Monday, March 8, 2010

A (very long) conversation...

"M":
I consider myself a feminist, not because I think that places like North America really needs a viewpoint like that anymore, but because there are plenty of other places that need female rights to be championed. The treatment of women in some middle-east contries, the laws that lead to the woman being jailed/executed for being raped, the abortion of female fetuses because of their gender, and FGM (female gentalia multilation) in places like Africa NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. Anyone who wants to demonize me for thinking things like that are wrong seems not quite right in the head. To the people who say that I should avoid this name because of some of the stigma attached to it, would you ask a Muslim to call themselves something different because of the few extremists that call themselves Muslims? Also, I cannot entirely condemn a movement that allowed me to vote, work, support myself, and choose who I want to be with instead of being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

I consider myself an equalist (egalitarian?) because men and women should be given equal opportunity. Women shouldn't be treated as sex objects and men shouldn't be treated as criminals and animals. There's quite a bit of balancing out to do in North America, and I will admit there's a large number of cases of sexism against men that get less attention than they should. Too many men are demonized and treated as second-class citizens in Western culture. Women who falsely accuse men of rape and abuse should be dragged out into the street and shot, because not only do they ruin an innocent person's life, they make it that much harder for women who have actually suffered such horrible acts to come forward and be believed. However, I have a few issues with the way that MRm is going about doing it.

Calling someone a 'sensitive male' is in no way equated to calling someone a 'good negro'. Some guys are more likely to express more 'feminine' emotions, like sadness, than others, and they should have a right to do that. Just as feminisim shouldn't only promote strong buisnesswomen and condemn housewives, MRA's shouldn't proclaim that males should only be 'real men' who wrestle bears and keep all their emotions bottled inside. Don't get me wrong, forcing someone to become more sensitive if they are more of a 'real man' is not right, but men should have the right to be as masculine or feminine as they wish to be, just as females have the same right.

Aside from a small blurb at the beginning of MRm issue one, there seems to be nothing that appeals to the female gender for understanding or aid. The blogging article specifically called out male bloggers for not addressing issues having to do with male discrimination. Why do you think that women are completely uncaring about basic human rights, just because it affects people with penises? Further on, you generalize women and moderate feminists as people who may not actively take rights away from men, but they at least sit back and enjoy the benefits reaped by such discrimination.

Such generalizations seem to reflect some 'feminist' views like "ALL men are rapists.' So long as you resort to these sort of tactics, you seem to be treading the same path that the 'feminists' you so hate have used before. A little over half the population is female, and I imagine that your movement would be able to make much larger advancements if you had some of those numbers on your side as well.

Factory:


Even if it "accomplished" all those things by browbeating men into giving it to women? Even if those "accomplishments" were DESIGNED to disempower men, rather than "empower" women? And moreover, are you really sure you want to associate with an ideology whose very foundation was designed by the likes of Andrea Dworkin, or Mary Daly...people who are canonized in Feminist circles to this day?

I'm glad you take issue with the rampant human rights abuses perpetrated daily by the government in the name of women, but I can't help but notice you STILL place a good portion of the justification for getting mad squarely in the "because it hurts women" category.

When women start caring that men are being hurt...because MEN are being hurt...well, that's when you get to call yourself "egalitarian"....not until.

We think women do not care about human rights abuses because...well, there has been next to ZERO evidence that women...er, care. Where is the famle outrage at Women-only food lines in Haiti? Where are the women demanding men be treated fairly in Family Court? Where are the women demanding equality for men?

Are they absent because men never did anything for women's rights? Any chance in hell of trying to prove that?

Women have literally SHOWN men, by example and deed, that they not only do NOT care about the rights and lives of men, but that they think men outright DESERVE the treatment they're getting, and furthermore men should just "man up" and take it even more. More and more men are getting this message...and the marriage rate is dropping, men are turning off of society, and walking away from women.

And your sex has the appallingly large nuts to BLAME MEN for this reaction.

What I, and others like me, are trying to do is really twofold:

One: To wake men up to the situation they're in, and to give a name to the anger they feel, and a pathway to effect positive change - for MEN, and men alone.

Two: To show women that men feel this way, that these things ARE happening, and that women ARE losing men's protectiveness - whether you choose to deny it or not - in the hopes that there are at least a few women out there with both a shred of decency left, and the motivation to avoid women fully absorbing the hateful reputation they are so quickly gaining. These women, of their OWN accord, should be doing something. There ARE a few, by the way. Christina Hoff-Sommers, Teri Stoddard, Barbara Kay, Anne Cools...just to name a few.

It's the rank-and-file women...the VAST majority of them....that perpetuate the hateful ideology of Feminism.

Which in a way, makes the "but I'm not like that" Feminists a WORSE problem than the man-haters.

Sorry, you take on the title, you takes the lumps that go with it...and yes, if you take on the mantle, you most assuredly DO deserve the negative feedback.

When someone displays a stunningly effective tactic, you are faced with a choice:

Do I adopt the tactic, thereby "sinking to their level", or do I "take the high road"?

The MRM has been "taking the high road" for decades...it is only after a significant shift in tactics to more closely mirror that of Feminism that we began to gain traction. As for the effect this approach has on women, and relations with them?

