Friday, December 4, 2009

A post to another blog...

As is traditional when an MRA puts some time into a post at a feminist blog, I'm mirroring a post I made here:

Since I feel that there's a couple good points to be had from the exchange..

Let's see if you agree... (quoted lines are from the OP)

"What I think is great (really, I mean that) is how perfectly this article illustrates how men and women have been stuck in a centuries-old patriarchal system that harms both sexes. From the tone of the article, I’m sure it’s unintentional, but it is there."

What most MRAs object to here is not that there are centuries-old sex-roles, but that they are "patriarchal". This mainly sprouts from a general tendency to regard Patriarchy Theory as rather thinly veiled man-hate "justified" by a made-up history, twisted via the exclusion of the male viewpoint almost entirely. An opinion I happen to share.

"This system tells us that “real men” are expected to act a certain way: tough, macho, strong."

The people I hear using the phrase "real man" are nearly universally both women, and feminists. More on this in a bit...

"When the patriarchal system says that women are the tender caregivers and not men, is it really any wonder why the courts are biased in favor of giving women child custody?"

Actually, back a few years ago, when women were "owned" (you know, The Patriarchy), child custody was nearly universally granted to men, not women (this was because the children were legally considered his property, I know). That alone makes your contention that it's head-patting condescension leading to this imbalance tenuous at the very best. You also conveniently ignore such Feminist inspired (and implemented) gems as "no fault Divorce", the Duluth Model (only men abuse, only women are victims) - and the sorry state of the DV industry as a result - which consistently bombards the public with messages that men are dangerous, paedophiles, and incompetent parents at best. We also talk about "father figures" in children's lives as if they're somehow equal with "father"...when do we say "mother figure"?

ALL of that, and more, factors quite heavily into the Family Court decisions, of that you can be quite sure...

"Both men and women should be allowed to choose for themselves what they want, not have it dictated to them by an oppressive system."

On this, we both most definitely agree. Enthusiastically on my part, and on many others.

We all know there's no putting toothpaste back in the tube, and many of us would NEVER choose that path if given the option. What seems to rub you guys the wrong way is our motivations differ strongly on which changes should take place.

You seem to want men to be either exactly where they are now, or even more feminised. This betrays strong sexism, as a stance, by assuming "female" quite literally equals "superior"...what else can the goal of an ideal be? Feminists may talk of Patriarchy...we talk of Feminism. We don't want to roll back the clock at all. We don't want "helpless" housewives (by and large...we ARE international in scope after all), we want to get rid of the expectations men have placed on them...

If you want to get a better idea of what the MRM is, look at Feminism in the very early 60s. I mean that. To us, you look exactly like a slave owner asking another what the slaves are complaining for, they're fed and sheltered after all.... And no, that is not an exaggeration in most cases.

Which means OUR idea of an "oppressive system" and YOUR idea of an "oppressive system" will differ signifigantly, both in the definition of "oppressive" and the changes in the system desired.

That's the long of it.

The short of it, is we demand literal equal protection under the law, equal rights (including the right to parental self determination you hold so dear), and an end to systemic discrimination against men. That might sound familiar to you since it's nearly identical to early feminist goals, and most of the discrimination in place was put there by feminist ideologues to correct "past injustice" and "promote empowerment".

The results are're ahead. Now it's time to give up the special considerations.

"The machinations of a system don’t have agency- it’s like blaming god for burning down a wooden house after a storm."

That's the "only following orders" approach in reverse. Systems are made up of people. Systems are defined in part by commonality. For example, what makes you a feminist? (It's a rhetorical question, I know you're all completely different from each other). There HAS to be commonalities, or the definition is rendered meaningless.

We have identified many of those commonalities to not only reside in feminist rhetoric, but also in legal text, etc. In my own Province, the "task force" looking into the poor performance of boys in Education BEGAN their working paper with the declaration that the whole proceedings were to be carried out in light of their "commitment to Feminist Principles" (and no, I'm not making that up). Needless to say, the report found that boys were the problem, and more socialization (read: feminisation) was needed to help them change to fit the current system....

