MRA: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?”
Women campaigning for suffrage for no real reason, because not voting was just what women did back then.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if the entire Men’s Rights Movement is an elaborate hoax. Our old friend Fidelbogen weighs in today with a typically pompous post on the cutting-edge issue of women’s suffrage, posted with the almost-too-good-to-be-true headline: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as half-baked satire – except that FB is serious, deadly serious. (And deadly dull, too, most of the time, but I’ll try to keep this snappy.)
Fidelbogen’s thesis:
It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.
While most people are either for or against women having the right to vote – though I’ve never met any of the latter group outside of MRA blogs – FB bravely declares himself “a third way thinker upon this subject.”
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, because Fidelbogen is going to get all philosophical on us:
I would submit that women’s historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.
Hey, it was the olden days. People wore silly hats and watched silent movies and no one had iPhones.
Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?
I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges? Hey, it was the mid-twentieth century – people were just into that shit back then.
Well, FB doesn’t mention either Hitler or Stalin, but he definitely considers women’s former lack of voting rights to be just one of those things that, hey, people were into back then:
[W]as it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? … Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was “all that”? Seriously. . . who are we to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life which we can no longer entirely fathom?
And besides, most men had been denied the vote earlier, so even if it matters and it totally doesn’t, what’s the big deal if the dudes in charge decided to deny the vote to the ladies for a while longer? As FB puts it:
[W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn’t always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?
Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn’t it?
Seriously. Those feminologicalnists are totally retrojecting the fuck out of the pastological period using their standard sneakyfulogicalnistic tricknology.
And besides, even though we’re not supposed to judge the past, and even thought that whole denying-the-ladies-the-vote thing was totally a “morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little,” FB thinks that maybe it was actually sort of, you know, cool.
I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times.
FB decides to leave that case unmade, and returns to the whole “who the fuck cares” argument.
Once upon a time, women didn’t have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such an arrangement. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That’s all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, “oppressed.”
Besides, the whole idea of “rights” is, well, just like, an opinion, man.
Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
And so, if the dudes of the world denied the ladies these “rights,” well, uh, it was “morally indifferent” yet also probably good for some reason.
In conclusion, shut your pie holes, ladies:
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
Well, unless they’re this lady. She’s actually pretty good at tooting a horn.
Posted on October 18, 2011, in antifeminism, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reactionary bullshit, woman's suffrage. Bookmark the permalink. 388 Comments.
Dude… Helen didn’t say that. Her husband said, “That man stole my woman, help me go kill him.”
By the way… do you know what zero sum equation/game is?
Eh, that should read ‘ancient Greek parents, not just mothers. I has a tired…
I know it’s just ol’ NWO, but this stuff about grants and charities is getting to me.
MRAs never seem to understand that if you want a thing to happen, you do it yourself. Petitioning the government to do it for you is only sometimes effective, complaining that feminists haven’t done it for you is never effective, and attacking charities that benefit other groups because they don’t benefit your group is completely ass-backwards.
If you want there to be a men’s scholarship, take up a collection and find a school that will accept an endowment with the stipulation “for an outstanding male student.”
If you want there to be shelters for abused men, open one.
If you want there to be a charity supporting single fathers, start one.
These things didn’t just magically appear for women because they whined hard enough (no, really. they didn’t), and they’re not going to magically appear for men.
@Pecunium
“Neither of which are true. Most men have always had it bad. Women are not the reason. The reason is some men played other men against themselves.”
Yippeee!!! More fun.
More to the point would be women playing men against other men of wealth in the past. “Samantha’s husband bought her a new silk dress imported from china when the caravans came by. If you weren’t a lazy worthless laborer and made something of yourself I could be wearing silk instead of rags. Beggers have finer things than we do!”
This is fun!
Are you complaining? You’re the one who presented the issue as a zero-sum game, asshat. I was pointing out how idiotic that is.
You realize that is fiction, right? You also realize that it was Menelaus and Agamemnon who did the whole “go kill, go die for me” thing, right?
Right? I do not take your understanding of either point for granted. Your reading comprehension skills have not been adequately demonstrated.
And the all-male Senate–you know, the people with the actual power– was doing what? Living as aesthetes to please their wives?
If only Samantha and your unnamed speaker had been allowed to take respectable jobs, they wouldn’t have to badger their husbands.