I couldn't POSSIBLY care less, which is a 100% direct reflection of the concern women have shown men.

Yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. But then there's the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

"A":

Factory, what I don't think you seem to get is that feminism is not a monolithic block. I am a feminist, and I don't agree with Mary Daly or Andrea Dworkin. I think Mary Daly was transphobic, had a black-and-white view of genders, and was pretty much a self-parody. The problem with Andrea Dworkin was that she had a lot of personal issues with sex and she projected them onto everyone else. Daly and Dworkin only speak for a small subset of feminists (second-wave radicals, although Daly would also be considered a separatist feminist). I've known feminists who haven't even heard of either of them, and others who disagree with them. There are multiple schools of thought in feminism. Saying that Andrea Dworkin is representative of all feminists is like saying that the Patriarch of Serbia* speaks for the entire Christian religion.

I consider myself a third-wave, sex-positive feminist, and third-wavers and sex-positive feminists are vastly different from second-wave and radical feminists. Anybody can be a feminist, regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, occupation, gender identity, ethnicity, or religion. There are even - gasp! - male feminists, such as Kurt Cobain, Joss Whedon, Magnus Hirschfeld, Tim Wise, Barry Deutsch (the writer of Alas, A Blog and the webcomic Hereville) and Hayao Miyazaki, and that's just off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, and the reason why women get custody more often is because of sexism. Women are traditionally expected to raise the children, so they usually get custody. The remedy for that is...feminism!
* no offense to any Serbian Orthodox members, I just chose a random Christian leader

Factory:


Any person who says the phrase "Men have oppressed women for thousands of years" is parroting the words of these women. Patriarchy Theory, the underpinning of ALL of the various forms of Feminism, is a construct of these women, and like-minded others. They also continue to be held in high regard today, both for their place in history AND their "unique views on men".

To say these women have nothing to do with whatever brand of Feminism you espouse is a gigantic lie, either to us, yourself, or both.

You cannot be a modern Feminist, and not agree with their most basic, man-hating lie. A lie codified into Patriarchy Theory.

I'm quite well aware that there are male feminists. Any woman with a half decent body knows EXACTLY what kind of guy a male Feminist is too... you know, the one his female "best friends" complain to about the guy they're boinking, because "big meanie" treats her like dirt (which, of course, is why she's with him in the first place)? Just because there are men out there that genuinely believe maleness is a sickness, does not mean they're right. There's guys out there that loathe themselves so much, they castrate themselves. Do these men also speak for me? Preclude the need for my input? Occupy higher moral ground?

You don't have to be female to ascribe to a man-hating ideology...I believe I make that point every time I correct some Feminist when she mistakenly conflates "Feminist" with "Woman".

As for child custody, as is typical with Feminists, you think we have no memory? Until women (ie, "Feminists") had the laws changed to reflect the "Tender Years Doctrine", default custody of all children of marriage went to the Husband, NOT the mother. In short, Feminists were DIRECTLY responsible for the "Fatherectomy" everyone is so "shocked" about these days, from the very first act, right on up to 5 minutes ago...

"M":


I would say that giving women the right to vote (which was basically the main objective of first-wave feminism, I think they wanted to be able to work, too) wasn't disempowering to men in the least. After all, your right to vote wasn't taken away in order to achieve this. I suppose giving women the ability to chose their own lovers, instead of being treated like the property of their fathers or husbands would take away a few men's rights over the control of their wives, though. But I don't think anyone should have the right to own another adult (very small children might be considered to belong to their parents/guardians), so I don't think that was a big loss either. So yes, since feminism accomplished this, I will associate myself with it.

I'm not saying that you should stop hating on feminists that oppress people because of their sex. Have at them. I'm not even saying that you should stop critising me. I'm just pointing out that it might be helpful if you had a sentence or paragraph that suggested a way for women to change their ways of blaming men. It's like yelling at someone who puts out 8 bags of trash every week without pointing out the recycling bins a few streets down. Yes, maybe they've seen them and ignored them, and they might ignore you too, but at least you tried and there are surely some people who would listen to you if you brought it to their attention. I can understand you not wanting to waste time and resources, though...

I was just pointing out that it seemed a bit hypocritical to rail against feminist generalizations of men, and then make your own generalizations against women. But if this tactic works for you and gains you support for your cause, then I guess it works. *shrug* Hypocrisy doesn't appeal to me, but I'm not really your target audience, and it's the internet, you can say what you want.
...

The thing is, whenever there's a case of discrimination against women that comes to light (in North America, not places like Saudi Arabia though) there's a huge backlash. Whenever a male is discriminated against, people tend to ignore it or laugh it off. There's a case of a man being arrested because he was naked in his own house at 5am when a mother walked by and happened to look in the window. And he was making coffee, not standing up against the window hoping someone would come by so he could flash them. No, I'm not making this up:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1 ... es_charges
And you can bet if it was a guy walking by who happened to see a woman naked in her house, he's be the one arrested then too.

Guys are always assumed to be the culprit in a domestic disturbance, and it's rare for a father to get full custody of children, where it happens fairly commonly with women. Men who are abused or raped are rarely paid any attention to, where there are multiple shelters for abused women in North America.

