Voices of Hatred: A look at the noxious views of six of the speakers at A Voice for Men’s upcoming conference
Posted by David Futrelle
Curious about the views of the people scheduled to speak at A Voice for Men’s “Men’s Issues” conference next week? Here’s a little video guide. CONTENT WARNING: Domestic violence, rape, incest.
If you’d like to have their quotes in writing for future reference, here’s a transcript of the quotes used in the video. I’ve linked to the source of each quote (or to posts of mine that discuss the quotes in greater detail). Enjoy!
Mike Buchanan has said:
I believe girls learn at a young age that whining gets them what they want, especially from over-indulgent parents who might later wonder why their daughters became Entitlement Princesses. Inevitably these girls continue whining into adolescence and adulthood because they continue to get what they want. It’s up to men to break the cycle …
Men living in houses with cellars can put a sign on the cellar door, ‘The Whine Cellar’, and politely direct whining women towards it. In houses without a cellar, the smallest room in the house – or possibly the garden shed – could be designated ‘The Whine Box’.
Mike Buchanan is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Mike Buchanan is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Buchanan’s quote
Stefan Molyneux has said:
Women who choose the assholes will fucking end this race. They will fucking end this human race, if we don’t start holding them a-fucking-ccountable. … Women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality, sociopathy. Politicians, all the cold-hearted jerks who run the world came out of the vaginas of women who married assholes.
And I don’t know how to make the world a better place without holding women accountable for choosing assholes. Your dad was an asshole because your mother chose him. Because it works on so many women. If “asshole” wasn’t a great reproductive strategy it would have been gone long ago. Women keep that black bastard flame alive. They cup their hands around it, they protect it with their bodies. They keep the evil of the species going by continually choosing these guys.
If being an asshole didn’t get women, there would be no assholes left. If women chose nice guys over assholes we would have a glorious and peaceful world in one generation. Women determine the personality traits of the men because women choose who to have sex with, and who to have children with, and who to expose those children to. …
Your dad is who he is fundamentally because your mother was willing to fuck him and have you. Willing and eager to fuck the monster. Stop fucking monsters and we get a great world. Keep fucking monsters, we get catastrophes, we get war, we get nuclear weapons, we get national debt, we get incarcerations … Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil. And then you know what they say? We’re victims!
Stefan Molyneux is a scheduled speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men.
Stefan Molyneux is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Molyneux’s quote. NOTE: The text above is a more complete version of the slightly truncated quote used in the video, which was edited for clarity, for length, and to remove some repetition.
Erin Pizzey has said:
If you’re referring to Paul’s statement that many or most women fantasize about being taken, I’m sorry but that’s the truth. That doesn’t mean they want to be raped, but it’s a fantasy I think almost all women have. And I think he went on to say that feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were and are so obsessed with rape are really projecting their own unconscious sexual frustration because men don’t give them enough attention. Andrea was a very sad lonely woman like this–I didn’t know her but I knew of her, and I knew Susan Browmiller and you can just read her stuff to see it there.
Erin Pizzey is a scheduled speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Erin Pizzey is a voice of hatred
SOURCE of Pizzey’s quote. NOTE: The text above is a complete version of the slightly truncated quote used in the video, which was edited for clarity.
Karen Straughan has written:
I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I’d listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he’d eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they’d be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.
A man I know who has experience with men in abusive relationships would get his clients to answer a questionnaire. Things like, “after the violence, did you have sex?” “If so, how would you rate the sex?” 100% of men in reciprocally abusive relationships said “yes” to the first, and “scorching” to the second.
He also posited that the much-quoted cycle of violence–the build-up, the explosion, the honeymoon period–correlates with foreplay, orgasm and post-coital bliss.
Erin Pizzey called it “consensual violence”, and said in the main, that was the type she’d see at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our “never EVER hit a woman” mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they’re demanding.
Karen Straughan is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Karen Straughan is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Straughan’s quote.
Warren Farrell has said:
The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom …
Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.
If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. …
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. …
It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” … conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.
Warren Farrell is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Warren Farrell is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Farrell’s quote.