But hey, Feminist ideology doesn't oppress men...People do.

"But instead of playing the who is really oppressed or who is really privileged games, it makes tons more sense to be working together to dismantle a system that has institutionalized the notion that women should be the delicate protected and the men the macho protectors."

I find this bit hilarious. I've been around for a long time, on BBS's, then blogs and forums. I've interacted with feminists online for nearly 15 years... Know what?

Until about a year ago, none of you had any time for us. ...Told us that if we had problems as men, then men should go about fixing it...why should women be involved...?

So, we went off and started doing stuff, and getting more effective, and now we get vilified for speaking up for ourselves (as if I didn't know it's because what we're saying doesn't agree with what you THINK we should be fighting against - a perfect example of how Feminism can NEVER be of benefit to men). Strangely, over the years I've not seen a whole lot of Feminists who've done much for men. In fact, given the goals MRAs have, I think we were quite right in being a tad perplexed at why Feminists told us off in the beginning. Now that we understand you better, it's not surprising at all that Feminist posts at our sites consist largely of ad hominem attacks, and an unyielding desire to maintain the status quo.

Hell, we even have a dictionary to classify the various tactics used.

It's the last 4 pages in the first issue of the 'zine I do, called the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics. Getting back to that bit about telling men to be "real men", or calling them "gay", you know, forcing those "rigid gender roles" on men.... Wanna guess what over 90% of the feminists posting are saying?

As MRAs, we believe Feminism has a LOT to answer for. That's something that is central to the MRM, in fact, and many of us define ourselves as "counter-feminists" instead...which implies exactly what it means...once the damage wrought by Feminism on men -and society- is fixed, we're gone. This is a reactionary movement, one that cannot exist with nothing to react too. What you would call a "backlash".

But, if any of you ever actually cared to listen, you might be a little shocked at what men are deciding for themselves.

The posting continues:

All right, I’ll dig in one more time, since you seem sincere…

“Do you honestly reject the historical fact that the people in power, the people controlling the wealth and the land and the laws, were (not all, but almost exclusively) men?”

No, I do not “reject” that fact. What I reject, is some silly idea that ALL men benefitted from this, or that ALL women did not. Women have historically MARRIED the ones in “power”, and thus established their own power base. This still goes on today, although I will admit SOME men have been able to “marry up” like women have been doing for generations.

I also contend, that your ideology does not help the downtrodden, it looks enviously at those in power and demands some for itself. Not very many Feminists even notice men below them in status, let alone assign them importance…I COULD actually say “women” here, but it’s not germaine to the argument.

““Faggot” is another popular one. Fidelbogen suggests the term “collaborationist” for men like me, which equates me not with women but with Nazis, an equally inane and idiotic enterprise.”

Much as you may not like it, Fidelbogen, myself, and many others look at Feminism in EXACTLY the same light as NAZIism. You may believe it’s farfetched, or asinine, or a mischaracterization in the extreme, but I don’t. I fully, 100%, totally view Feminism as an evil ideology, bent on the destruction of men.

And this is an opinion formed over the last 35 years, virtually the entire “lifetime” of second-wave Feminism. The thing you guys continually miss, is that you don’t get to define yourselves as what you see yourselves as any more. WE are defining you now, by what you do, and the results of your actions. We hold you accountable (as a feminist) for the wrongs done by “misguided” Feminists (Glenn can be way TOO nice as far as I’m concerned), and we note with increasing anger your refusal to address or acknowledge men’s issues as valid, and pressing. We also note Feminist refusal to allow men equality in areas they themselves view as sacred cows, and the hypocritical nature of the arguments used to “justify” current sexist practices.

“Perhaps if you’d given her a shred of credit, perhaps if you’d come here without already assuming we were enemies, you would have seen what she meant instead of focusing on what she said”

I came here to give a civil response, and a response as to why MRAs find Feminists so repugnant. If you wanted to bash us without response, then I suggest you simply say so in the post somewhere, and I will refrain from interacting. I get enough bullshit argument and crybaby “What about Raaaayyype” type crap every day, I don’t go looking for more. I simply thought you had a sincere desire to understand why we hate your kind so much. It seemed like a genuine article, but then, one can never be sure.