So I can understand Factory wanting to focus on men's rights, since women's rights are very well established in North America, and most people assume you're fighting for equal rights for women when you talk about equal rights.

"A":

Thing is, most cases of domestic violence are against women, and when men are victims, it's rare for them to come forward because it's seen as a sign of weakness. And the reason why women are usually awarded custody is because of sexism - it's assumed that women do all of the childcare. Both of those problems can be solved by feminism.

Factory:

In cases of Domestic Violence, it's rare for men to come forward because due to "Primary Aggressor Laws" (Thanks again, Feminism) if they do then THEY will likely be arrested. To wit:

But a problem immediately arose - scientific studies showed that Pizzey was right. DV was in no way confined to the "male perpetrator/female victim" narrative preferred by the growing DV industry. So they beat a strategic retreat. That consisted of redefining violence to include almost any form of conflict that might occur between intimates. That agreed nicely with their political view that DV is all about control of women by men.

So things like "angry stares," attempts by a husband to get his wife to spend less or stop seeing untrustworthy friends all qualified as "violence" because they were "controlling." Many people recall the instructions provided by one DV shelter in New York that risibly informed women that a man's "failure to give gifts or compliments" constituted DV. Silly as that was, though, at present not a single state requires an act of physical violence for a violation of its DV laws to occur.

The idea that domestic violence didn't have to be actually - you know - violent, satisfied certain ideological precepts, but it too had a downside. Given that definition, police began arresting women for DV. Numerous states and municipalities reported DV arrests of women increasing far faster than those of men.

So DV advocates devised a new doctrine that would maintain the absurdly broad definition of violence but still not arrest too many women - the "predominant aggressor" doctrine. That allowed police to analyze an alleged scene of DV and arrest only the aggressor they considered to be the "predominant" one. As DV researcher and former police lieutenant, Richard Davis has written,

Mandatory arrest and “dominant aggressor” policies were implemented only after interveners believed that far too many females were being arrested for domestic violence incidents after violence was legally redefined as a push or shove.

The document linked to is the State of Maine's effort to "educate" police about how to decide which is the "predominant" aggressor."

...

Not a single one of the eight presents a situation in which the woman would be the person arrested. In every case, the conclusion is to arrest the man. Whoever created the materials couldn't even imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to arrest a woman. And that includes this one:

6. Self-defense #1 (Man Hit in Head with Ashtray)
Man said:
• They were arguing over money/dress.
• She started going off and hit him in the head.
Woman said:
• She was not injured.
• They were arguing and “I hit him with an ashtray.”
• He did not hit her.

So the hypothetical case consists of "they were arguing; she hit him with an ashtray; he did not hit her; she's not injured."

At first, the training manual doesn't draw a conclusion about this one. Why not? Because what's important is not that she committed an act of physical violence against him but that he may be exercising "power and control." It continues:

What about Power and Control tactics that you observed?
• Man came to door.
• Woman was hiding until man called her out.
• Officer had to call her out of the room.
• She seemed very frightened and scarred (sic). Why?
Possible Crimes: Assault, Criminal Threatening, Criminal Threatening
with a Dangerous Weapon. Remember who is predominant
aggressor.

See how it works? When a man uses physical violence, he's the "predominant aggressor," even though the woman did too. But even when he doesn't use physical violence and she does, he's injured and she's not, he's still the "predominant aggressor."

Article: http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?paged=3


Why would a man feel safe reporting a violent female partner to the police?

"A":


Um, for thousands of years, women were denied basic rights by men. Do you also get offended when someone says that white people have oppressed black people?

Neither Dworkin nor Daly came up with the concept of patriarchy. And like I said, not all feminists agree with Daly and Dworkin. That's like saying that all Christians agree with the Pope because he also believes in the basic tenets of Christianity.

Factory:

I do when it's a total fabrication at worst, and warped misrepresentation of reality at best. The concept of "men" keeping "women" down is utterly laughable. It's a fiction that has NEVER EXISTED, that can only be maintained by continuous failure to examine the lives of the other sex in context...the "priveleged class" Feminists complian about are "priveleged" in ANY context. When all you do is look at the rich and powerful, I suppose it's logical to assume all are rich and powerful. It's dead wrong, but there you go.

Dworkin et al didn't come up with the notion of "Patriarchy", no. They came up with the basic tenets of Patriarchy Theory. The concept of Patriarchy goes all the way back to a time when men were actually respected in society, and were heads of their households. Patriarchy Theory (aka, "Women have been oppressed for thousands of years") is a product of those nutjobs, among others no less man hating and vitriolic.

And all Christians might not agree with the Pope, but they damn sure DO agree with all those Clerics of old who DECIDED WHAT GOES IN THE BIBLE.

But hey, thanks for illustrating my point so brilliantly.

"A":

So women have always been able to vote, have always been able to have control of their own bodies, have never been relegated to third-tier jobs with minimal pay, and are never sold into sexual slavery, and were never at any point considered property. Good to know.

Do you also complain about how there are no political organizations specifically addressing the needs of white people?