Warren Farrell has said:
Incest is like a magnifying glass. In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma. …
When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. …
[M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and … caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t.
Warren Farrell is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Warren Farrell is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Farrell’s quote. I have removed a word that appears in the original interview but that Farrell insists he did not say.
Paul Elam has said:
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
Now, am I serious about this?
No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.
But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
Paul Elam is the central organizer of the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, and the founder of A Voice for Men
Paul Elam is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Elam’s quote.
For a detailed look at the homophobia of Anne Cools, another speaker at the conference, see here.
Big thanks to everyone who helped with the video!
Posted on June 20, 2014, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, antifeminism, antifeminist women, erin pizzey, evil women, excusing abuse, FemRAs, GirlWritesWhat, imaginary oppression, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, playing the victim, rape, rape culture, warren farrell and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, conference, detroit, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, warren farrell. Bookmark the permalink. 869 Comments.
@woodyred:
You still, despite repeated requests, have not answered the following question:
What is the context of these quotes that would make them better? Or how have they been taken out of context?
This is one of the more interesting commentariats, on the internet, who you cannot bamboozle by simply declaiming randomly from the wikipedia List of logical fallacies without backing up your claims. You can’t just yell “out of context” or “strawman”! as if you were claiming a foul in a sports match or as if they were a magical talisman.
If you think something is out of context or has been dishonestly snipped, prove it. Show the whole context. Explain how what is being quoted here is not what they actually meant.
Prove it.
From whence did this idea feminists teach their sons to treat women so super nicely come? I don’t want to be treated overly nicely. I don’t want to be coddled. I don’t want sunshine blown up my ass. I want to be treated like a person. That’s what I’ll teach my boys.
What feminists are teaching boys and men to treat women excessively kindly?
Iunno. Feminists I know teach their children to treat everyone with respect. It’s mostly the so-called “purity culture” that espouses to teach boys to treat women “super-nice” (unless those women don’t meet their standards of “purity”, in which case they’re stupid sluts).
But treating humans like humans is soooo hard, Marinerachel!
Why can’t we just give all men a nice little manual for how to feed, care for, and operate their women: models hb8-10. I mean, how can guys be expected to know how to treat women like people, and not like either robots or delicate pieces of glasswork? Women are clearly from a separate and distinct evolutionary lineage!
Except for, you know, the fact that their choices in mates have made men evolve to be meanies…
Do I need the /s? Just in case: /SarcasmAlert!!!!!!
I’m a feminist, or at least I was. But I’m totally disillusioned with it now. It just causes arguments between genders. As you can see in this comment thread. Ideally the movement needs to be tweaked to perpetuate love+peace between people of all genders. Then I’ll support fmism/mfism (those would be fairer titles, implying both men and women should be treated well, +they are fun and catchy).
Lol, egalitarianism. Go away, elizabeth. No warm welcome will be forthcoming.
see that was just rude? whats “lol” about wanting fairness for everyone, isn’t that exactly the goal of feminism? if it’s not then fine, but that’s what I thought it was.
Actually, elizabeth, it doesn’t have to cause arguments between genders. Men who believe that women should have rights equal to men’s don’t argue with the basic premises of feminism. Women who, like me, love men (husband, son, nephews, friends, in-laws) don’t argue that men don’t need compassion and love and fairness. I have a daughter and a son, I love them both, and I see how both have been hurt by a sexist, patriarchal system. I see it in my granddaughter and grandson as well. Alas, feminism is still necessary and cannot be substituted for by humanism or whatever as long as women worldwide still suffer lopsidedly as they do.
Aww, did I hurt your fee-fees? The issue with egalitarianism is that it necessarily fosters an attitude of “what about the menz,” in that it denies the reality of there being a privileged oppressor class benefiting from the disenfranchisement of the oppressed (in this case, specifically in terms of gender, though obviously there are numerous instances of intersection with other areas of privilege and oppression). So no, that’s bullshit.
Also, this isn’t a 101 education blog, this is a mockery blog, so really, the field in which I grow my shits about your feels?
Barren.