But I guess you can’t see far enough in front of your nose to realize that not oppressing women is the solution to exactly what you’re complaining about.
@Holly Pervocracy
Yip-yip-yippie.
But if women “cared” like they say. And are all about equality why are there any gendered institutions at all?
Shouldn’t there just be a DV shelter? Single parent support? A Scholarship?
If feminism was about equality, that’s what there’d be.
NWO: You want to know why women didn’t fight? Because they would get their asses turfed out if they were found (in the US civil war, and yes, several women did fight in disguise and DIE for their countries). Because they would get burned at the stake, or raped by their own men. Because they couldn’t leave their families for extended periods when the men were off fighting. And some women defied all that and still fought, but they were very rare and lived in fear of being caught.
Shouldn’t there just be a DV shelter? Single parent support? A Scholarship?
Um… yeah. The latter two things exist. In abundance.
Unisex DV shelters don’t exist because of the fear that abusive partners would check themselves in; however, a number DV shelters will house abused men in motel rooms, not just turn them away.
Seriously, NWO, you might want to educate yourself on some ACTUAL history before you go spouting off to people who study it. Just a thought…
I actually agree with NWO (holy shit y’all) that in a perfect world where gender equality had been achieved, women’s scholarships and the like would be unnecessary.
However, we are not actually in that perfect world right now.
@Moewicus
” If only Samantha and your unnamed speaker had been allowed to take respectable jobs, they wouldn’t have to badger their husbands.”
If only women had the entrepenurial spirit to do that on their own back in the ancient days. No one helped individual men, they did it on their own back then. As oppoessed to Big Daddy’s loving help these days.
If women are equal in ability with men, they always were. Men could never have stopped women from doing anything ever in all of history, all things being equal.
NWO: Riiight, because men didn’t need women to stay at home and take care of the house and the KIDS she risked her life to push out while he went and worked. They wouldn’t make it near impossible for women to work outside the home, with laws and social constrictions and every fucking religion out there telling women that all they could do was take care of the house and kids.
@KathleenB
“Seriously, NWO, you might want to educate yourself on some ACTUAL history before you go spouting off to people who study it. Just a thought…”
I know my history very well. Do you? I have pre-1900s history books and quite a few volume XI and pre volume XI brittianica’s?
You’d be surprised how much modern history books deviate from what eyewitness writing has recorded in history.
an excerpt from one of the links I posted which you obviously didn’t read being the ignoramus that you are:
“On August 5, 1943, these two efforts — WAFS and WFTD — merged to become the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), with Cochran as director. More than 25,000 women applied — with requirements including a pilot’s license and many hours experience. The first class graduated on December 17, 1943. The women had to pay their own way to the training program in Texas. A total of 1830 were accepted into training and 1074 women graduated from WASP training during its existence, plus 28 WAFS. The women were trained “the Army way” and their graduation rate was similar to that for male military pilots.”
wow, 25,000. That’s a lot of ladies not eating bon bons. No special requirements either or help from “Big Daddy Guvmin!”
Hahaha, NWO thinks that history books which are older are more accurate, because they’re closer to history, y’all.
I have the Book of Learnin’ open for editing right now and I guess I have another one to add.
NWO: Bully for you. Have you actually read them, or just used your Awesome Manly Mental Powers to divine their contents?
Yeah, I’m sure your average shit shoveling farmer in the Bronze age had a whole lot of entrepreneurial spirit.
Men as a whole just wandered around in the wild, founding businesses and only interacting with the female communes in order to breed, which was how the women captured them and made them do all that warring.
If men are superior in ability to women, then how is it women are net oppressors, according to you? Women never could have suppressed man’s entrepreneurial spirit. Stick to a single argument, numbnuts.
How shall we break it to NWO that a lot of the ancient historians lied through their fucking teeth?
NWO, do you just look at the pretty engravings, or do you comprehend any of what you “read?” I’m guessing the former.
Do you know what zero-sum means? It’s an open book quiz, feel free to wiki it up, you might learn.
@KathleenB
“NWO: Riiight, because men didn’t need women to stay at home and take care of the house and the KIDS she risked her life to push out while he went and worked.”
I suppose women didn’t need men to perform those dangerous jobs where HE risked his life to support their children as well. They both carried a cross, therefore no oppression took place.
I can play the oppression olympics all day.
How about this. She risked her life during childbirth, several times in her entire life. While HE risked his life every fucking day in a dangerous job, right up until the time he died in that job.