Factory:


So, you hate white people like you hate men? Or is there some other reason why you think the colour of your skin determines your worth? In point of fact, for example, White women receive the most lenient prison sentences (for identical crimes), followed by black women, then white men, then black men (on the harshest end of things). These are not small variances either, in fact Sex is a greater indication of sentencing than Race...by a considerable margin.. In ANY case, white women have the absolute LEAST reason to complain...yet, those are the most vocal... hmm...

Women got the vote on average 3...THREE electoral cycles after men in general got the vote...prior to that you had to be "rich"...ie, that "ruling class" you Feminists have taken to simply mean "men". Men do not have control over their own bodies TO THIS DAY...no sympathy there AT ALL. Men are currently undergoing a severe devaluation of their worth...in the workplace and out. On thing I might add though...women have never "supported their familes" as a group, and generally resent the hell out of "supporting her man" instead of the way things are "supposed to be". There's a ton of articles out there to that effect, if you'd care to look.

So, while women may not have had unfettered career opportunities 50-60 years ago, this is most definitely not the case today...and while men may have earned the big dollars in times past, they used it to take care of their families for the most part, as was expected. Women today?

How many "Who are the Wimminz going to marry with all these "loser" men around" articles do you need to see?

And what I illustrated using your own analogy, is that people don't have to agree with an idea if they're given little choice... Patriarchy Theory IS man hate...for any of your various flavours of Feminism to even APPROACH "egalitarianism" is if there is no hint, however small, of the "Men have Oppressed Women For Thousands of Years" mantra. Because "men" did no such thing.

"A":


First of all, I don't hate white people or men. Second of all, I agree that it does suck that black men are fucked over in prison sentencing. However, the reason why women get off easier isn't because of feminism. It's because of holdovers from chivalry, which is still sexist. And just because women have an advantage in one area doesn't mean they have advantages in general.


I'm from the US. Our country became an independent nation in the late 1700s. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. In Switzerland, women were finally able to vote in 1971, and Kuwaiti women didn't get the vote until 2005.

As for reproductive rights, abortions and birth control are outlawed in some countries, and some women actually DIE from pregnancy complications or from undergoing back-alley abortions. Please show me the proof that men's reproductive rights are being controlled.

"M":

Are you saying that men in general didn't opress women, but society as a whole did? Are you saying that *cough* not all men were like that, and only a select few oppressed women? Are you saying that only priveledged classes oppressed women, and poor women had just as many rights and freedoms as poor men did? Or are you saying that women were never treated as mere property and tools for producing sons?

"A":

Factory, in all of my times reading your posts, I've noticed this:

You constantly pass judgement on all women based on your ex-wife and women you actively seek out, and act like feminism is worse than Nazism, but if someone calls you out on your misogyny or points out that men have oppressed women for centuries and that not all feminists hate men, then the person is horrible and must be an evil feminazi man-hater.

Factory:

The thing I continually fail to understand is this focus on the individual's feelings as opposed to objective reality.

In point of fact, there is one sex that has both legal inequality, and socially condoned discrimination carried out against them. There is one sex that is failing in nearly every conceivable objective measure, the same sex that receives not only no assistance, but is actively derided for complaining. There is one sex whose views on "Gender Issues" has been consistently silenced unless they agree with the other.

And that sex is the male one.

These are simple facts.

Now, I know it might be new to you guys, but merely asserting that "women were oppressed" does not make it true. And even if it WERE objectively true, "men" were not responsible.

The assertion, for example, that women had no vote CONSISTENTLY fails to mention that men (in general) were ahead of this curve by approximately 3 electoral cycles...instead, it's proof that "Men oppressed women for thousands of years"... The concept of women being "owned as chattel" is also typical of Feminist mischaracterization. Men were held legally responsible for the actions of their wives, just as they were their children. Women could not get loans, for example, because banks could not legally collect the money from women in case of default...women had NO legal liability. Sound like oppression to you?

It is not the wildly inflated statistics, nor the "studies" that are completely devoid of scientific rigor, that has totally undermined the credibility of Feminist thinking... It's the complete and utter failure to have clue one what the average man's life is like, and simultaneously claiming expert status on all things Gender.

Feminists literally have no idea what they're comparing your "equality" to, since they have no idea what the other half of the equation looks like. Moreover, it's not only obvious Feminists don't care...it's becoming increasingly viewed as "irrelevant to the discourse" as far as they're concerned.

As to my assertions regarding the relative worth of women in general, and the continued assertion that "NAWALT", I still respond thusly:

Such a massive swath of women that are indeed "like that" exists that literally millions of men have had their lives destroyed, their emotions used to hurt and drain them, etc, that there's now this thing called a "mens movement" that is no longer about getting "sensitive" in the woods, and is now about saying "we're not gonna take this shit anymore!" Again, the proof is in the pudding as it were...if I'm wrong, then there'll be nothing to worry about...right?

And no, I don't think women suddenly began to hate men. I think there's a baseline mistrust a lot of women have for men...given the length of human history and the brutality of it, I can understand why... But what I AM asserting, with plenty of evidence to back it up (indeed, if there's a need to "prove it" to you, it's likely an impossible task), is that Feminism has endeavoured for decades to drive a wedge between men and women. From the push to "deconstruct the family" to "sexual liberation" to DV / Child abuse hysteria, etc...all of these things were designed primarily to make women fear men, make children fear men, and make governments more able to remove men from families.