Ah, but that’s the thing. They think treating you like a person is excessive.
@ Elizabeth
If the idea that women are people causes so much friction in your relationships with men, may I suggest that feminism is not the problem?
Magically, being a feminist has caused exactly zero arguments between me and my boyfriend.
Me and my father, OTOH… Whoo boy. Then again, he likes Rush Lumbaugh, so there’s that.
Yeah, the problem isn’t feminism.
I’m sorry estraven, your thoughts seem very agreeable with me, however I think feminism causes arguments and hate between genders, I think there is a genuine problem in its’ design. The name emphasizes gender, and includes just one gender, so segregates people into gender labels, one of which is not included, one of which is. I think this causes most women to feel allied and most men to feel it is biased, that’s why i was suggesting fmism/mfism seem like better names, that’s just what i think and think it turns genders against each other. The movement could be perpetuating love and peace between people but has the opposite effect. I always see similar arguments in the comment thread when the subject is feminism and I think it need not be that way.
elizabeth, you’ve come on to a site that’s all about mocking misogyny and say you used to be a feminist, but you’ve become “disillusioned” with feminism because it “causes arguments between genders.” Then you hold up this comment thread as an example of all the “arguments between genders” that feminism causes.
Did you read the OP, elizabeth? Because that is what this specific argument is about. It’s about what speakers at an MRA conference have said about women, and some people trying to defend those comments. The comments themselves are indefensible, but they are trying.
Essentially, you have one side – the feminists – saying that no, women don’t deserve to be beaten and raped; women don’t secretly want to be beaten and raped; women are not whiny children; and women are not responsible for all the evils in the world. And on the other side of the argument who are defending these views.
This is the argument that is going on. And I ask you, how on earth is feminism supposed to be tweaked so that people who believe what those speakers in the OP believe have feelings of love and peace for us? How do you perpetuate love and peace among people who don’t even believe your human?
And you’re whining about us being rude and unfair?
Yeah, oppression isn’t a big deal. The anti-feminist love+peace fantasy is basically a “nice” way of wishing women would just shut the fuck up.
Lol, elizabeth thinks gender is binary. Please, all, join me in the sacred ritual of pointing and laughing.
Just going to reiterate dustedeste’s comment here for elizabeth, who seemed to miss it the first time she asked BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MEN?
Racnad
CITATION NEEDED Do you have proof that men lie more than women about domestic violence-related injuries?
elizabeth: …You know all feminists aren’t cis women, right?
however I think feminism causes arguments and hate between genders,
Why yes, feminists do indeed argue with people, like the MRAs in the OP,
who apparently believe that women aren’t human beings. And indeed, feminists and women get a lot of hate from misogynists.
That’s why they’re called misogynists. Because they hate women.
How exactly are we supposed to cause people who hate us to love us? And why is it feminists responsibility to change to appease the haters, and not the other way around?
Elizabeth,
Are you under the impression that all the regular commenters are women? Because lots of men do comment here. The owner of this blog is a man.
We aren’t arguing with the MRA trolls because they’re men. We’re arguing with them because they are misogynistic trolls.
Seconding what Fromafar said. My being feminist isn’t causing arguments with men I know in meat space. I’ve gotten into it with my right wing uncle a few times but that’s it.
@elizabeth:
In other words: “being tolerant means you must tolerate my intolerance!”
NO.
No, no.
No.
Nobody is required to be nice to bigoted assholes who want to limit other peoples’ rights. Women are constantly being told that they must be “nice” to men, even when said men want to limit their rights in society. Fuck that noise.
WTF? No, it’ doesn’t. The reason the Woodys on this thread are being chewed out is because they are assholes. not because they’re men. Get a grip.
I’m a man. So are several other posters here. David himself is a man, for God’s sake! What is the “argument between genders” here? If you think MRAs and misogynists stand for the entire male gender, you have a real shitty opinion on men.
If you really don’t get why it’s called feminism:
The reason it’s called feminism is because women are the oppressed class. Men are not. In order to get an equal society, we must lift women from the oppression to the level of bodily autonomy, equal pay, and so forth. You know, where men already are.
