very above board, respectable and well regulated. Feminists shut that down too. You see, they *want* men to be starved of sex and even affection so they are easier to control. Not all feminists…… . just the ones who actually influence society.
I don’t see prostitution shaming at all in this. Men are inherently entitled. If they chose not to give in to the temptation of using a woman like garbage, then he is a real man. Or better, a good human being.
This puff piece references vague “public awareness campaigns,” cites a few meaningless slogans no one cares about, and demands that male feminists “go further.” The author excoriates… someone… Justin Timberlake? for limiting their goals to “men… asked simply not to buy people, physically abuse people, or rape,” but if a social campaign doesn’t have specific, tangible goals, then what is it’s purpose? What exactly does “going further” mean?
Judging from the nonsense words coloring this piece, the author likely intends for these public awareness campaigns to adopt the cant of Foucault, Dworkin or whomever the ‘gender-theory’ flavor of the minute happens to be. Perhaps in time, with enough support from the activist community, the author will finally succeed in convincing Justin Timberlake to hold up a sign saying something like, “Subvert the dialectic of the hetero-normative signifier.” What, exactly, this will do to help victims of physical abuse, human trafficking, or rape is unclear but the author will no doubt have convinced himself that he “made a difference.”
We’re at the point in this “movement” where “masculinity” is treated a bad thing? Tell me, how is it fair to ask men to stop being “masculine” when women are allowed or even encouraged to be feminine? Isn’t that what the whole feminist movement is, anyway? Whether a woman likes dresses or cargo shorts, or whether she’s a housewife or businesswoman, they should be celebrated because they’re choosing to do what makes them comfortable and happy? But oh wait, now it’s a crime if a man is physically strong, has a protective personality, high sex drive, is assertive, or anything traditionally masculine? BULL.SHIT.
Feminism has never been about encouraging femininity. Feminists targeted messages of empowerment and self worth because women were (or should I say are) treated as second class citizens and are told that they are inferior to men. Feminists said that women are strong, support many others around them and are equal to men.
Feminism has never been about encouraging gender roles, not femininity for women nor masculinity for men.
“. Feminists said that women are strong, support many others around them and are equal to men….”
Except that feminism claims that throughout history women were weak, stupid, inept, pathetic, objects who could not even negotiate and define their own gender roles and gender identity – despite the fact that women have always been the primary caregivers (teaching boys and girls what it means to be boys and girls) and women have always selected a mate from a range of willing male suitors (thus helping to define what a ‘real man’ is).
Feminism is fundamentally based on the premise that women are inferior to men.
And as a result NOTHING belittles, insults, dehumanises, objectifies and strips women of agency more than feminist theory.
Hey butterflyvoices, I have never heard an angry butterfly before ;)
Anyways, to your point: First off, feminism is not about encouraging women to be feminine. And this “movement were masculinity is treated as a bad thing” is more accurately a movement encouraging people within our society to take a more critical look at how masculinity is constructed and defined and the resultant social impacts. It is important to realize that masculinity, like femininity, is not an inherent trait men, or women, are born with, but is a socially constructed set of behavior norms we are encouraged to adhere to based on our claimed gender identity.
The work that this article and others are doing is related to encouraging people to look within themselves to assess who they are and how they want to present themselves to others, as opposed to blindly conforming to masculine and feminine social expectations. Blind conformity is what leads inherently good people to do bad things to others.
The current point at which the movement is in is one where the movement spends a lot of time complaining about the men who want to help the movement, but without really tossing any answers out there (except for the Bell Jar, who tells men they should all just shut up cuz they’re not helping at all no matter what). This is the first such article I’ve seen written by a man, which makes it a bit more interesting, I guess.
You’re speaking of what’s called “sex positive” feminist. People slap labels so easily which causes confusion. Feminist simply means equality among sexes. Period. I wish it wasn’t a word often associated with feminine (aka women). I’m a feminist and I certainly don’t encourage men to act feminine. But the traditional stereotypes like pink for girls blue for boys, guys have higher sex drives and women like protection from men is the reason equality is a long way away.
Never has an article summed up so perfectly why I don’t care about any of this crap any more. It is impossible to make “feminists” happy.
No. matter. what. you. do. some outrage junkie will find a way to criticize you for being what you, in your heart-of-hearts oppose.
From now on I am going to carry on being what I believe to be a good person and ignore you people.
Is it outrage or problem-solving though? The institution of the “real man” is damaging to boys and is also part of the problem. I don’t see what’s so horrible about pointing out ways to improve these campaigns.
Metaphorically speaking, I would like to take a second and cradle your scrote(metaphorically!). I may have made the mistake at one time of calling myself a feminist in that I want equal rights and fair treatment of women. Oh boy! I would be crucified if I was held up to this ultra-tedious moral compass modern rad-fem’s have.
I get the article, maybe this is just another gross expression of male ownership. In a lot of everyday situations, guys and girls who laud ‘chivalric’ behavior are just engaged in an old-as-dirt mating ritual.
But really, unless I’m serious as the grave and come to the discussion flogging myself saying “I’m sorry I’m sorry”, there’s just no point, it’s my head on a spike.
“Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T. Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to THEIR women, and that would be awful.”
You just used women as property. I agree with much of the article but I think the last sentence should read: ” Men, we are told, shouldn’t hurt women, not because of any intrinsic rights women may have, but because other men might do it to the women important in THEIR lives, and that would be awful.”
The point was that the campaigns use women as property. That was the point of what they said, not the author’s use of women as property but the camapaigns’ use.
That was the point the author was making. That the campaigns use women as property.
I’m pretty sure he actually used that wording on purpose…I took it as being sarcastic and highlighting the patriarchal view of these campaigns.
Try reading the first sentence in your comment again, but read “that would be awful” with an intense level of snark. I think that’s how it was intended to be read. I took it as: these men think it would be awful if their women were raped, but they still think that women can be theirs. Which actually is awful.
That was the point…they used that language to demonstrate the flaws they see with these sorts of campaigns
Not just that other men might do it to women they care about but that men should be benevolent and gracious to not do it. That men are taking a higher road by not inflicting such overt violence on women.
So, I know I’m going to piss people off with what I am about to say. But before I say it, know that I believe in the full equality of all people across the board. Not that that matters, because people will take this however they please based on their position and what best suits them. And I apologize if it seems a bit scattered. There’s so much a want to say and trying to condense it down can be a challenge…
As a white, middle class, average to above average looking, above average intelligent male, I am sick of being the blame for everything and have it put on my shoulders to do something to fix it. Wether it’s sex, race or something else, I am automatically the face of evil responsible for it. You know why these antiquated gender roles still exist? Because they aren’t that ancient. Throughout history, going back a few hundred thousand years to our first days in caves and as nomadic hunters, men have defaulted to the role of protector and provider. It’s just in the last 50 years that the gender roles have begun to change. And though it would be nice, to expect that change to happen over night is idiotic.