Because they've certainly succeeded in that, now haven't they? And if it really WAS about the stated aims, why "forget" that the vast majority of child abuse comes from Mothers, not Fathers? Why "forget" that women initiate DV equally or MORE often than men, or that hiring a hit man is still spousal homicide? Why rig "indexes" into equality to make female privelege read as "equality"?

Couple that with the increased educational achievement women are enjoying (yet still retain all the special programs, considerations, bursaries, etc because women were "oppressed"), the reduced earning potential of the typical man, and the speedy pace in which value-added industries are fleeing the Feminist West...and all of a sudden there's a "crisis" because women are finding it difficult to meet men who make more than them? How can anyone NOT see the extreme bias in there?

The PUA thing quite nicely explains what women will actually DO in a given situation, as opposed to what they SAY they will do. Whether you like it or not, being conversant with Game overcomes damn near any obstacle. And frankly, when you consider the main objection to Game is that it makes the man SEEM more "Alpha" than he is...well, all I can say is those women complaining about it should strive to be a LOT less shallow than they currently are. Oh yeah, and stop putting on makeup, bras, control top pantyhose, dying your hair, etc...you abusive liars you... :)

Now, not all men are comfortable with the PUA thing, they retch at the mere mention of Game, but not out of some misguided sense of Chivalry. No, those guys tend to be MGTOW's more based on disgust at modern female behaviour, coupled with complete and utter lack of legal protections for men. This seems a bit extreme, almost "conspiracy theory-like" as has been said...so I'll elaborate:

In the Province where I live, a few years ago they introduced a new DV law... What it says is that if a complaint for DV is made, in order to avoid poor little dear running out of money, the complainant gains power of attorney over all the accused's assets until the matter is closed. Furthermore, the law specifically states that co-habitation, or relationship length, shall not affect application of the law.

So, start dating a girl...realize she's made a call to the cops when they come to your workplace to arrest you on DV charges (which, keep in mind, doesn't have to involve anything more than her saying she "felt afraid"), and when he gets out on bail, finds out she sold all his stuff (including his car) and it's all perfectly legal...even if he's proven innocent.

Or is that too far out there for you to believe?

How about another fav subject of Feminists? Let's talk about Sexual Assault for a second, shall we? The first thing I should say here, is that the main MRA objection in this area is that Feminist lobbying and -jurisprudence have rendered ANY contact between a man and a woman that involves sex a potential rape charge for the man involved. And with the inversion of "innocent until proven guilty" in these cases, he may as well resign himself to a couple decades in the slammer...and lesson learned. All it takes is for her to "change her mind"...this is black letter law again, this is NOT an interpretation..

So, "All men are rapists and that's all they are" really DOES inform some circles, now doesn't it? So much for those "nutbar Feminists no one listens to" having no effect on the real world...

At this stage of the game, MRAs are trying to have serious injustices corrected...this is why you will likely have a hard time finding an MRA that will give you a "vision of the future", and we ALL damn sure know better than to try and tell women what they should be like....we know how much men liked it from Feminists. When I criticize "women" it is indeed a generalization, and should be taken as such. Rest assured, when I mean all women, I promise to say "all women".. Do we know what will happen? No. Do we know for a fact that both Canada and the US at least have continuously violated both the letter and the spirit of their Constitutions, and committed innumerable human rights abuses in the name of "Feminist Equality"...the reckoning for which cannot be avoided, but CAN be mitigated - all it would take is some of this "compassion" women are supposed to ALL have. :)

Most of the inequality that exists stems very directly from the original failing of the Feminist movement... the continued female hegemony in the family, and over reproduction. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if men weren't then forced by government to finance the filching of his own children.

Marriage was what we used to call social programs to support the needs of children. Feminists killed that off, and want you, me, and everyone else to be "responsible" for the kid (read: pay the bills) - whether it be through unrealistically high Child Support orders (incidentally, decided upon by a guy who OWNS A CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION AGENCY) based at least in part on Feminist "research" which to this day has never been allowed to be examined (Lenore Weitzman). Meantime, women continue joking about "starter husbands" as if the men involved don't have their lives and future utterly destroyed via the Family Court system. How compassionate.

The only possible solution is to extend to men the exact same rights and priveleges women have, INCLUDING reproduction and Parental. How?

Mandatory Paternity testing at birth for all children, regardless of desires of the parents. Additionally, a requirement that the father be told the results of the test in the absence of anyone else. I know, a lot of women say this shouldn't happen because then the men will kill their cheating spouses...to which I say that detrimental consequences to women should not ever, under any circumstances, merit differences in rights. We go through extraordinary measures to ensure Mom leaves the Hospital with the same child she got there with...why not the men? If this means a cheating wife will be "found out" and her life made more difficult as result of Divorce PLUS a bastard child? Tough, keep your legs together next time, I say.

And this next one will kill ya....