Men don’t need to be included in a movement for equality, because we’re not oppressed. The decent men of this world support feminism all the same, because they agree that women should get to be equal to men legally and socially, not because we need to “gain” something for ourselves or to be the center of attention. Men are being catered to everywhere. Let feminism be one thing that doesn’t require women to be “nice” to men for the sole reason of being men.
@elizabeth
The name is gendered because the problems it addresses ARE gendered. Wage gap, rape, domestic violence, access to education… A lot of these affect women disproportionably and are therefore in need of special address. Feminism is there to address these problems for women… sometimes it even helps men as a side effect, but its focus is women because women are subject to systematic discrimination.
I’ve always thought there were TWO premises you needed to accept for feminism and if one of these seems weird to you… well, then feminism is not for you and I don’t know which reality you are living in.
Premise one: Men and women deserve equal rights.
Premise two: To one degree or another women are not getting these equal rights across the world.
We don’t have to deny that we have it better in some places and worse in others… just accept that it’s not entirely okay everywhere. I really don’t know what’s so radical about this.
No I’m ok dustedeste, but I just thought that was a typical example of the kind of way people feel in and around feminism.
I think there is unfair treatment and discrimination of people in general, female, male, or the other sexes. And imo the epitome is for all life on earth to be treated well and fairly and good. If there is more unfair treatment of people in a certain gender then I think that should be dealt with more. Some people are privileged, men/women/others, and I don’t think it’s bad if people have a good life, i think it’s bad that some people don’t, so rather than focusing on some people being privileged, I think the focus should be on some people being unprivileged and how to tackle that.
fmism & mfism are “fun and catchy”? That is seriously the most hilarious thing I’ve heard all day, so thanks for that I guess.
@ Elizabeth
” so rather than focusing on some people being privileged (men), I think the focus should be on some people being unprivileged (women) and how to tackle that (elevate women, eliminate discrimination).”
So, feminism, then? You do realize you just described feminism (and social justice causes in general)?
elizabeth:
Which is exactly what social justice and human rights movements like feminists is doing.
See, the problem is, sometimes people who are privileged don’t like to give up or share that privilege. So you get people like the MRAs in the OP. Who tie themselves in knots trying to make ways in which women are oppressed, and everything bad in the world, the fault of women.
Ugh. I don’t have the patience to teach some willfully ignorant egalitarian even the barest bones of the meaning of the term “privilege,” and frankly, it’s not my responsibility to do so, so fuck that noise. Anyone else who wants to enlighten our little friend, be my guest; I’m going to go get shit done, as it is my day off.
*facepalms away*
@elizabeth
Errrm… this is exactly what feminism does? It tackles the unprivileged!
And it’s not the only movement for crying out loud! There are movements for racism, ablism, classicism… all the ways in which people can be fucked over by the system SHOULD be addressed… feminism is just one among a myriad of social justice movements. How is this news to everyone?
Look my city only just gave me the right to abortion a couple of years ago. People in the provinces STILL don’t have it. Girls are STILL being arrested or driven from their homes or subject to horrible clandestine procedures because it is still not legal everywhere. I NEED feminism.
A general movement for equality won’t serve me. I need a specific movement that tackles my specific problems… feminism! You know what I also need? A specific movement to tackle the specific problems of the indigenous groups in my country… this movement also exists! Different tools for different problems… sometimes they even aid each other!
NOTE TO WOODYRED, who keeps kvetching about being banned.
Here’s the deal. We get lots of abusive trolls here, who start out being obnoxious, then move on to slurs, then move on to really nasty and sometimes triggering personal attacks.
I’m trying my best to avoid that last part from happening.
So if I put someone on moderation, I’m basically testing them to see if they can behave appropriately. Part of that test involves them posting things that aren’t abusive. Another part of that test: whether they react to the moderation in a constructive way, by toning down their remarks and showing they can respect the rules of the blog.
Someone who petulantly demands to be taken off moderation, and then lashes out at me, is showing me that they cannot respect the rules of the blog, and suggesting to me that if I took them off moderation they could get abusive in a heartbeat.