Historically men have been the hunters and providers while women stayed at home to raise the family, because in general, men are stronger than women. When we moved into offices that role of provider remained, while women stayed at home to raise the children. Not because it was just decided that would be the case, but it was part of the evolution from the fields to the cubicle. Women joining the workforce was a wonderful part of social evolution but when looking at the human timeline it’s an incredibly short period. Much like people who still believe in religion (personally I think all religion is a load of crap), those historical roles have been passed on from generation to generation and even though they may be total BS, people still believe them because they’ve been ingrained. And while women are very much present in the workforce today, and should get paid the same for doing the same work, women tend to not do the most dangerous jobs, those tend to be left for the men. I never met any female coal miners or oil rig workers and don’t see them lining up and demanding to do that work.
One quick note, I think women like Sheryl Sandberg and the Princeton Mom are both doing women a disservice by telling them what they should or shouldn’t do and how they lead their lives. Sheryl Sandberg is a rare exception in having an incredibly career at an executive, and yet she tells women they can and should have it all, and expects them to all follow in her footsteps, which is an impossibility for 99% of people, men & women. The Princeton Mom is just an idiot trying to tie women to the antiquated ideals of marriage which was really just another form of ownership that turned women into property.
A perfect example of the dichotomy between men and women today is found in dating. As an online dater I’ve met a number of women who brag about how independent they are, how great their jobs are and how they take care of and provide for themselves. But as soon as we go out, it’s expected that, as the man, I pay. That is because it is still ingrained in them. A lot of women still want the traditional guy, the guy who will hold the door, take them to dinner and be a man’s man. Now this is far from all women, I’ve dated women who insisted on paying their own way, but this is far and away a rarity.
One of my problems with anyone who has a gripe with any issue over sex, race, religion or what have you, people only want to be treated as equal when it suits them. As soon as being part of the minority benefits them, that person will be all over it like a fat kid on cake. I’d apologize to fat people for that remark but, as a former fat person how got his life together and lost 100 pounds out of sheer will, screw that.
Now, all that being said, any kind of activity that attempts to make the life of another person seem less valuable than someone else is wrong, regardless of gender, age, race(which is a BS concept, it’s not really race, the only race is human), religion, etc. The truth is we aren’t all equal, if we were our world would look something like what I imagine Hitlers vision of Germany was. We would all look exactly the same and have the exact same abilities. But while we might not actually be equal, would shouldn’t be treated differently because of it and should all be given the same rights and treat others as we expect to be treated.
As people we are constantly evolving, but evolution doesn’t happen all at once, it’s a slow process and to demonize all members of one group for the oppression of another is going to create a backlash that will set that evolution back. You cannot control peoples actions or guilt them into behaving a certain way, the best you can do is attempt to enlighten people enough that they want to change. And little catch phrases like “real men don’t buy women” or “My strength isn’t for hurting” isn’t going to do it, and neither is bitching about the campaign not doing enough. We need to all look within and see where we can contribute and enliven ourselves as well as others. As sad as it is for me to say this though, there will not be true equality in any of our lifetimes.
Hey DD, I am female and I like what you said. I am married, I have a career, my husband stays at home and works on our fixer-upper house, does most of the housework (he laughed at me this weekend for not knowing how to carry the vacuum cleaner). If I were to date, I would want a man to open the door for me, but I will pay my way.
My husband has shown me extensively what it’s like to be a man, how men work, and we have contrasted this with what I have found it is like to be a woman, and how women work. Men and women tend to not be alike. There are always outliers. I know transgendered folks from both directions whom most people have no clue that the person they are dealing with is not a “biological male” or “biological female”. Because really, does it matter? Each of us lives out our lives in our own ways. Nobody should tell my friend who stopped working to raise her son that she’s a loser unless she runs back out into the job market and works full time. Why? So someone else can raise her child? Hells no!
Being a hater doesn’t get anyone anywhere good in their lives, and most people abandon that kind of stupidity after, well, maybe their 30’s. :) Every woman on the planet should be able to be as feminine or masculine as they like, be a homemaker or an executive or artist or President of the USA. Whatever. Same goes for men. I like manly men who enjoy being masculine. Not interested in a sexist pig. The two are really not related. Plenty of not so manly sexist pigs out there (also independent of “race”).
People eventually give up on this stupid crap and just live their lives. It’s a waste of time to respond to every retard out there shouting living your life based on your own choices, convictions and nature somehow makes you either a sexist or a racist or some sort of a slave to sexists and racists.
I look forward to seeing people grow up and actually make positive, healthy contributions to their communities and the world in general.
I would just like to say that this comment from “D D” was about 600% more enlightening than the shit article that brought me here. You hit it on the head, man.
“hundred thousand years to our first days in caves and as nomadic hunters, men have defaulted to the role of protector and provider. It’s just in the last 50 years that the gender roles have begun to change. And though it would be nice, to expect that change to happen over night is idiotic.
Historically men have been the hunters and providers while women stayed at home to raise the family, because in general, men are stronger than women. When we moved into offices that role of provider remained, while women stayed at home to raise the children. Not because it was just decided that would be the case, but it was part of the evolution”
actually if you take a good long look at evolutionary history and the diversity of men and women in the roles of hunter and provider, you’d see that actually “man the hunter, women the gatherer” is very much a constructed WESTERN theory based on very selective evidence to justify pre-existing western gender roles that ignore the fact that 80% of food provision is done by women and that there are several nomadic and indigenous societies in which women hunt, clean, in addition to child rearing… I’d definitely recommend reading Carmill “A View to a Death in the Morning” and Stange “Woman the Hunter”
English is my 3rd language. I apologize in advance.
You’re not wrong but your version of history is not the whole truth either. At times our gender roles have been much more bent than these days, but one thing that affects our way of interpretation is that we live in a world with strong gender stereotypes. For example, three bone tests were needed after Etruscan Prince (with wife and heavy weaponry) founded last year was discovered to be female. The first test already confirmed it, but 3 were needed so we could believe it. After that the archaeologist said that they were symbolizing the husband of the woman. Why? Cos he thought so. There was no proof and there is no proof cos we know almost nothing about Etruscs.
Our way of thinking history and cavemen is affected by our present. Truthfully we don’t know that much about them. Just Mesopotamia and Egypt, and these two early cultures had very different roles for women. Mesopotamia is of course the source for Christian view, which still affects the whole Western world today.