I believe men should have the exact same obligations as regards children and fetuses as women do. This means that for the length of time a woman is legally entitled to opt out of Parenthood, so should men. This means "abortion" time frames AS WELL AS adoption / abandonment. Effectively, this means that unless and until a man formally takes on the role of Parent, that man is held to the same standards as a pregnant woman...meaning if he wants out, he walks away, no harm, no foul, no money. The basic legal presumption should be he doesn't want the kid...until he says he does. Meaning unless you're Married, he can walk away any time...just like a woman can.

This infringes in no way on women's right to choose...it merely removes women's "right" to make men pay for their choices.

And I truly think the addition of the Male Pill is all it would take to start getting some respect around here (Apologies to Rodney Dangerfield).

And you know what? Not one bit of it is anything other than affording men the same rights as women have had for decades.... Some "oppressed class" women are hey?

"A":


I actually gave you some facts and I've tried to reason with you. Your rampant misogyny and double standards are what's pissing me off.

Do you know why you have problems with women? You actively seek out the types of women who hurt you in the past. I'm sorry about your ex-wife, I truly am. But instead of becoming a pick-up artist and actively seeking out women like your ex, learn from the experience and move on to a woman who you can have a healthy, honest relationship with. You're only digging yourself deeper.

Factory:


"A", you haven't supplied one single fact anywhere in this thread. You make a lot of baseless assertions, true...but no facts. Everything I'm saying can be easily substantiated, and in fact I bet a good portion of the readers can recall at least one recent article in the mainstream media that said pretty much what I did...er, without actually coming out and saying it.

That said, you might want to cut out the pop-psychology and save it for a guy young enough to fall for it. I take the "blame" for the women I meet about as much as you do for ...well, ANYTHING it seems...
Which is, of course, to say I don't.

You seem stuck on this loop that these are all my own personal views, and moreover that very few other men feel this way...

I'll make this about as clear as I can...

This is a run-down of the basics of the mens movement, along with general info on each main "stream"...it is NOT a guy sitting here complaining about past relationships, no matter how much you would like that to be the case. It is an outline of the things Feminists and the Media don't want women to know...

I know it's easier to take this information if you can convince yourself it's not going to affect you, or that it's men you wouldn't want anyway, or some other rationalization. People like you, "A", will clutch fiercely to the victim-mantle Feminism gives you until they pry it from your cold, dead hands.

The real question though, is just how many women are willing to go down with you?


"M":

In 5th century BC Athens, one of the birth places of democracy, women were disallowed to vote for the running of the entire democratic system, from it's conception to eventual downfall. And I guarantee you that was more than three electoral cycles. Granted, slaves, children, and foreigners who were not citizens of Athens were also disallowed the vote, but it only shows that women were considered to be second class citizens, on the same level as slaves and not to be trusted with responsibility any more than foreigners or children. Who decided this, if not for the men who could vote in the system?

I fail to see how your second point disproves the oppression of females. Women were not considered to be indivuals with their own thoughts and minds, and thus responsible for their actions, but instead property or extensions of their husband. It sounds like oppression to me.

{as regards choice for men] there should be some responsibilties to even such a thing out. If the man wishes the the child would be aborted, he must pay half of what the cost of abortion would be to the mother. Sounds fair. If he wishes to go the route of adoption, he should have to stay with the child (and by extension, the mother) until the time such that the child may be put up for adoption, and if the mother chooses that this route is also for her, he must help with the paperwork. And if he wishes to avoid all these resposibilities and go the route of abandonment, he must face the same charges against him as a mother would if she left a newborn in a garbage can. That would be fair.

Factory:

Since Wikipedia seems to be a favourite of the "Progressive" crowd:

Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.



Hmm, there seem to be a whole lot of men in that disallowed group...now why would an oppressor do that, you think? Maybe it was that "military" requirement that led to all those women..AND men...to not get to vote. Hmmm.

I'm not aware of any woman facing charges for leaving a baby in a garbage can, and though that's not to say they don't exist anecdotal evidence at least points to the opposite. For example, in Prince Albert SK a couple years ago, a woman delivered her baby into a toilet full of blood and feces in a WalMart. She then left the store without saying a word to anyone.

And the world fell all over themselves with Understanding for her...not charges. Considering we have legal baby abandonment centres both in Canada and the US, I'm not sure how she could have been.

"N":

But the problem with that is that women COULDN'T get into the military. At least the men had a choice, the women had none.

Factory:


True. I suppose that's a good reason to lobby for women to have to die right alongside the men...for the first time in history.

You're not seriously suggesting that keeping women from having spears thrust through their necks is somehow "oppression" now are you? Would you get shot at JUST for the right to pick out the next haircut that runs the country...along with 300 million other people?

Don't be absurd.

"M":


I'm not saying that the ancient greeks oppressed only women, nor that the oppression of women was the worst of their offenses. But women, even native athenians, were not allowed to enter military service, and thus prevented from ever being able to vote. They were assumed to have opinions that were the same as their owners husbands or fathers, or to have no worthwhile opinions at all. Granted, neither did they pay taxes or really contribute to Athens in any way other than popping out sons, but this was because they were never allowed to act as autonomous human beings instead of property.

Factory:


I would think that the ONLY way a vote can be justified is to contribute to society.