So that’s why I banned you. It’s not because you called me fat. It’s because you acted like an asshole before I put you on moderation, and kept acting like an asshole afterwards. You showed me you’re angry, entitled, and unable to control yourself. Not a good combo.
How can you tackle discrimination against unprivileged groups without asking privileged groups to acknowledge that privilege and deal with slowly losing that privilege? You can’t do it.
Entitled jerk fussing like a baby about not being allowed to be a violent jerk? Such a surprise! (not really)
Oh poor little woodyred. How about we let him post if he (a) contributes to the discussion constructively, and (b) includes a funny animal video.
Oh never mind — he’ll never do (a), which means we have to supply our own funny animal videos!
So…
“I’m a fmismist/mfismist.”
How would you even pronounce that?
Feminism doesn’t segregate the genders, the genders are already segregated (not by feminism). You can’t fix that imbalance without addressing the imbalance existence in the first place, to claim otherwise is absurd.
I don’t really understand why people are making such obviously false statements.
Nooo! woodyred posted enough videos, one of which I can’t get through (I’m trying, guys). I vote for a happy kitty haiku.
@ Tracy
You’re actually watching them? Are they even of substance or just vapid rhetoric?
@Elizabeth you could make a similar argument about any social justice movement. Some people react against social justice movements. That is not the fault of the social justice movement, generally. In fact, the people who react against social justice movements are most often a large part of why the social justice movement exists and was necessary in the first place.
Fhum-is-mist slash muif-is-mist is the most fun/closest I cold figure.
Fhum should be pronounced like trying to make the sound of a freshly lit propane grill, while muif should sound kind of like a cross between a meow and a seal barking.
@fromafar2013 I got 15 minutes into the google hangout one and had to stop when Elam started in about feminism always being a violent movement, and using Erin Pizzey’s dog as an example. I may try to pick it back up. It’s… well, it aint easy.
(Not advocating useing them, just puzzling pronunciation for kicks)
Also, it’s interesting that woodyred pointed me to a video discussing the death threats against the Men’s Issues conference as an example of what topic he’s most interested in at the conference. By interesting I mean telling.
“Fhum should be pronounced like trying to make the sound of a freshly lit propane grill, while muif should sound kind of like a cross between a meow and a seal barking.”
DIES LAUGHING
One notable thing: at 15:35 Elam says he’s going to get off his soapbox and let other people talk for awhile. That can’t be a common occurrence, thought it should be recorded for posterity.
That Jenga cat is such a good kitty! I have a feeling Darrow would either just straight up knock the tower down with a paw whack or walk by with his giant tail of destruction and accidently knock it down.
Well, I admit when you put it that way, it does sound fun. But probably really really not catchy.
I was skimming the thread when I read this and my brain said ‘muffinist’?
*I meant read, not said. If my brain could talk independently, I’d really be in trouble.
Muffinists, fighting against the oppression of the one true breakfast food!
RE: woodyred
Try to stick the flounce for more than five minutes this time! Oh wait, you will, because David banned you. Have fun elsewhere on the Internet! And oh wait, you’re still whining about it. See, Woodyred, that’s what we call ‘consequences.’ You apparently don’t like them very much. Poor baby.
RE: sebhai
You’re banning him too soon…
Nope, I’d say it’s more than welcome.
RE: Elizabeth
Here’s the thing. I’m a disabled, poor, mentally ill, queer, trans male feminist who’s estranged from his family. My problems include getting food stamps, finding housing, and arguing with lots of welfare workers who keep making errors that drop my benefits.
This is what I do every day. This is where my (carefully horded) stock of sanity goes every day, making sure I get basic food and shelter and can keep them. And I’m LUCKY, compared to a lot of people I know.
The reason I get into screaming matches with people on the Internet is because they say things like, oh, I don’t deserve these basic human needs. Or that I deserve to have gotten raped. This isn’t a mild disagreement over preferred ice cream flavor; this is people who tell me I SHOULD DIE FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE. I don’t mean figuratively either; if they don’t think I deserve food, or housing, or money, what do you THINK is going to happen to me?