For example, 70’s from the tombs in middle California the archaeologist Frank Hole and Robert Heizer found as many weapons from the male and female tombs. They wrote down that the weapons had been made by men of the society. Why? Because they thought so.
Archaeologist Dean Snow has found out that many paintings in the caves (the ones showing the hunt) are done by females. We just presume that they are done by men cos women were back in the caves taking care of the children, right?
I won’t even start with Viking cultures or Finno-Ugric tribes before Christianity :)
Besides not all cultures even divided genders in to just men and women.
If you’re interested, I recommend you to read/watch something more of the subject by Judith Weingarten. History is more interesting that we give it credit ;) This is just a side note to your text.
Nice comment….long, but nice. Good for you for feeling the pressures of a straight, white cis-gendered male!! The problem isnt you, it’s those like you who attempt to control thought and progress with money and power. You don’t seem to be a powerful, self-interested, wealthy asshole.
As some others have stated, your version of history is flawed. Women actually brought in a majority of the food in the forms of fruit, veggies,grains, and small animals while men brought in one large kill every so often. Additionally, in many aboriginal tribes, men and women had almost equal roles, but because men were often gone hunting, women had to do more child rearing (not because they were necessarily more sutied to it), but men still did what they could when they were around. Unfortunately, when Europeans started colonizing, they imposed their ideas of women and children being objects and what not, and that’s why we have what we have today.
As a non-straight cis girl, I get REALLY EXCITED when guys hold up signs like “my strength isn’t for hurting.” Not because the game’s over and we can all go home, but because it’s a signal that they’re much more likely than the average man to listen to my perspective and to understand the steps that come after admitting to your privilege.
I think your semantic arguments are pretty specious. How do you get from “real men don’t rape” to “this woman doesn’t have real rights, and I’m only going to avoid raping her due to a sense of personal vanity and continued ownership”? It’s true that without a continuing discussion, without taking the next step after “real men don’t rape” or what have you, there’s still a lot of room for toxic, patriarchal ideas to flourish. But as it is, this article seems to imply that there is something intrinsically wrong with the phrasing of “my strength isn’t for hurting,” and I don’t see you doing the work to justify that perspective.
High fives! A lot of men out there really want to help and really want to make things better, but too often they’re told that they’re not really helping, and are told to shut up and they aren’t welcome into the discussion of how they can actually make things right.
What “freedoms” are women denied?
Look into the sex trafficking industry. Or the gender imbalance in governments, corporations, and other power-holding positions. Or the rapes, abuses, and discriminations that happen on a daily basis. Women are still denied in several countries the right to vote. In Yemen, a women doesn’t legally count as a full person, and can’t leave the house without a man’s permission.
What was that about women not being denied freedom?
“..Look into the sex trafficking industry..”
Sex trafficking is against the law. Nobody condones it.
“..Or the gender imbalance in governments, corporations, and other power-holding positions…”
More women vote than men. FACT: women tend to vote for men to be in political positions than women. How is this men’s fault?
Why do non equal numbers of men and women equate to inequality?
There are more men working in oil rigs than women – is this inequality too? Should we FORCE women to work on oil rigs and FORCE men to take other jobs to make way for them?
How is FORCING people to do stuff ‘equality’?
There are more men in ‘top jobs’ earning loads of money because in general WOMEN value men who have money and high status jobs. SO if a man wants to attract a wife he knows he has to have a decent high paying career.
It’s the same reason why women are motivated to work so hard on their appearance. They know men are attracted to women with a youthful, fertile, healthy appearance.
To say some men are privileged because they’ve worked their asses off to get to the top of their careers and earn lot of money is the same as saying some women are privileged because they’ve worked their asses off to become the most attractive women in their age group.
Trying to to the top of a career is hard work and requires sacrifices – and can be very unhealthy (stressful lifestyle, heart attacks etc) ……. the same is true of trying to become the most attractive in your age group (botched surgery, unhealthy diets, bulimia etc).
If a woman works her ass off to look 40 when she’s actually 55 we all agree she deserves the compliments she receives (even if we don’t think all the effort was worth it).
But when a man works his ass off to become the CEO of some corporation feminists won’t admit he deserves that position. They want the government to force some woman into that position instead, so she doesn’t have to do the same amount of work to get there.
That’s totally unfair and totally immoral.
“…Or the rapes, abuses, and discriminations that happen on a daily basis. …”
Men are discriminated against too remember. And men are raped and abused too. You seem to have conveniently forgotten this. Domestic abuse victims are split about 50/50 between men and women. The same is true of rape. Some studies now claim more men are raped in the US than women. Men are many more times likely to be victims of physical assault in public. In your eyes male victims don’t seem to exist, because feminism has trained you to think that only women can be victims. Men are, after all, the ‘privileged’ sex…..
“..Women are still denied in several countries the right to vote. In Yemen, a women doesn’t legally count as a full person, and can’t leave the house without a man’s permission…”
Then campaign for women’s rights in Yemen. But DON’T claim women don’t have equal rights in the west unless you have FACTS to back up your claim.
JTC asked a simple question. “What “freedoms” are women denied?” (we can assume in the west)
You have not provided any examples yet. How can you be a feminist if you cant even make a list of freedoms which women are denied?! Feminism is based on the idea of inequality, and yet you can;t actually name any inequalities!
Do you see what a ridiculous (and hateful and destructive) ideology feminism is now?
Do you want to see just how hateful feminism is? … try swapping ‘men’ for ‘blacks’ and swapping ‘women’ for ‘whites’.
Now feminism says that ‘blacks’ are basically savages and brutes who are genetically inclined towards rape and violence, and they are a threat to ‘whites’ and to civilised society as a whole.
Feminists can’t actually name specific examples of oppression, rape or savagery by ‘blacks’ which isn’t also committed just as often by ‘whites’ …… but feminists maintain that ‘blacks’ really are a very real ‘threat’ to civilised society.
And feminists claim that ‘whites’ should be granted special rights and privileges – such as ‘white only’ shortlists for certain jobs – because we don’t want ‘blacks’ running everything do we!
That is feminism in a nutshell. Pure hate and persecution, justified by an extremely dubious ‘threat narrative’ …… as hate and persecution always are.
Spinning for Difficulty – are you by chance some sort of white supremacist bigot politician?? Just wondering, cause all of your replies would certainly lead me to believe so….perhaps tea party? It’s really hard for me to believe that people like you actually exists out there in the world – with such deeply rooted sense of sexism. I’d love to try to actually respond to your post – line by line to dismantle and highlight the painful amount of sexist things you have now said – but that would take a long time – and seems that your roots are deep enough that you are probably not going to change a thing. you will continue to rally around your patriarchal mindset thinking feminism is the “devil” because they dare to stand up and speak out against oppression. How mean of those ‘feminists’…..