“We can’t be enemies because you don’t know me. Read what I say. Talk to me. Fuck the feminist movement, fuck the Men’s Rights Movement, if that’s what it takes. But if you come to my blog, remember you’re talking to me.”

Of course I am talking to you. But your self-identification as a Feminist indicates agreement with certain principles…

Here’s the rub, if you really want to get right down to it:

Feminists believe women are systematically disadvantaged, and demand special consideration as reparations for “past wrongs”.

MRAs not only think “past wrongs” should have no bearing on Today, but that Feminist History is a gross distortion of reality, at the very least completely lacking in the male “side” of the story. And that’s a valid criticism. Feminists have “analyzed” women’s past living conditions without making reference to the average man’s life…THAT is the source of many of Feminism’s misconceptions. How exactly can one be sure they are “downtrodden” without once looking at a similar man’s position?

Answer: that wasn’t the point. Patriarchy Theory is 100%, completely about justifying shitty behaviour towards men, and morally justifying their subjugation. That’s it…nothing more. A tool to whip up hate and indignation….not a “Theory” at all.

“What the fuck do you mean by “feminised?” Because that reeks of—no, that is sexist language based on the assumption that one’s gender determines what men and women should and should not be.”

Sexist language my ass…it’s reality. There is a common perception among the “intelligentsia” that holds the Feminine in a superior light. Men as superfluous articles have been flooding the media for years now, and Education at every single level fails boys BECAUSE they are not Feminine enough. Masculinity, and male behaviour, is marginalized and demonized, and in many instances CRIMINALIZED, as a DIRECT result of Feminist thought, and teachings, and -inspired laws.

Feminists are the ones determining outcome and advantages based on sex, not men, or MRAs. Feminists are the sexist assholes, not us.

“I’m glad you went off and started doing stuff yourself, but that’s not why you get vilified. You get vilified because you twist feminism into an ideology of hate and you respond with hate in kind.”

We “twist” nothing. We simply talk about the effects Feminist ideology has had on our lives, and find it to be a detrimental ideology (to put it mildly). What you CONTINUALLY seem to miss, is that very little in life gets to “define” itself. A member of the Aryan Nations, for example, would not describe his ideology as “white supremacy”….no, he/she would more likely describe that ideology as something quite a bit more palatable to the general public. Yet, somehow, we all know the true nature of this movement… How is that exactly??
OH YEAH, it’s because we define them by what they say and do, not by what THEY say they are…

Apply that same principle to yourselves, and you will see why you are viewed in that light.

“Was there ever a time during the posting of that or the reading of any of the subsequent comments when it occurred to you that you were creating an environment that perpetuates the sexism that you claim to abhor?”

I am out to further the rights of MEN, not “eliminate sexism”. My concerns do NOT overlap much with those of women, and I could give a rat’s ass if women lost the right to do a damn thing. In short, I will show women the EXACT SAME regard they have shown men. I have the exact same moral imperative to “safeguard” women as they have shown in “safeguarding” men.

Which is to say, none. And that’s assuming I don’t enthusiastically throw them under the bus for a little personal gain…which is what has happened to men for decades, and women (most DEFINITELY feminists) do not deserve more consideration than that. And the conduct of those confronted with clear evidence that men are being unfairly hamstrung only reinforces my ambivalence towards the welfare of women. I doubt VERY much I am alone in this….

“And, if you’d bother to open your eyes, you’d see that I am a man, and I’m a feminist.”

I’m aware of that. I’m also aware of the many men who have written laws that reduce or remove Constitutional rights from men, and the Judges and Police who act as thugs for the Feminist state. Your genetalia does not earn my distrust (a common problem feminists seem to have, conflating “feminist” with “woman”), your beliefs do.

Feminists have done nothing to help men, a LOT to hurt men (openly declaring awareness of this fact often enough), and have done NOTHING to “reach out” to men. I said it a while ago to a few feminists, and they (predictably) laughed at the idea, but your kind is about to “enjoy” a seriously bad reputation….and it’s not US that made you deserve that reputation.