This isn’t feminism causing the divide. This is them thinking I don’t deserve the basic necessities of human life. And no matter how sweetly they say it, no matter how “nicely” they’re still saying I don’t deserve to be here, which gets me angry. It’s not feminism’s fault; it’s the assholes who think I should die.
Bagelists are nothing but a nasty, aggressive counter-movement, and we won’t even get into the cerealists.
@contrapangloss
Bagelist for life
Back on topic (even though the diversion was quite fun):
Elizabeth, I seemed to have traveled the exact opposite path from you. I was raised conservative, and still nourish some faint dregs of ‘if only libertarianism was actually done correctly…’
Only, I kept running into these things that in being a humanist, I couldn’t address appropriately and that the framework of humanism wasn’t suited for. For instance, being told by other women that I wasn’t doing femininity right, because I don’t have a deep rooted maternal instinct that (what I now realize stems from patriarcical roots) all good women are supposed to have, lest they be lesbians, or (bleeps), or selfish (BLEEPS).
Or, for instance, the notion (expressed by male peers) that my parents must have been parenting wrong, because I liked horses AND welding, and did not tolerate dresses. Because I built boats out of duct-tape and construction debris, I must be a lesbian or a (bleep), and of course I couldn’t do it as well as boys (never mind the fact that I actually did do better constructions than quite a few of the boys of my age level.
Humanism doesn’t address the framework of “but what were you wearing?” in cases of sexual assault.
I’m still a humanitarian, but I’m also a feminist, because the strict gender binary for social behavior needs to change, and feminism (despite some flaws) is the movement that wants to go there.
Humanism is more focused on the basics of making sure people around the world have shelter, food, and security, and doesn’t care so much about the harm of gender roles. That’s not in its current purview, with some exceptions.
Feminism does care about that, and is very inclusive of intersectionalism (with some exceptions. (Certain radfems, while they do some awesome, can they stop being nasty to trans folks? Please?)
Okay, off my high horse, before I give myself a nosebleed. Time to go back to breakfast-food-ism-pondering.
Lids, the horror!
Please, please, say at least you are opposed to the vile practice of whipping cream cheese!
I’m an Oatmeal Rights Activist myself (ORA).
We don’t hate muffins, we just don’t think they’re part of a well-balanced breakfast. And that muffins are the sweet, moist, dense delivery system of worldwide doom and pure evil.
Muffins, denounce your muffinish wiles! Stop oppressing oatmeal!
I don’t like whipped cream cheese, but sometimes I whip some frosting. I whipped some lemon frosting for my lemon cake last night, then I cruelly diced up some strawberries to put on top. I’m a terrible person.
RE: contrapangloss
Elizabeth, I seemed to have traveled the exact opposite path from you.
Ditto. I was raised by a “liberal” Texas family, which basically meant that sure, gay people could marry, but poor people were scroungers and lazy bastards and disabled folks weren’t trying hard enough, and racism was totally over.
I became a feminist because it actually gave me a way to deal with the rife sexual abuse in my family, which all other philosophies that I’d seen responded with, “Well, you probably deserved it, now shut up and pretend it never happened.”
Lids, that is terrible, and awful, and so very, very cruel… It sounds delicious.
Sparky, how can you!? The ORA is just a spinoff of the oatocracy!
Wow. These guys are insane. That’s sad. They’re sad little men who can’t handle a world where women are their equal. This is how female oppression started in the beginning: Weak men. I’m just happy that the guys in my life are “feminists” and have the ability to think for themselves.
RE: M.E. Evans
We don’t use words like ‘insane’ or ‘nuts’ here to describe assholes. Chronic Assholism is not a mental illness.