– “is it inequality that more men work on oil rigs?”
YES. Not that women should be forced to do so – but because any time there is a dominant amount of men (the historical oppressors) women don’t usually just flock to the scene to get jobs where they will be faced with sexism moment after moment. Large groups of men does not equal safety – it is no easy feat to just go and get a job knowing you will be oppressed. You wouldn’t know that, because you are clearly a cisgender male.
– “Now feminism says that ‘blacks’ are basically savages and brutes who are genetically inclined towards rape and violence, and they are a threat to ‘whites’ and to civilised society as a whole”
As for this comment, I mean, really???. When did “feminism” as a whole come out with this official statement? I must have missed that. Maybe you heard a racist person who also happened to be a women say some of this – and being the clearly sexist person you are assumed that is the official stance of feminism. You just started spitting out triggering things to try and make feminism seem more and more the devil.
– “That is feminism in a nutshell. Pure hate and persecution, justified by an extremely dubious ‘threat narrative’ …… as hate and persecution always are.”
Wow. thanks cisdude for summing up feminism in a nutshell! What an educated opinion you have. I’m glad we have yet another male who thinks they can educate the world on feminism…. truly unbelievable.
If you can’t actually look around and validate the sexist reality that women are facing then you are clearly contributing to the continued existence of sexism. Thus not making you the best person to try and educate ANYBODY on what feminism is or is not. Try listening. Try reading. Try actually talking to a few female assigned people and listening to their experience without belittling or invalidating them. Just try
More importantly, what freedoms are women granted? The right to vote?
Reblogged this on The Professional Page of Nicolas Townes and commented:
We have come far, but further we must go.
Thank you. I hadn’t read anything idiotic today. Now my quota is filled.
I laughed when I found out the author is male
I laughed when I read all these dismissive and ad hominem posts by some people who seem too insecure about their gender to add anything constructive to the conversation.
[there are plenty of other comments critical of this post that are at least constructive efforts at furthering the dialogue]
Better luck next time!
haha! agree ozob
Real men don’t take their directions about what to do from others.
REAL MEN ARE PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS MALE
I’ve been seeing this making the rounds, and I’m frustrated. We are going to sit here and complain that these men are trying to use their star power to end sex slavery and abuse. There are countries that still consider a Man to be the only person worth anything. When these men sell their daughters, no one stops them. So if someone is trying to stop the abuse why get pissed because of the wording? This maybe the thing that stops someone from selling their child. People need to chill. I’m a woman and a survivor of 10 years of childhood sexual assault. Instead of dragging these people down look at the good they’re trying to accomplish. If you don’t like it, do it differently. You’ll reach different people, and that’s the point.
Every year more than 100,000 American children become sex slaves. A sad fact shown in the statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division- Child Exploitation and Obcenity Section. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore have done more than just start a foundation and put their names on it. They have taken action by speaking to United Nation leaders, teaming up with California law enforcement, visiting the White House for a Congressional Briefing on Domestic Sex Trafficking of Children and launching campaigns to raise awareness about a devastating issue that is taking place abroad and in America’s back yard.
During the June 2010 premiere of Killers, a movie starring Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl, Kutcher was seen on the red carpet holding a sign that read, “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls”. The sign was a preview of DNA’s social media campaign launch of “Real Men” which would come in September.
The “Real Men” campaign focuses on ending the demand for child exploitation and child pornography on several fronts. The “Real Men” campaign seeks to prevent people from consuming the material. Ashton Kutcher points out in the press release for the campaign, “If we can dissuade even one person from consuming this material, or from buying or selling a child, it is worth it.”
Over 76% of transactions for sex with underage girls happens on the internet. So DNA teamed up with tech guru’s like Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Palantir, Mocana, Square, Attributor, and Blekko to come up with technical solutions to the problems of child sex slavery and human trafficking.
The “Real Men” campaign will also use high-profile celebrities to spread the word about the existence of child sex slavery in the United States.
Just make a new campaign “Don’t be a Dick.” That will then cover all topics, races, ethnicities, religions, orientations, genders, and classes doing stupid shit to one another.
Actually, better yet “Don’t do stupid shit” would cover everrthing!
So much this. “Common to all these messages is that men CAN rape, hurt, buy women, catcall or what-have-you, but they SHOULDN’T” was my personal favourite. At no point does the person doing any of that think, this is a pretty legitimate business deal, or I feel I need to put rape on my to-do list, no one will mind. It’s not even a marginally new topic, language does not beget misogyny, misogynists use misogynistic language. Those people are just dicks they don’t represent the whole.
Also I can’t be bothered finding who else said it here, but “real men” is a moronic term for a feminist to use. Real men/women are people that are biologically men/women. That’s the only way you can use that term. Even then transgender issues come into play as to which word determines the gender, and which the biological. Just chill. Don’t be a dick. Love each other. Simple. People that don’t are idiots. I am intolerant of intolerance and in this instance I’m not too bothered.
No no no, you can’t use “Dont’ be a Dick” — because it’ll mean: Don’t be a male body part. *headdesk*
Have you ever heard of a “figure of speech”?
phrases like “Real Men…”
are both meaningless and insulting. They do the same thing to men, which you are trying to overcome for women.
If there was ever proof that feminism is a industry of outrage, this is it. Suddenly, the mere concept of masculinity is inherently offensive. Which is plainly absurd even by your own logic, as how can a “transgender”, “this-gender” “that-gender”, spectrum exist, without this conceptual dichotomy of masculine and feminine.
If a man that comes out and talks against prostitution (which I’m not sure is a strictly “feminist” issue to begin with, as there are plenty of women for legalised prostitution, the leader of Australia’s pro-sex worker political party is in fact a woman, and a feminist), and still he becomes a target for infinite pendanticism (sic). This kind of “no matter what you do, we’ll have something to complain about” mindset is self-defeating, because for a lot of people, myself included, it just makes me not want to bother to begin with. Why try and appease people who are constantly shifting the goal posts, and whose primary goal seems to be conflict and not resolution. Articles like this are the reason many women say “I’m not a feminist”, because being put in the same camp with some of you is embarrassing.
Agreed sir, well put. There are so many human rights issues in the world today, complaining that the people who are trying to work for a better more equal world aren’t doing it for the right reasons is ludicrous. This kind of thinking in my experience seems to rise out of the isolation of ivory tower academia, where people are out of touch with the grim realities of a brutal existence. These equality campaigns are a vast departure from millenia of rape, pillage and might makes right. I don’t really care what someone’s motivation is for stopping exploitation and violence against women just like I don’t care why Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. The point is it needed to happen and people stepped up for a variety of reasons; personal, political, religious, etcétera. Whatever the reasons so long as it serves the cause of basic human rights for all people it doesn’t really matter.