Ya still wanna play?
Ah… so NWO doesn’t know what a “zero-sum” game/equation equals.
NWO, in your world, do men work in offices, or all they all miners and milk machine techs? Not every man has a dangerous job.
Shorter NWO:
Men did everything all on their own, always!
[response]
Oh yeah! Well women needed men too! So there!
I’m leaving.
@hellkell
“Do you know what zero-sum means? It’s an open book quiz, feel free to wiki it up, you might learn.”
Oh reheheheaallly now? Then why do feminists always say, “equality isn’t a zero sum game.”
Amirite? Amirite? Amirite? Amirite?
NWO: Perhaps you need me to spell this out: I studied history. A lot of history. I continue to study history, though not in an academic setting. I have done historic records research and worked with the original records. I have designed museum exhibits and helped install them. I am an historic recreator and am conversant in many period fighting techniques.
So, if you were given a name and told that they lived in your county in the 19th century, find out as much as you can about them, would you have any clue where to start? Do you know how to treat old paper to ensure it will not be unduly damaged by handling? Do you know the difference between primary and secondary source?
NWO, for the love of god, as the sort-of-resident-lurking-libertarian-friend Ami invited, let me ask you to please stop acting like women are these insatiable, nation bankrupting, naturally statist creatures grabbing and grasping at the government tit. Or daddy hand, Or nanny state. Or whatever the metaphor is this morning.
We couldn’t even get the damn ERA passed. What tiny sliver of the State’s resources are really devoted to women? Poor people? Pretty much any basic social welfare net? Bueller? Oh, hell, you made me say it, the 99%? You’re actually making me approvingly quote DWORKIN:
There is not a feminist alive who could possibly look to the male legal system for real protection from the systemized sadism of men. Women fight to reform male law, in the areas of rape and battery for instance, because something is better than nothing. In general, we fight to force the law to recognize us as the victims of the crimes committed against us, but the results so far have been paltry and pathetic.
*I FEEL DIRTY*
Feminists don’t use the state because of some Womanly Need To Have Big Govmint. Feminists use the state because it’s what avenue we have. And no, it’s not so broad as you think. And yeah, most women, and most feminists are Statists. But you know what? Most PEOPLE are statists.
You seem to have some form of post-pond-life intelligence SOMEWHERE in your skull, or at least some message repeating “State Bad!” – Which, yeah, you’re getting SOMEWHERE.
Let’s just concentrate on that, and your damn conviction that anybody who’s a have-not is doing nothing but voting themselves free pie. What do the best and brightest and most clever people feeding at the Republican and other big-time Statist trough tell somebody who’s got the “bad state!” message? They don’t tell them “state good!” They tell them not to look for a moment at the many ways the State creates poverty and class stratification as we know it, and to look at the tiny bandaids they pass out to people if they scream loud enough as rack and ruin, and the cause of our empires decline.
There’s nobody administering the beatings, it’s the people asking for some padding on the sticks who are the problem. Jesus Christ on a Pogo stick, this is basic stuff.
You’re a patsy, NWO, and if there’s an Illuminati out there, it’s laughing all the way to the bank while you preach to us about fiscal responsibility.
You know who was and is out there forming health collectives, co-operatives, journalism collectives, shelters, without a penny from the State? Feminists. What we couldn’t “vote” ourselves for in a smorgasbord of government suckling, we tried and are trying to build. Now shut up and get out of the way.
How many times has MRAL left in the past week?
NWO, you’re starting to sound more exciteable than DKM. Do calm down, dear. Have a nice glass of warm milk.
NWO: Not every single man worked in a mine or was in an army. To claim that a clerk risked his life every day to provide for his family is bullshit, and you know it.
And, as an aside the 1911 Britannica, while a very nice book; stylistically brilliant, and wonderfully bound, was simplified for the purpose of expanding it’s market into the United States.
While it was very good for what it was (a brief overview of various subjects), it neither in-depth, nor complete. The scholarship was also, of course, limited by the knowledge of the times.
In short, it’s no better than wikipedia, and less up-to-date.
Hey NWOslave: do the Yanomamo oppress their women?
MRAL has refined flouncing technique to the point where he can flounce first thing, no preceding argument even required.
NWO meanwhile seems to be playing the “if everyone is oppressed, no one is oppressed!” card with all sincerity. Which, without even disputing its truth, is just sad. It just shows no hope for a better world.
