Categories
antifeminism MRA reddit Uncategorized

>Hello, Men’s Rights Redditors!

>

I just noticed that someone posted a link to this blog on the Men’s Rights subreddit under the title “Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones…”  I would happily respond to this bit of idiocy in the Men’s Rights subreddit itself, but, alas, the moderator there has banned me because I have the subreddit listed in my “Enemies List.” The ban seems a bit silly. I discuss things with people in my “Enemies List” all the time, and they’re free to post here the same as anyone else.

But I have a question for you Men’s Rights Redditors. Since I can’t ask it there, I’ll ask it here, and you can respond here: What have I ever said on this blog (or elsewhere) that is in any way an example of feminist “extremism?” I challenge you to find a single “extremist” statement here, or a single example of misandry. (Note: Saying “oh, the whole blog is extremist” or “it’s obvious you’re an extremist” something along those lines is not an answer; it’s a way of begging the question.)

If I really am some sort of extremist, it should be quite easy to find specific examples of this extremism.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

199 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jadehawk
9 years ago

>they did the same to one of my blog-posts. I read some of the comments about it. Luckily, they were mostly just being trivially ignorant, rather than outright hateful.

John Dias
9 years ago

>Due to the rhetoric of left wingers — especially Democrats in the U.S. Senate prior to the 2010 general election — any invocation of the term "extremist" is usually just a euphemism for a strong difference of opinion.Although I'll throw out an example of extremism. Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women? To me that's an awfully kooky argument to make (and coincidentally, I disagree with it because of its kookiness). Hence, I contend that your position is extreme (that is, in the sense of its kooky and conspiratorial world view).By the way, David, aren't those Senate Dems your philosophical buddies?

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>left wingers and democrats are virtually non-overlapping entities"Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?"the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh?

Raul Groom
9 years ago

>I am a left-wing Democrat. Just for the record. I vote Democratic in every race in every election, I volunteer and organize exclusively for Democratic candidates, and anyone to my left is in danger of falling into the void. Just felt the need to represent on behalf of the leftwing Dems out there. As for this:"Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?"That would, indeed, be a kooky thing to say. So kooky that I have never, ever (literally NEVER) heard anyone say it. Surely you have some sort of link you could post to this amazing argument?

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Jadehawk:"The patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias."What is a systematic cultural bias (I call it feminist dogma) is the baseless assertion that a systematic patriarchal bias not only exists, but is also so strong that it would somehow motivate capitalists to throw away money on excessive wages for male employees.Kooooooookiness!

IR
IR
9 years ago

>You have "Warren Farrell" on your enemies list. His compassion towards members of both sexes is on par with that of the Dalai Lama, and anyone who labels either man an "enemy" is pretty extreme.You claim right here that a man sending a message to a woman on a dating site criticizing her feminism equates to him wanting to fuck her. That's a bit extremist – for her being female and his being male, you assume he is a cretinous sex-starved slob whose overt disgust is some elaborate ruse to get some manhater into the sack. It's curious how someone's political views turn a message implying zero sexual arousal into some lecherous creep's pipe dream. Then again, I don't make an effort to force biology and sociology to conform to my half-baked theories.You think that because a disempowered male assigned the label "loser" by society is actually suffering from excessive male power – and that disempowered men bitter from witnessing female privilege need to be mocked. Of course, I'm not sure how many women there are who are labeled "unfuckable" who remain chronically single only to be mocked for some delusional inadequacy on their part.And…You have become fixated on female victims of violence while only glossing over the overwhelming (3:1 ratio if I recall) majority of male homicide victims and moderate majority of male victims of violent crime in western society – they're an afterthought. All this despite claiming you have a semblance of interest in men's issues.You attempted to censor your discussion with Paul Elam because of the… title he chose to host it. Yes, the title is what caused you to want to blow the whole conversation off the internet. Censorship is a typical tactic of extremists, from Boston to Baghdad.Seems a bit extreme – and stupid. Maybe that's just me, though.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>are you a libertarian?because those are the only people left in the world who still believe in the existence of homo economicus.those "capitalists" pay men more than women because they're honestly convinced that the men do a better job than women. there's fucktons of studies on this, like the one with identical CV's send out with male and female names, where the male names got more interview calls. the bias is the automatic, subconscious assumption that if it's a woman, she is actually worse, and worth less.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Haven't you asserted that the pay gap is due to massive conspiracy by misogynistic employers who pay men higher wages merely because those employers hate women?Uh, no, I have not. It's a complicated issue. You can read what I did actually say here:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-gender-pay-gap.htmlYes, I do think that centuries of cultural/legal/social barriers directed towards women are a large part of what led to the massive differences in salaries and opportunties we used to see, and that the legacy of these things, as well as continuing sexist attitudes towards women, contributes to the differences that remain. When I say "sexist attitudes," I don't mean that a bunch of raging misogynists sit down together and plot how to screw women over, though there certainly are some raging misogynists out there (hence this blog). But sexism can also consist of things like the assumptions (held by men and women alike) that women should be the ones to give up their careers to take care of the kids, etc etc. Patriarchy is a complicated historical phenomenon, and as Jadehawk notes, it's a bit silly to caricature it as a conspiracy of misogynists. Also, John, I thought you were in favor of patriarchy. Wouldn't that, by your logic above, make you kooky and conspiratorial?