Wow…. Your comment is rather defeating. This whole mentality of “why do anything if you’re just going to keep asking for more” is a rather pathetic excuse to maintain patriarchy. It’s like saying “oh, but it’s too haaaard…. I’ll just stay the way I am and blame the oppressed cause that’s easier.” If a male assigned author writing about not using language that maintains a sense of superiority is “too much” work to do, that’s just sad…. Cause that’s not even a sliver of the amount of work male assigned people need to be doing in order to end oppressive behavior – and change a whole normalization of rape. I highly encourage you – as a cisgender male myself, to look further into feminist philosophy and politics. Please.
The fact that you’ve used the term “cisgender” – a manufactured term used for the purposes of an agenda – says far more than words ever could.
I’m a loud and proud feminist, and I don’t like this shit either. I read it as a case of sad lateral violence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_violence)
Your phrase “feminism is an industry of outrage” is a powerful one. Surely you can see how this trivializes and generalizes all feminist struggles to equality though?
If this makes you just “not want to bother to begin with”, it seems like maybe you don’t understand, or really care, about these kinds of goals to begin with. (I said “seems like”, because I don’t mean to make a judgement on your character based on one little internet comment, just letting you know how you come off.)
When it comes to social justice, the goal posts ARE always shifting. Fighting the status quo isn’t popular, and it isn’t easy. What we as activists can do is find the things we agree on and support each other in that, and try our best to overlook the parts we disagree on. Socialists need solidarity if we ever want to succeed, especially politically.
I would never waste my precious time writing a piece denouncing someone trying to be a feminist– I’m way too busy denouncing the assholes! I might write a compassionate word of advice to them though on how I think they could do it better. However, I appreciate that even though articles like this make me cringe, this is someone else’s way of doing feminism, and I respect them for trying. I call this a “diversity of tactics”. I support anybody choosing to do this sometimes crazy difficult work I’m doing, even if they choose to go about it in a different way than I do.
Helps me sleep at night. ;)
Solidarity worked out pretty well for the Fabian Socialists when it came to the Jews. Nice job kicking off that whole ethnic cleansing thing! :P
And to this we shall add, “REAL WOMEN DON’T SELL THEMSELVES.”
That won’t be allowed. Modern feminism allows that women should be “empowered” to sell their bodies for money, but men should be shamed for providing business for said women, and “marginalizing” them.
Look at the Belle Knox college student porn star story for an example of some of some of this.
All hail the double standard, and the man-hatred for which it stands.
“Man-hatred”… You sound ridiculous. Well, really you sound like an angry male too scared to give up your privilege. That’s what all of this is, almost every post on here from a (and dare I use the “manufactured” term as you call it) – cisgender male, is entry after entry blaming the oppressed for wanting rights. And that looking like male assigned people actually giving up – YES – giving up privilege. Likely you will try to defend or attack me, which will most likely again be you clutching onto your privilege…. Sad.
No, I’m not angry. I’m good.
Anyone who uses the word “cisgender”, however, is way outside the norm and it would be a waste of my time to bother with you.
I’m stable, productive, and healthy. I don’t live in a fantasy world. Thanks, lol.
My understanding is that most women in sexual slavery don’t sell themselves — they have pimps and traffickers who work very intentionally to break them and create psychological, physical and even drug dependence, which is why human trafficking (~50% sex, 50% labor) is such a major issue today as a form of modern slavery.
Can you imagine having to give blowjobs every 15 minutes just to earn a sandwich?
So I urge a little compassion for people suffering and surviving through these atrocities, which exist very close to home, and accountability for the peoples and systems who created this situations: the sex service users, the pimps, the traffickers, and the underlying circumstances around economic and gender inequality.
Both men and women have issues! Women face rape, abuse, sexual slavery, lower working wages (although this is from profession choice). men face higher levels of suicides, more intense social isolation after a break up, shorter life spans, higher risk of dying on the job or being hurt, social constriction in regards to what they can say to women without fear or punishment, much higher level of homelessness and if you are a minority male a lower working wage then white women and men…… what i am saying is that we all have issues lets not fight about them but instead work together!
Is it really such a bad thing for men to act masculine, if that’s the way they choose to live their life? Being a “real man” does not always have to equate itself to female oppression. For a lot of men, such as myself, I choose masculinity because for me, it’s a self-motivator. It gives me the drive to be the best man I can be, to act when there are problems until I find a solution, rather than sit around complaining and giving up. The lifestyle comes with roughhousing and insulting other guys who live the same, all by means of friendly competition. This has nothing to do with female dominance.
When you live a fulfilling life under the mantra of “be a man,” phrases such as “real men don’t buy girls” (or my own favorite, “rape is for men with no game”) will be the most effective. Maybe to a different group of people it sounds insensitive or, in your mind, still flattering the male as the “protector,” but that’s how your typical cisgendered hetero male (which I’ll abbreviate “CGHM”) will understand and, better yet, join the cause. In many ways CGHM has a culture of it’s own, and the message needs to be translated in order for it to truly be effective to a new group of people. And in the case of the group in question, it’s monumental for feminists to have growing privileged male/CGHM support.
But are you more concerned with forcing CGHM to stop living the life they want? Sounds awfully repressive if you ask me, and I can’t help but think perhaps that’s what you want. You don’t seem to be satisfied unless CGHM suffer as much as LGBTQ and repressed women. But you need to understand, the bar for those in privilege is always going to be set lower, since there’s no group oppressing them directly in which they need to fight against. You’re comparing two different walks of life, expecting them to be the same.
By factoring out “virtuous real men,” you are left with a limited definition of who can be included as “humans.” It makes me think, “why would I fight for a world in where the ideal image I picture myself as is denied?” Anyone who is offended or uncomfortable with the CGHM lifestyle should avoid being around them (Just like if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one), but they should still be allowed to live that life without feminists yelling at them for not doing enough for THEIR cause. Tolerance is a two-way street.
This was a take-off on that campaign…not sure if the link will work here:
The comments are interesting there.
I appreciate this article, however the author needs to do some serious research on a concept called “deprogramming”
Much like waning a drug addict, you cannot except males indoctrinated in to a patriarchal society to change over night, or be expected to instantly accept social norms they are not used to (regardless of how “right” these social norms are). The fact is men CAN (right now) pretty easily buy girls, hurt girls, etc, etc without much fear of repercussion. Does that make it right? No. However if you put in enough men’s minds that it is wrong, through a concept they understand, the next generation will be taught from birth that it is wrong, and suddenly men cannot do these things because it is no longer a societal norm.