I love the contradiction here in NWO’s rantings. One minute, men are these rugged individualists who earned their rights with their “entrepreneurial spirit”, and the next, they are mindless putty in the hands of evil women, dropping everything and going off to fight for truckloads of Jimmy Choos.
(Forget the fact that Helen of Troy was fictional. NWO hasn’t even read the fiction. What Helen of Troy wanted was for her husband and his buddies to stay the fuck home, so she could lead a peaceful and enjoyable life with her second husband. As disparaging as ancient literature is of women, nowhere in the Iliad or the Odyssey does it say that Helen of Troy dragged a bunch of reluctant men into war. Hell, Agamemnon couldn’t wait to slit his own daughter’s throat so he could sail to Troy already.)
Pecunium – Have you held a set in person though? My GOD!
NWO: @hellkell
“Do you know what zero-sum means? It’s an open book quiz, feel free to wiki it up, you might learn.”
Oh reheheheaallly now? Then why do feminists always say, “equality isn’t a zero sum game.”
That’s not an answer, so no, you obviously don’t know what it means.
@hellkell
” NWO, in your world, do men work in offices, or all they all miners and milk machine techs? Not every man has a dangerous job.”
Oooooo, a milk machine tech. You make it sound so lowly. Apparently you dont realize the vast machinery complex equations and massive effort that goes into that little bottle or juicy box you pick up.
But I geuss it can’t compare to the genius needed for the job the vast majority of women are employed. Where women make the supreme intellectual effort of scanning a bar code which was put on the milk bottle for you.
Man this is fun. It’s like that episode of star trek where data had a conversation with the one-upmanship guy.
Right, that is precisely why you think feminists petitioning the government to do things for them is only sometimes effective, why you think feminists complaining about things men have not done for them is never effective, and why you think feminists attacking organizations that do not help or benefit women is ass-backwards. Feminists never seem to understand that if you have a group that constantly blocks your efforts and actively undermines your advocacy, you cannot just “do it yourself.” More curious, however, is how feminists find it so unfair for men to ask the people who claim to support these issues for a little backing.
But I am game. Let us see how many feminists would not oppose a men’s scholarship program, how many do not oppose efforts to create shelters for abused men, or how many oppose efforts to assist fathers. Oh wait, we do not have to wait and see. Apparently feminists so oppose those efforts that there is a feminist blog (which you are part of) called “No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz” to get feminists to realize how moronic and sexist that is (as members of the blog ironically engage in the same silencing tactics they critique).
If feminists are men’s allies, that gives new meaning to adage “with friends like these, who needs enemies”. It is hard to help someone when you are so busy stabbing them in the back.
The majority DV shelters do turn men away, and those who house men in motel rooms only give them a voucher that lasts for a couple of days, most of which do not include provisions for men with children.The claim about fear of abusive men checking themselves in is just a sexist excuse feminists use to justify denying male victims access to support services.
Awww, NWO thinks he’s ‘beating us up!’ Isn’t that just precious. Bless your heart, dear.
you know, dudes use welfare too….just thought I’d throw that out there.
also, Lol @ MRAL. Are you still being trolled if you laugh instead of get angry?
And here comes TS and his ‘evil feminists are EVILLLLL!!!’ song and dance! We just need Meller and we’ll have the trifecta!
Butbutbutbutbutbut … the clerk braved traffic! And the weather!! That’s life-threatening! Seriously, what do feminists know about driving in light drizzle or enduring temperatures just above freezing for a WHOLE TEN MINUTES?? Men only ever go to work because their evil, henpecking wives force them to.
(I learned that from the Great Book O’Larnin’.)
NWO: I’m waiting. See above. Please give me examples of how feminism is a particularly Statist enterprise. No, not that feminists ARE statists (Most are, because most PEOPLE are), but that women are primarily concerned with voting woman goody after woman goody. Don’t just state Feminism = Communism, Big Government, And the Crew of the Illiuminati’s Gig.
Also, do women not work in factories now? The hell what?
More big government second wave thought: . “The state is male in the feminist sense,” MacKinnon.
zhinxy:Yes. I have shared a house with one. I have been known to read it, both for pleasure, and as various forms of research tool. Sadly I am not likely to inherit it when my friend dies. He not only has the entire set, but the case which stores them lying on their backs.