The truest possible condemnation of your movement is that, when shown institutionalized sexism, massive disadvantage and diminished opportunity based SOLELY on sex…ALL of you denied, then minimized the importance of, then dismissed any personal responsibility for, every single instance. You are all OBVIOUSLY far more concerned with protecting the reputation of your precious ideology than actually addressing these issues in a meaningful manner. If you had genuine concern for men, you would be fighting for change there, instead of whining to us MRA’s that we simply “don’t understand Feminism”.

I say, PROVE you care about men, or STFU.

It really is that simple.

I'm actually liking this conversation....

[Jan 18}

I've been a tad busy lately, and haven't done much posting, but I was recently reminded of this blog. Just in case anyone cares, yes, even these "open" and "caring" Feminists have proven, once again, that Feminism cannot withstand open debate. To wit:

Ha. All “my kind” (well, me and Chris, anyway) wants is for you to drop your hostility for second and spreading of misinformation. What you just wrote? What you just claimed that I “talk of” is false. You’re stuffing words in my mouth on my own site! Your blatant disregard of what I wrote about my views indicates you’re so wound up in your own hateful, misogynistic crap that you’re not interested in thinking, let alone, understanding that yeah, I was actually writing that sexism hurts men, too.

We’re done with you. Stop commenting here.

...And so it goes....

Feminists, what a bunch of nincompoops!



  1. Hello Factor! I just left the following comment at the Rationale Riposte blog, and I will archive it here for posterity in case it does not survive moderation.

    Fidelbogen at Rational Riposte said:

    "I can't resist jumping into this, however briefly. Quoting Chris from upthread:

    "The problem with your argument is that feminists do not define patriarchy as “a system of male power.”

    "That is NOT the problem with his argument. No Chris, the difficulty in this case is that feminists and MRAs are talking past each other because they do not share the same worldview. Hence, the problem is far more fundamental and deeply rooted.

    "From the MRA (and more specifically counter-feminist) perspective, "patriarchy" is no more than a feminist codeword which means exactly the same thing as "male power". In fact, "patriarchy" and "male power" are virtually interchangeable terms.

    "You are committing a fallacy which some of us call feminist subjectivism. This may be summed up briefly as "the illusion that feminism still has the power to define itself." And when you tell us what feminists "define patriarchy as", you illustrate this mistaken way of thinking.

    "The point being, that feminism is no longer exclusively what the feminists say it is. Feminism's monopoly privilege on self-definition has been revoked by an increasingly critical and unmerciful non-feminist sector. Accordingly, feminism is also (at least in part) what the non-feminist sector SAYS it is.

    "Yes. The outsiders are now mapping reality for the insiders. The rest of the world is now telling feminism what feminism is.

    "And THAT. . . is a revolutionary paradigm shift.

    "I will leave you to process the implications."

  2. I have responded to your post. You can read it here:

  3. This is to be expected.

    Feminism is not a movement to end all sexism because no feminist 1st wave or otherwise has done anything to end systematic sexism against men, Well i guess that isn't completely fair, There are some feminists who have published books on sexism that effects boys and men. (about as many as you can count on one hand though) And i think that it's all we can ask for because most mra's don't do anything more then just talk.

    The feminist movement is failing to address men's issues because it has never been about men's issues.

    Which is a problem when they are the only if not loudest voice in the gender debate. It is as factory once put i believe: An echo chamber of the same opinion from many mouths, Obviously feminists can and often do disagree with eachother but all feminists have the same unifying belief otherwise the definition would lose all meaning, And so there will always be things that two feminists won't talk about and can't disagree on, With this, It's not hard to see how things can go wrong and people can become ignorant.

    The men's rights movement is a voice for men, It is not a movement to end all sexism and we are not foolish enough to make the claim, As that is something we cannot do, Will not do,I am fine with admitting this because i am not dishonest about what me and my friends advocate.

  4. Don't you love me

    You can see my pics here.

    [url=]My Profile[/url]