Most masculine men do not go around hurting women, raping them, and beating them up. 99% of men would risk their own safety to stop another male from hurting women, a child, or anyone else. The person most likely to kill a child is the child’s mother. How would you feel if people started accusing all women of being child killers? Even though a mother is the most likely to kill their child statistically, the VAST MAJORITY of mothers do not kill their kids. The truth is regardless of the politically correct nonsense that feminists spew about patriarchy and masculine males; masculine males are the protectors of all societies, all nations, all cities, all towns, all people. For every single act of violence committed by men, there have been other men to defend the weak from that violence. It is in our nature to protect others, even people we don’t even know. Men are especially protective of women, because regardless of what you want to believe, men in general have a giant physical advantage over women. Some women might be stronger than some men, but most men are stronger than most women, and some men are stronger than most men and ALL WOMEN. If men did not protect women, most women would be raped on a regular basis by predatory males. Aside from women with advanced self defense combat training and carry weapons, women depend on masculine males to protect them.
Feminists love to demonize the very people who protect their right to spew their bullshit in the first place. But no matter how loud they scream, they will never be strong enough to become the default protectors of civilization.
Oh my….I….I hardly know how to reply to such sexist jargon as this. Do you hear yourself??? I mean really. “If men did not protect women, most women would be raped on a regular basis” – WTF?! Please do the world a favor and stop considering yourself some sort of hero to women in the world. “Feminists love to demonize the very people who protect their right to spew their” blah blah blah – wake the hell up! Seriously, you are like 5 centuries behind. I pray that there are no female assigned people in your life. So you don’t go around pretending like you are their f*cking savior. It is because of men like YOU – who are terrified of feminists, let alone the idea of actually becoming one – that people are raped in the world. If you really want to “protect” women, educate yourself. Become an ally. Stop pretending like you know what’s best or what’s what when it comes to sexism. And listen. Please!!!
Masculinity and maleness isn’t the problem. It’s a power struggle between those with overt power and those with covert power. If women no longer wanted the protection of men they could cast it off. The problem is that you want shook benefits and no cost.
I don’t mean to comment off topic, but since the author wrote “cis-gendered” with a hyphen and an “ed” on the end, seemingly everyone in the comments is following suit. If you wouldn’t write “trans-gendered” (looks silly, right?) than “cis-gendered” isn’t right either. It’s cisgender; a counterpart to transgender. I could breakdown all that the hyphen and “ed” are doing to the adjective, but basically, if you write “transgender” (and not trans-gendered, transgendered, trans-gender, trans gender) you should align the use of the terms and write cisgender. or just use “cis”! The author used “trans”, so “cis” would be a good route…
I had a different perspective on this. I thought what the picture was trying to say was that people who buy girls (usually for the purpose of sex) have this misguided notion that they are being very manly and “cool” because they had sex. That is not classified as manly, instead it’s just plain wrong. By buying women you are not being a “real man” because that is in no way a manly thing to do hence the statement “real men don’t buy girls”
Basically, buying girls doesn’t make you manly contrary to what you may believe.
Right, and I think that resonates with some people, which is great. It’s a starting point toward necessary change, like another poster mentioned, “diversity of tactics.” This message isn’t for seasoned feminists — it’s targeted at mainstream US Masculinity, where there is an open question about what it means to “be a real man.”
And if this brings up discussions about masculinity in general amongst mainstream folks, I think that’s a win.
Reblogged this on It's Bader.
Patriarchy societies are rooted in our religions. Change needs to happen at root cause and women need to embark on behaviors of empowerment and not feed the patriarchal mindset.
I think the most basics of feminism has to be to elimiate some of the most obvious but rarely addresses…..the social conditioning of women to take the man’s last name in marriage…”for the family”! A move towards women recognizing their independent self and not the labelled “property” of men would be a hugh step in feminism!
I’ve seen this debate play out between feminists, e.g, with work as well. Older feminists say, “Don’t stay home and raise the kids! We fought so you could go out into the working world!” But some women just don’t want to do that — they want to be stay-at-home moms. I think feminists fought for women to have the CHOICE, and for men to have the CHOICE, about the roles that they play in their relationships and in society. Some women will be breadwinners, and awesome breadwinners at that. Some men will be stay-at-home dads, and awesome stay-at-home dads.
I see the last names issue in the same way: women have the legal CHOICE to keep their last name, hyphenate it or take the man’s last name. To the extent that women (and men) understand and appreciate that choice, it doesn’t matter which choice they make.
thank you for volunteering with canimiz sokakta : )
Some folks won’t be happy till men quite bringing women flowers. Deconstruction of patriarchy is apparently synonymous with eliminating every aspect of the male gender role.
Bringing flowers is an aspect of the ‘male gender role’? Wtf.
Anyway, yes, deconstruction of the patriarchy is indeed synonymous with that, because assigning gender roles is reductive and stupid. I’m not going to perform certain rigid functions just because I’m a man. Why the hell should I? Because some idiots can’t conceive of a world that isn’t structured around a highly artificial dichotomy?
If you support the deconstruction of the patriarchy and the elimination of male gender roles, why do you identify and align yourself with men? It’s totally not a requirement, and being something else is so much less oppressive.
Flowers are representative of a female body part and that custom arose depicting males desire for that body part. Not really romance driven in the Arthurian sense but sexual act driven.
I hope to live in a world where men don’t buy flowers just because they are men. Flowers are a beautiful gift. My son often buys his father flowers. He thinks that nature is beautiful and wants to share some of that joy with his father whom he adores.
I think this resolves the issue nicely.
Thank you, I couldn’t find those words
Glad this was written up. I’d seen pics like this one, with what’s his name being all women-rights, and as usual, the angle struck me as off. It was stupid. What the fuck was this appeal to ‘real men’? People who use that phrase, always strike me as living in some Marlboro Cowboy world where all the post-puberty males have mustaches and all the younger boys keep pretending they have one. It’s inane, and this article helps explain just how misguided it is. Thanks ;)
How is it misguided to make a PSA in which the message for its intended audience, that even the author admits, is effective?
Hmmm. The photo seems to be at once a plea from the guy to get laid by somebody who doesn’t want material stuff in return, and a condemnation of the sex worker trade. I recently saw a bumper sticker which said be nice to sex workers. The latter seems a kinder sentiment and is NOT gender specific.