@Pecunium
“That’s not an answer, so no, you obviously don’t know what it means”
Well the answer is….for every oppression x faces, y will give a similar or worse oppression, or for every privilege x says y has, y will give a similar or better privilege x has.
So in the zero sum game. I just zero summed you.
It’s been fun but I gotta big day tommorow at the old milkyplant. Have fun wallowing in your victimology.
Amused: Ah, the Book O’Larnin. Such an august compendium of all true knowledge.
Pecunium. Wow! So envious. Does it sort of glow? It does, doesn’t it?
But Kathleen, not doing something for someone is exactly the same thing as preventing them from doing it themselves.
Talking to TS is like being stuck in a bad rerun of 1984. War is Peace, dude.
Cassandra: Oh, right! I forgot, women are supposed to do everything for the MRM, when the MRM wants it, or feminism is worthless bullshit. Brandon taught me that.
Fun fact – victimology is an actual academic field. Second fun fact – it has nothing to do with people feeling sorry for themselves, or with feminism.
I do not oppose scholarships for men — hey, it’s private money, the donors can do what they want with it. In any event, don’t those exist already?
I do not oppose efforts to create shelters for abused men. Of course, the problem is that MRA’s DON’T actually want to create shelters for abused men as much as they want to eliminate shelters for abused women. Now, that I do oppose.
I do not oppose efforts to assist fathers in meeting HIGHER expectations than society ordinarily imposes on them.
Pecunium: Oooohhhh, lucky! I love pretty old books.
NWO: Well the answer is….for every oppression x faces, y will give a similar or worse oppression, or for every privilege x says y has, y will give a similar or better privilege x has.
So in the zero sum game. I just zero summed you.
No.
A zero sum equation (as you, the masterful maker of high-tech testing equipment ought to know) means that there for everything one side gains, the other side must lose.
If there are ten people, and ten spots on the life boat, everyone wins.
If there are ten people and five spots on the lifeboat, five people can’t get on. To add one person to the lifeboat means one person has to be removed.
That’s zero-sum.
Equality isn’t a zero-sum game, because it’s a win-win, not a win-lose.
You are just someone too willful, or too stupid to understand it.
zhinxy: It is a thing of beauty and joy forever. It’s glorious, the delicate heft, the idiosyncratic voices of the writers (not yet slaves to a stylebook), the sense of depth and completeness to it.
The splendid errors, mixed in with the true facts. The sense of time and place it has.
Someday, I should like to own one.
<blockquote. It is a thing of beauty and joy forever. It’s glorious, the delicate heft, the idiosyncratic voices of the writers (not yet slaves to a stylebook), the sense of depth and completeness to it.
The splendid errors, mixed in with the true facts. The sense of time and place it has.
I read through that whole thing and all I could think was old book smell.
Sigh. That and an original three-foot-long set of Harvard Classics on beautiful cherry-wood shelves. Someday!
ok Toysoldier, why don’t men lobby the government for shelters? this is what I do not understand. Feminists did the work for it, yet MRAs just want to defund those shelters…WTF?? Asking you to do the leg work is perfectly reasonable, because that’s exactly what feminists and women have been doing. Oh but I guess I’m sexist because of that right? Am I an asshole too if I choose to donate to one particular charity over the other too? would I be evil if I donated to a charity for research on one particular disease over another one? Are YOU doing anything done to get a shelter built? I really hope so.
and no, that is a very legitamate reason. If I was being beaten to death by a male partner, I would choose a shelter that did not house men, one that he could easily try to get into. Sorry but when you fear for your life, the only thing that matter is being kept safe. I wouldn’t be surprised if battered men chose a shelter that housed men only either.
I don’t oppose shelters being created for men, hell I’d donate even. What I do oppose is so called MRAs calling for the de-funding and shutting down of women’s shelters, and basically trying to take away money that they really need. Whitewashing the issue of battered women is pretty fucked up too. Shelters don’t get a lot of money as it is, and they often have to turn women away. This happened to one of my friends too. So no, as a feminist, I don’t oppose advocacy for male victims of DV, I oppose douchebag MRAs telling feminists to stop caring about battered women and demanding all the money go to battered men instead. It was feminists who brought DV to light in the first place, where were the MRAs then?
Pecunium, nice. I have a reprint of that edition, which I got for free while I was working there. Not quite the same, but I like it.