Well, the ideology of Feminism says that men, as a class, oppressed women, as a class, for thousands of years. In fact, it was your assertion of this very thing that led to Athens in the first place.

But then it morphs into SOME men oppressed women...er, and other men so PHMT!

But it's all a lie. It's a "ruling class" and the "common folk", just like always. Feminists would just have you believe ALL men belong to the "ruling class" so you won't feel pangs of conscience while your gleefully stripping all value you can from him....

"M":

I was making that point as well. In Athenian society, you can only vote if you contribute to the nation state and women neither wage war nor pay taxes... Following this logic, it seems natural to assume that women shouldn't be able to vote.

However, women were never given the opportunity to be useful to society. I'm not saying that the athenians should have gone 'oh, the women should have a say too, poor things!' but that the athenians could have said 'if you want to vote, join the army, after you retire from military service pick from one of the many job you may work in, and pay your taxes'.

But your point is that 'not all men were like that'? Yes, of course only men in the ruling class were able to oppress people. They held all the power. The point is that even the women who belonged to the ruling class had no power, and were basically used as bagaining chips to form alliances and such. And the men of the common class did nothing to change this fact, even when they rose up against their oppressors. (see: French Revolution, October Revolution)

These budding governments didn't bring any women into their councils, or made much of an effort to change the state of women in their society. Seems to mirror the 'Feminists and regular women who are more than happy to allow the repression of men' issue you keep bringing up, doesn't it?

And I was just pointing out simple history. I see nothing in the annals of history that should make me hate everyday men who had nothing to do with the treatment of women hundreds of years ago, no more than I hate everyday Germans.

Factory:


I still fail to see your point How exactly does not having the vote make women oppressed? And for that matter, how does the existence of the vast majority of men in the same boat count as "Patriarchal Oppression", and more to the point, how did this somehow lead to pervasive privelege that I am supposed to have, but see no evidence of?

In short, how does this history in any way justify one damn thing Feminists are screeching about?

"M":

Over the course of history, until the last several decades, females have been given less rights and opportunities to decide their future and government than their male counterparts have. The disparity is more obvious as one examines the higher rungs of a society social ladder, but the generalization held true for all but the most impoverished of society (in which case, women were slightly better of since they could become prostitutes). This indicates oppression of the female gender. It doesn't excuse the oppression of the male gender that is taking place today, but it has happened. It doesn't mean that males today have more priveleges then females today, at least in North America and Europe. But it does mean that such oppression happened, and it should not be ignored. People should learn from such lessons, and see how to avoid such pervasive repression today (against males, this time). It doesn't nessecarily lead to being reactionary.

Factory:


This does nothing at all to support that women, AS A CLASS, were oppressed by men, AS A CLASS...via an all-pervasive Patriarchy that served not only to give men - again ALL men - unfair advantage while simultaneously using the "instruments" of Rape, Domestic Violence, and whatever other bugaboo they can think of at the time to "oppress" women.

Not one damn bit. Yet that is precisely the contention made with Patriarchy Theory(tm).

"M":


Yes, not all males had power and not all males oppressed women. But all the people who did have power, who did oppress women, as a class, were men. Therefore men (albeit only men of high standing in society) did oppress women over the course of history. It was wrong, and it hasn't stopped, not all places. Plenty of places hold rights for men far above rights for woem, like in Saudi Arabia were women can be imprisoned for adultery because they were raped:

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... ome.regcon

This in no way excuses the treatment of men in North America, and only reveals the hypocrisy of many feminist movements of the area, that say how horrible the oppression of women was and rally around legislature that will do similar things to men. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, especially if you're not very cautious about whose eye you take out in exchange for your own.

And I'm not saying that it was because men were in power that women were treated unfairly, but that because women were treated unfairly, only men were able to come into power.

Factory:


You do realize that you just explained away the moral basis for Feminism by blithely admitting it's making ALL men suffer for the excesses of the elite, right? Not only that, but it's ridiculous to assert that there were no women in the ranks of power in the past, let alone the present. The irony of you pointing to a society so obviously enthralling to Feminists as "bad" has not escaped me.

Margaret Thatcher, Maybe QE the First? Victoria? I know, I'm coming off as an Anglophile...

How about the power of having the ear of power? That counts for nothing?

This of course doesn't even BEGIN to delve into your definition of "unfairly" which, to me, means rules set up to advantage someone else...yet, we can clearly show LOTS of advantages women had, and disadvantages men had. I'll grant you that women had Civil Rights issues to deal with...but you have a LONG way to go before you can get away with telling me women were treated UNFAIRLY....that would neccessitate an understanding of the male experience of the same time.

And I've still yet to run across someone who says what you do, that knows anything at all about The Male Experience (Coming Soon to IMAX)...

"M":


I'll point you to the first post that I made in this thread, in which I stated that feminism is totally unnecessary in modern-day North America and Europe. In these countries, females can already vote, work, choose who or if they want to be with someone, and can even join the military. To push this cause any further is just switching who is empowered and who is oppresssed in society.

I consider myself a feminist because I appreciate the fact that this movement, in the beginning, corrected many of the civil rights abuses that had been commited against women over the course of history. And also because there are plenty of places in this world where females do not yet have civil rights.