I’m addressing this post: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/20/voices-of-hatred-a-look-at-the-noxious-views-of-six-of-the-speakers-at-a-voice-for-mens-upcoming-conference/comment-page-2/#comment-516637
and specifically that this link gives any value in understanding how relationships should be constructed: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201405/the-secret-turning-friendship-romance
Psychology Today is not the source one should turn to, to back one’s argument. It is a populist magazine, and has been linked to misogynistic views (e.g. see http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2007/09/17/extreme-misogyny-at-the-american-psychological-association-convention/) but also had Satoshi Kanazawa as a blogger on their website (see this article for a takedown of more of his more obnoxious posts: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/). I wouldn’t trust Psychology Today to tell me that it’s raining outside.
Back to the article linked by racnad:
– the conclusion in the article is based on the results of one experiment
– the experiment involved using a reward, which is quantitatively and qualitatively not the same thing as being in a relationship
These two features of the article suggest that it cannot be used to support inferences about relationships.
The actual article itself, as submitted to the journal, is full text available at: https://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/khan/documents/Jilting.pdf
The study itself is clear that it is limited to looking at the effects in the context of consumer goods. Relationships are not consumer goods. It is bad science to extrapolate the results of this study as though they speak to human relationships – something the authors of the article did NOT do, that was done by the Psychology Today blogger.
The full text article of the one on playing hard to get is here: http://ihome.cuhk.edu.hk/~b121448/hardtoget.pdf The subjects are limited to male university students in Hong Kong (quite a specific demographic) and in neither study (the article is based on two studies) were actual relationships involved. The results therefore cannot be extrapolated to suggest how people “should” behave inside of relationships.
Conclusion: Psychology Today isn’t a good source of advice, and don’t trust that people with a PhD can always fucking do science right.
Oh dammit, I have to sleep for 8 hours and I miss this? Stupid biological requirements.
The “out of context” card got played? I’m yet to see any context within which the hostility, aggression and violent rhetoric of MRAs can be made less horrible.
The “we should just treat everyone equally!” canard? This assumes everybody starts out equal. Which they don’t. This article touches on just a few of the reasons why, including the way parents unconsciously encourage different behaviours from girls and boys FROM BIRTH.
I wonder what the mothers of these guys make of their attitudes toward women. Unbelievable.
I read all of the responses to my comments. All interesting, thank you.
I was thinking of fmism/mfism being pronounced as fmIzum/mmFIzum :P I thought that was pretty catchy.
There’s a lot of responses and so I’ll give a general response rather than answer individually, sorry if I miss some significant things.
The idea that feminism supports certain things which other movements don’t (eg humanism) is a very fair enough point I think. Has anyone here heard of The Venus Project? If you like humanism + equality + feminism + etc I think you will like it. (This is quite a long video, it’s the best video to outline the concepts I think – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag).
It’s great that feminism roots for female rights I think, but I cannot say I think the way it’s being done is optimum. I stand by what I have said that I don’t believe the name supports the task of achieving gender equality as well as it could do. If the goal is to achieve gender equality, then ideally we’d choose a name which is best to do that. The best name is one that gets all people in support, together, rooting as one for gender equality. As soon as the name only implies+perpetuates being about one group of people and leaves out another group of people it’s a struggle. Hopefully you can see where I am coming from?
*The idea that feminism supports certain things which other movements support less so
(actually here’s a short concise video about The Venus Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl7Yq8QbPns – the other one is great but it is quite long, so here’s a very short video 1m20s long)
“Where is your evidence that women get into relationships with asshole men at a greater rate than men get into relationships with asshole women? ”
None. I didn’t say that. Judging from the rants at AVFM it looks like a lot of men are attracted to asshole women as well.
“The notion that the roughly 3.5 billion women and girls on the planet are attracted to assholes is ridiculous. ”
I said many, not all.
“Gay and lesbian relationships tend to get erased in this conversation too. Do lesbians like asshole women or is your contention that it’s a trait straight women have only?”
I don’t know. Ask someone who has observed lots of woman/woman relationships.
“It is also difficult to trust the definition of ‘asshole’ when it’s coming from a “Nice Guy.” IME they tend to automatically view all men who attract women as assholes.”
Your experience is different than mine. Yes, there are plenty of guys who are nice who have girlfriends and relationships, but I’ve observed many nice, sweet guys who have trouble establishing romantic relationships and cads who are popular with women.