So, in what ways should these movements be going farther? (Asked not to be argumentative, but because I’m curious.) The problem is that these movements stop after patting themselves on the back for being good human beings. For the next step, do they try to sanction against behaviors oppressive to women? How do they do this?
Or, maybe, every group of people needs to talk among itself, in its own language, however annoying others may find their dialogue. Progress is progress and being pissed off at people for not being good enough all the time, is the best way to be an obstacle.
Two things about this piece stood out to me: 1. The assertion that men who don’t abuse their privilege shouldn’t be applauded as feminists unless they join in the struggle to correct inequalities. 2. The notion that men shouldn’t be encouraged to act as virtuous “real men” but humans.
Re 1. I hadn’t seen this distinction made so clearly before. And it seems like an important one to keep in mind while celebrating alternative expressions of masculinity.
Re 2. Not sure if I should read this as “virtuous but gender-role-free humans” or “imperfect, self-interested humans,” but it touches on something I’ve come across a lot in discussions of men in feminism. Often, men are told that they should participate in feminism because it is the right thing to do, but that seems a dangerous argument to me. After all, one of the main messages of feminism is that women can be unapologetically self-interested (not to be confused with selfish), and rejecting the appeals to moral authorities that say otherwise. In my humble and admittedly hetero-cis-dude opinion it’s both OK and beneficial for men to participate in feminism out of our own self-interest. The important difference that I see is between men participating in feminism out of concern for “their women” and participating in feminism because a more equitable society benefits us directly (by freeing *us* from traditional gender roles, by removing barriers to scientific innovation, by strengthening our communities through lower rates of domestic violence and unintended pregnancy, by improving our sex lives, etc.)
Your post reminded me of this framework, whcih I’ve found useful and you might be interested in:
I think it’s true that these types of ads could go further, and maybe the point is that they encourage their audience to do just that. The people most receptive to this brand of feminism are cis-gendered heterosexual men, the sort of person who might see it shared by a friend or on a message board and understand it/identify with it right away without having to do much ‘work’ or internet digging to understand the intent. Sort of like some of the signs from Duke’s “You Don’t Say” campaign- simple, straight forward, and hopefully thought-provoking. I don’t think these ads are telling women or LGBTQ people anything they don’t already know, but I don’t think they’re meant to.
I think men should just stop being idiots
It might not be perfect, but at least its a step in the right direction.
“the traditional opponents of women’s liberation – i.e., cis-gendered heterosexual men”
We choose neither our gender nor our sexual orientation. You’ve labeled people who were born a certain way as your enemy. Not only are you repeating, against men, the same discrimination which has been used against women in the past (and of all people who should recognize discrimination and avoid repeating it !), you also alienate potential allies.
If that alienates you, you were never an ally.
YES. I am so sick of hearing that strident feminism and its practitioners are ‘alienating allies’. If something as simple as a challenging idea can turn you away from a system that seeks to deliver liberation and equality to women, then you were looking for an excuse to walk away. These fair-weather ‘allies’ need to stop reading every uncomfortable comment as a direct attack on them, as if the most offensive issue in any feminist discussion is the one which makes a man feel bad.
Ditto white people in conversations about race.
If that alienates you, you were never an ally? WHAT? Seriously, what world are you people living in?
Feminism has achieved glorious things and swung the pendulum to the other side. My mother, a true feminist, raised me to believe that men and women are simply humans, born equal. In fact, every human is this way… nobody deserves anything more than another. But that is NOT how “modern feminism” currently see’s things. Women deserve more and more, and it must come at the expense of men. That US vs THEM dynamic ALIENATES people (both men AND women). How did we get here? Where the overarching feminist message is “men should be ashamed of themselves… unless you do things OUR way.” Simple: every movement has leaders. Leaders who have a financial interest as well as position of power they don’t want to lose. The Feminist System is a living breathing entity that does not want to die. It uses fear, shame, and the exact tactics it so despises to stay in power and relevance. Worst of all, it is no longer based in reality, but nonsense (by in large).
Where I live, women make MORE than men do. A woman can call the police and say “I am afraid of this man.” And the police will arrive and arrest the man. His constitutional rights will be violated simply based on her “fear”. This is how far things have gone. This is the reality.
For example: Women choose careers that appeal to them, but since they don’t pay as well, this is evidence of “patriarchy”/wage difference?
Feminism is pretty simple to understand: women are MORE EQUAL than men. They deserve more, plain and simple, because they were subjected to discrimination, you will be told. Since when did two wrongs make a right?
Now, I understand that this post will raised the hackles of many of you! The truth has that effect on people sometimes.
Besides, what is true is true regardless of your opinion about it. For example, men have a penis and women a vagina. The simple act of sex requires a man to be, well, a man. You can run your mouth (and your fingers across the keyboard) all you want but that fact will not be altered.
I think it is a good point. A “potential ally” is not an ally yet. And the bit quoted could be alienating to someone not yet committed as an ally.
Making this about you proves you were never going to be my ally in the first place.
And this is the very idiocy that alienates allies. An attitude and false logic of “It’s either accept everything I say or you’re an oppressor.” If you’re unwilling to treat allies as people and respect what they have to say, you were never interested in making allies in the first place and are no better than the people who are your oppressors.
“Traditional opponents” isn’t making an enemy of anyone. It’s a factual claim that you can either agree with or dispute, but it’s not making any claims about all people of a particular gender and sexual orientation. If I said that the traditional opponents of France is Germany, I’m saying that there is a long tradition of France and Germany being enemies (The world wars; Seven Years’ War, assuming Germany is equated with Prussia; and the Revolutionary Wars etc.), I’m not saying that Germany is the natural enemy of France, or that Germany has always and will always be the enemy of France.
Well said Solario.
Not really. Your analogy neglects that nations (genders in our case) are made of diverse people within that larger category, meaning what the nation does is not the square blame of its people – it’s the square blame of it’s government, a body within the whole. That analogy contains the same moronic attitude behind people thinking everyone from Germany since after WWII is and was a Nazi. In other words, it’s a maladaptive over-generalization that serves nothing but your own biases behind outdated “us vs. them” methodology. Simply, that oppressors have mostly been “cis gendered” males does not imply that “cis gendered” males are oppressors. The critical language used should reflect that and accurately identify rather than lazily relying on its audience to “get it.”
Custos — that’s one way to interpret the comment, and I think it fails to assume good faith in the author by assuming perhaps the worst possible intention in meaning.
I would dispute the original statement, not because I find it offensive, but because I find it innaccurate. Plenty of people — of any gender, women included, have done the dirty work of patriarchy to perpetuate inequality. It’s just that men typically have been conspicuously absent from efforts to remediate the issue.
Saying that one group constitute ‘the traditional opponents’ isn’t labelling them as your enemy or discriminating against them.