My definition of unfairly is: 'Not allowing someone the same opportunities to improve and control their lives as another person.' And this was true for the vast majority of women over the course of history. It doesn't mean that there weren't men who were oppressed and treated unfairly for things such as being uneducated, poor or disabled, but rarely was there a situation in which the reason they could not participate was because they were male. Just because a few women were able to claw their way up into power doesn't mean they weren't oppressed. Joan of Arc managed to gain command of an army, and she was burned at the stake because of it. Women were still lacking in civil rights when Queen Victoria was in power.

I'll draw a paralell to modern society, if I may. Just because the person who runs a country is male (such as Steven Harper), it doesn't mean that there hasn't been legislation passed that is clearly unfair to males.

I'll admit that no, I don't understand the male experience because I happen to not be male. This doesn't mean that I cannot care about males because they are human beings and as such deserve the same rights and opportunities as any other human being, be they male, female, hemaphrodite, or transexual.

Factory:


But the very underpinning of your chosen ideology depends upon the notion that men as a class oppressed women as a class, then you turn around and not only admit that nothing could be further from the truth, but that traditional sex roles are STILL being exploited to this day when it comes to men.

Now, something to keep in mind is that at the beginning of this whole trek, we MRAs looked at Feminists as natural allies, and were - to put it mildly - quite dumbfounded at the reaction we got. This was over a decade and a half ago, mind you, so it's understandable if you don't see MRAs as particularly accommodating to Feminists anymore, since our understanding of your ideology has changed so much.

In fact, we think of ourselves in much the same way as SOME early Feminists.... some of whom, to think on it, are still espousing equality as opposed to hate. The problem lies in the need to differentiate between multitudes of "flavours" of Feminism to weed out the ones that are less man-hating. This dialogue that you and I are having right now represents nicely what has been missing from the agenda for decades...namely, BOTH perspectives.

Something Feminists have been eagerly AVOIDING for years.

As for men as a class not being able to participate because they are male, I suppose your contention that "rarely was there a situation in which the reason they could not participate was because they were male" holds water if you studiously avoid the fact that men are to this very day limited by their sex, PURELY because of their sex, in many areas outside the professional.

Or did you not notice the lack of male Child Care workers, Teachers, Stay Home Parents, etc? Please, PLEASE don't drag out some tired saw about "not enough status" and that crap, I'll destroy the argument and you seem like a nice person I don't want to embarrass. Feminists point to very specific areas of "power" and studiously avoid talking about anything that doesn't fit the Paradigm for a reason... it supports anti-male bias, confirms the basis for their sexual power, and cements their place at the top of the Hierarchy.

Which is why, when MRAs approached Feminists thinking they would, for example, wildly support the idea of more men at home with kids, or more involved Dads, or Male role models in education, they were utterly taken by surprise.

At one time, we had a taste for the Kool Aid too...

P.S. Don't you Feminists always point to the top and say you're oppressed? Isn't the most common argument against doing something, ANYTHING to help boys and men "you're kidding right, men run the world and always have"? Which argument strategy is it OK to use then? Just so we both play by the same rules...

"M":


...You're right. I never really thought about it that way. In the past, both sexes were pinned down to the jobs that were 'acceptable' for their gender. Both were suppressed by society as a whole, and while women in North America and Europe have managed to wiggle out of those stereotypical roles, they have been less than willing to help their male counterparts, most of them forcefully shoving the guys into their roles and complaining about how much power they hold...

Damn. I conceed the point to you, Factory. I don't agree with everything you say, but on this topic, you're completely correct. Thanks for making me think.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Hey everybody! The Catholic Church hates men too!

Watch this commercial, see the portrayal of men...does this differ in any significant way from the portrayal of men that man-hating Feminists like so much?

I'm not a Religious person, but frankly, I find this commercial EXCEEDINGLY sexist, and I strongly urge every Catholic to contact these people and tell them you're not "coming home" to someone who obviously hates you....

Monday, March 1, 2010

Click on the link, read this article, pass it on.

"

The OFF THE BOARD article accuses RADAR of attempting "to take funding away from 'discriminatory' women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment". Had the writer done her homework, she'd have discovered that people have been "fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence" for decades, and for just as long it's been the people running the women's shelters who've been playing the role of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Since the late 1970s, women-only shelters have used their huge political clout to prevent the allocation of any resources for male victims, and have made it impossible for men in need of help to find any help.

One example of this is the experience of Pat Overberg, who ran the Valley Oasis Shelter (VOS) outside L.A. for much of the 1980s and 1990s. In a 2002 affidavit18, she recounts the hostile and unprofessional way she was treated by directors of other shelters for the transgression of offering help to men as well as women. VOS was the only shelter in the nation that offered help to men, so many men traveled great distances to get help. Overberg states, "During my tenure as director of VOS I was subjected to continuous abuse by other directors for sheltering battered men." At a government-sponsored fact-finding meeting, the chairwoman, who was also director of a battered women's shelter tried to silence Overberg whenever she raised the issue of the need to provide services for battered men. And although every other issue discussed in the meeting made it into the minutes, the minutes contained no indication that the issue had even been raised."




http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20100301.php