So by extension, after the Civil War, when a bunch of states and cities passed laws that made it so black people were effectively unable to vote, that was also totally cool and for the best, and not at all oppression.
I love the endless layers of irony in NWOslave claiming we’re trying to one up him and engage in “victimology,” literally right after saying a) anything women get, men get worse and b) men oppress women and by the way my name is NWOslave and my avatar is a picture of hands in shackles. Are we entirely sure NWOslave isn’t a performance artist?
Honestly, either the guy is a performance artist OR he wouldn’t recognize intellectual consistency if Aristotle rose from the grave and bashed his brains in with the entire corpus of philosophical thought.
I’m going to go ahead and venture a guess that the answers to Toysoldier’s “how many feminists would NOT” questions are all about 99%.
It is rather fascinating to compare the basic viewpoints on which feminism and the MRM are based. Feminism saw a world in which men and women did not have equal rights – men had more. Feminism’s solution was to fight for more rights for women. The MRM sees a world which it thinks is unequal, in which women have more rights than men. It’s solution is to fight for women to have less rights.
Constructive versus destructive. It’s a pretty simple difference in fundamental approach, but a very important one.
“I love the endless layers of irony in NWOslave claiming we’re trying to one up him and engage in “victimology,” literally right after saying a) anything women get, men get worse and b) men oppress women and by the way my name is NWOslave and my avatar is a picture of hands in shackles. Are we entirely sure NWOslave isn’t a performance artist?
Honestly, either the guy is a performance artist OR he wouldn’t recognize intellectual consistency if Aristotle rose from the grave and bashed his brains in with the entire corpus of philosophical thought.”
HAHAHAHAHA!
“I’m going to go ahead and venture a guess that the answers to Toysoldier’s “how many feminists would NOT” questions are all about 99%.”
Yep. Same song and dance.
I predict +400 comments, many from Toysoldier’s bullshit. If it gets to less than that, I’ll give myself a purple nurple.
In terms of the shelter movement, and the fact that many shelters don’t accept men, a more accurate criticism than the one TS is leveling would be that the underlying assumptions are very heteronormative. One possible counterargument would be that the majority of the population is straight, so there are numerically far more women in need of shelter from abusive male partners than shelter from abusive female partners. (This argument has some problems, by the way – there’s some truth to it, but it’s still too limiting.) The MRM, otoh, doesn’t care about the heteronormativity, or about men who’re abused by male partners.
Man this is fun. It’s like that episode of star trek where data had a conversation with the one-upmanship guy.
Starship Mine? xD
Also I notice that you’re avoiding Zhinxy who can kick your butt on your faux-libertarianism XD
So rly,this isn’t fun for you xD
(sorry I was out xD guess doing what NWO? :D You’re the expert on other women and queer ppl’s lives after all xD)
ok Toysoldier, why don’t men lobby the government for shelters? this is what I do not understand. Feminists did the work for it, yet MRAs just want to defund those shelters…WTF?? Asking you to do the leg work is perfectly reasonable, because that’s exactly what feminists and women have been doing. Oh but I guess I’m sexist because of that right? Am I an asshole too if I choose to donate to one particular charity over the other too? would I be evil if I donated to a charity for research on one particular disease over another one? Are YOU doing anything done to get a shelter built? I really hope so.
Because feminists would destroy any attempt to do so and then jail the men. Feminism will oppose any attempt to help men, and that’s why you shouldn’t try. >_>
http://ami-rants.blogspot.com/2011/07/amis-safe-space-project.html
Also this is a good time to promote my safe space project again :D (I need to update it a little with new submissions… )
I showed the facilitator of my YWCA trauma therapy group too and she’s going to contribute and spread it around too :D
Oh those evil feminists! XD
“Because feminists would destroy any attempt to do so and then jail the men. Feminism will oppose any attempt to help men, and that’s why you shouldn’t try. >_>”
Huh…then why be an MRA?
“Well, uh…because FUCK YOU MANGINA, THAT’S WHY!”
I’ll be completely honest and just say that I skimmed through this thread, so apologies if I am doubling up here.
The fact that women had to wait and struggle for a *mere* (jesus!!!) 26 years to gain the most basic right to VOTE is egregious enough. And we’re still not granted a right to our own bodily autonomy!!
I’m sure that the MRM folks have a say on this, and I would just like (ahem…LOVE) to turn the tables on them.