I’m a cis-gendered heterosexual man, but because I’m not also a complete fucking spanner with a chip on his shoulder, I did NOT take that sentence as in any way prejudging me or discriminating against me.
We do indeed choose our gender – we don’t choose our sex – but “we” choose our gender. Mostly society chooses it for us as we get conditioned day after day as to what male or female is. If that’s a foreign concept – just think for a minute about how often it is reinforced what you’re supposed to do as a man??
And no no no…. It is impossible to “repeat the same discrimination against women” onto men. This is important to understand – even if all women unified together to try and be as “sexist” as possible – it’s not the same. Because we’ve lived in a patriarchal world for thousands of years….. Thousands. Sexism is written into the fabric of most societies around the world. Women and transgender people asking to dismantle this long history of oppression is NOT alienating allies. It is them trying to give voice to the oppressed – and asking and praying that the male assigned people finally join the fight.
It’s a reflection of the general idea that there are certain characteristics that are ‘male’, and certain ‘female’. I suppose most men find this reassuring in some way, and the sorts of campaigns and messages you mention seek to encourage men to focus on the positive ‘male characteristics’ and to repress the negative ones.
Basically, it’s a reflection of heteronormativity, something none of us escape because it’s so pervasive in our society. So, as long as it is so pervasive, these sorts of messages fill a valuable role (reaching those men who are still mired in their normative gender role, to whatever extent – and the more mired, the more useful it is in reaching them). I agree that, at the same time, we need to break down normative gender roles, and the breaking down of these has so far focussed far more on women than on men. This is reasonable up to a point, as normative gender roles are more damaging for women than for men, but we’re all constrained by them in the same way. Even if we were free of homophobia (which we aren’t, obviously), the idea that certain characteristics will cause a man to be seen as homosexual when they aren’t will make them uncomfortable for straight men, simply because people would rather people didn’t make incorrect assumptions about them (at least, I prefer people not to make incorrect assumptions about me, even if those assumptions are to my benefit).
So why are motoring magazines in “men’s lifestyle”, and craft magazines (like sewing, cardmaking, embroidery, knitting) in “women’s lifestyle” sections? Obviously, because of these normative gender roles. And presentations like that keep on reinforcing those roles. Gender normativity has reduced in the last 50-100 years, but it’s still here in a big way. Every child raised to challenge them helps, but it’s the continuous social reinforcement of them that is the big problem, and that’s the downside of campaigns using the techniques you highlight – they are part of that reinforcement. I just wouldn’t make them the first bit of reinforcement we challenge, as right now they probably do more good than harm.
It isn’t just that most people don’t want others to make incorrect assumptions about them. It is that most people wouldn’t want other to make certain kinds of incorrect assumptions about them. People are offended if they are assumed to be gay when they are not.
It is ofcourse annoying that people make assumptions but it is homophobic when people are offended if when straight are assumed to be gay and sexist when ‘men’ can relate only to cars and other ‘manly’ things.
I agree Priya, it is homophobic to be offended if people think you’re gay when you’re not. I mentioned to a lesbian friend that many people assume I’m gay (never offended) and she asked, “Why, because you’re an intelligent, independent and outspoken woman”? haha I am gay.
It’s probably because you look like a lesbian.
This is a necessary and aware critique; however, I believe this retreat from the political into the ethical (™) -that is, from working to disassemble institutions of domination, to “the personal is the political” of “doing the right thing” is grossly insufficient, and libel to unwittingly enable the same violent sexist institutions that allow rape culture to be American culture. We are barbarians; but that barbarism is political, viz., institutional, as much as a personal battle of misogynist deprogramming.
Deconstruction of patriarchy is apparently synonymous with eliminating every aspect of the male gender role
Agreed. The “attacking the institution of masculinity itself” line is what sticks in my craw. No one can deny cisgender male privilege, but suggesting “masculinity” is the problem while elevating feminism as a superior ideology solves absolutely nothing. What about people that fit cisgender male roles and archetypes of masculinity that are also mature enough to look at women as human beings deserving of equal treatment? Many such people exist.
Reblogged this on The Women in Media Project.
‘masculinity triage’..what is that? There isn’t one kind of masculinity. Working to end violence against women does mean immediate support to survivors and holding perpetrators accountable and preventing violence, but while doing so the people we direct our efforts to (including ourselves) must at the least start cultivating an understanding multiple systems of oppression and somewhere along the work, have to start questioning them. These campaigns not only set the bar for ‘men’ very low but also don’t question the notions of genders (that people have to identify with or be assigned a gender/s). These campaigns also ignore the different kinds of violence people face on a routine level (which gets worse the more marginalized a group is).
Can’t we do both? Doesn’t so much of the social justice work we all do require the immediate awareness-raising (regardless of how surface-level it is…) and the longer-term paradigm shifting. The trick is ensuring that that immediate “triage” doesn’t do more harm than good…
Using terms like real men only says that we should change this particular aspect of accepted masculinity. I doesn’t challenge the fact that there is a section of society (male born people) who are expected to be masculine.
Do you think that asking a question such as, “When did it become okay to buy and sell children?” or
“Are we the kind of society which turns a blind eye to child trafficking?” isn’t effective?
This campaign is targeted to bring awareness and mainly people who are not part to the trafficking trade are going to pay attention to it (not that I would like to use such language even otherwise). Do we want to encourage gender roles, even if they are benevolent kind of gender roles?
I think your observation that these campaigns are a form of “masculinity triage” is spot on. The question becomes, do we privilege efficacy in combating violence agains women over complete deconstruction of patriarchy?
I’d venture it’s for the same reason we generally don’t applaud the large strides in treatment and standard of living of slaves in the United States between 1820 and 1850. Demonstratively conditions improved rather dramatically.
Though, my analogy might be spot on and maybe we just don’t focus enough on the improvements of slavery over time. Rather somehow insisting that the system itself is morally abhorrent rather than looking at the strides made within the system to combat the harm the system causes.
Right… how else would it have gone? Could we have ended slavery in the 1820s without establishing a popular abolitionist movement that achieved those interim victories?
Yeah. We often criticize positions we oppose as being ‘insidious,’ but we fail to note that’s part of why they work. There’s a difference between public campaigns of persuasion and more academic/radical/authentic thinking-out processes for a reason.
Being sneaky isn’t a bad thing. There’s an audience for this message. There’s an audience for a more authentic/complete message. There’s no reason not to use both.
Being straightforward and open and honest about what you really think is a good thing… a lot of the time. But talk is only cheap when you speak without intention. If your intention is to persuade, you need to know your audience. There is an audience for this message.