“It has do with a combination of looks and social skills more than anything else.”
You admit looks are a factor? A few weeks ago I was lambasted here for suggesting that women are less likely to perceive a flirting guy as “creepy” if he was good looking.
“Ah yes, the gold digger defense. How many women actually get into relationships solely for money. Not that many. I don’t know a single woman like this.”
Really? I don’t know a single man who thinks he should be able to have sex with any women regardless of what she wants just because he finds her attractive. Yet feminists claim this is very common.
“Even if it was as common as you think, it’s not equivalent to rape which seems to be what you’re insinuating. When a rich man marries a trophy wife it is consensual. He knows what he’s getting into. Rape is not consensual. It doesn’t compare at all.”
I never said it was equivalent to rape. Its not even close. But it seems common for feminists to call anything they disagree with justification for rape.
“Conclusion: Psychology Today isn’t a good source of advice, and don’t trust that people with a PhD can always fucking do science right.”
And feminist bloggers and people who comment on them are more expert in the dynamics of male/female relationships that psychologists who study these relationships???
Elizabeth, are you reading what people reply to you? It would look from your comments that you never bothered to try understanding what feminism is, and cling to the terminology ‘criticism’.
You also seem to hold the naive view that oppression and ‘unfair treatment’ is some kind of accidental misfortune happening to random people and not as part of a system and its ideologies on certain groups for the benefit of others.
Go on, do some research on the subject and see that not only feminism is diverse but also its takes on intersectional oppression, and you may even find that the discussion about the name of the movement, its historical accuracy and convenience has been long addressed.
Well, see, the ORAs say some pretty terrible things, but so do the muffinis
So everybody will just eat PopTarts from now on. Like I do! Sweet and texture free is the way to go through life.
True as that may be, I learn so much just from reading the comments here. Like about ablest language and why it isn’t acceptable. I’m quite grateful for that.
I do but, like some others, I find that particular stance problematic.
For one thing, feminism isn’t just about “female rights” but also about changing the rather toxic notions about masculinity that are regularly pushed in society (e.g. the idea that a “real man” is one who is physically aggressive). MRAs, rather than forsake such notions as well, instead embrace them and try to argue that it is “natural” when – in reality – they’ve been enforced by way of societal pressure.
Second, a name is a name is a name. I’m not sure why “feminism” is criticized when so many other socio-political groups often go by purposefully misleading names, especially since it is more honest than (say) Libertarianism. I’ve rarely gotten into a conversation with feminists where the discussion devolved into demented conspiracy theories or rationalizations for mistreatment of others, like I have with MRAs and Libertarians (both of whom are prone to being dishonest about their agenda in order to gain converts, but who reveal their true colors when they are not validated). It was actually about feminist philosophy and its aims to change attitude by raising awareness of issues as well as supporting organizations whose policies coincide with them, not devolving into demented conspiracy theories or how to harass various people by revealing their address, home phone number, and where they work.
Lastly, you mentioned how one of the reasons you don’t consider yourself a feminist anymore is because of snarky comments. Do you know how common that is? It can be applied to just about any group, not just feminists, especially online. It doesn’t help that, like at this blog, many of those who post here regularly often have to deal with a constant influx of trolls. It puts you on the defensive because many of those trolls have, in the past, acted as if they wanted to discuss in good faith – only to then prove that they were simply disingenuous the entire time. I’d also argue that while many of us here are willing to be considerate and converse with someone like yourself, we’re still human and can only take so much bullshit. I never got quite this idea that you need to act polite in order to get your point across. Some issues you simply can’t be polite about (rape is one such subject) and it’ll make people (reasonably or unreasonably) angry. Obviously it is ideal to be civil and level-headed during any kind of discourse – but we live in a world where, more often than not, the person you are debating can’t be bothered to reciprocate similarly due to a sense of entitlement. You can’t expect one side to be so thick-skinned to point of being unresponsive, while letting off those on the other side as if they don’t need to compose themselves in a discussion. Being the “better man” can be overrated when, rather than being given any consideration for your stance, the other party is completely unapologetic and unwilling to behave appropriately.