IR
IR
9 years ago

>@JadehawkWait, wait, wait – you seriously believe that a faceless, soulless corporation which will fire its whole staff and move off to Thailand to widen profit margins is going to systematically avoid cheaper workers only for their body parts? Because that's what you're saying, in a nutshell. Why wouldn't a cigarette company say, "Alright boys, we're going to hell anyway. Let's just fire all of our men and hire only women now. We'll save a fortune!"In a word, kooky.

IR
IR
9 years ago

>there's fucktons of studies on this, like the one with identical CV's send out with male and female names, where the male names got more interview calls.Who's statistically more likely to launch a frivolous class-action lawsuit against the company after arriving late, leaving early, and spending all day complaining about how she can't get ahead because of some conspiracy?You feminists have dug your own graves there.Additionally, men take less sick days and are less likely to take time off for having children. One way to solve this would be for men to get the same paternity time and job protection women do, but you feminists are content to just moan about some conspiracy against women because you couldn't care less about men.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"Because that's what you're saying, in a nutshell. Why wouldn't a cigarette company say, "Alright boys, we're going to hell anyway. Let's just fire all of our men and hire only women now. We'll save a fortune!""are you dense? do you know what a subconscious bias is?they (and not all "they" either. look up the Korean Chaebol and their girl-workers) don't think that because it doesn't occur to them and because they think they'd suffer a productivity loss, since, as i just explained, they automatically assume a woman will be worse at the job than a man would.this bias has been studied and confirmed over and over. a woman needs to be twice as good as a man to be seen as his equal.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>and here comes IR, confirming what I just said.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"One way to solve this would be for men to get the same paternity time and job protection women do, but you feminists are content to just moan about some conspiracy against women because you couldn't care less about men."yeah, I guess that's why the most feminist country in the world, Sweden, has parental leave. That's why other progressive, feminism-friendly countries are also moving in that direction.It's a rather pathetic lie propagated by feminist haters that feminists don't care about men

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>IR, you kind of make my case for me, dude. Warren Farrell is like the Dalai Lama!? And I'm not exactly how I "censored" Paul Elam by bowing out of a "debate" with him part way through after he 1) tried to change the rules of the debate to his benefit, 2) threatened to censor a commenter who agreed with me,and 3) basically told me to "shove it." (It was AFTER all this he decided to change the headline and introduce the portions of the debate I had already written by calling me a "fucking moron" and encouraging other MRA to repost my writings without my permission.) You can read all about it here:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/paul-elams-hypocrisy-and-douchebaggery.htmlAnd here: http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/paul-elams-continuing-childish-and.htmlOther than that, the only specific thing you've got is … that I assumed someone sending someone else a message on a DATING SITE possibly wanted to DATE (and maybe have sex with) that other person. You are aware that this is what DATING SITES are for, right? For, you know, helping people find other people to DATE.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>oh yeah. patriarchal cultural narratives are, like, totally women's fault. and it's absolutely the Swedish MRA's who pushed thru parental leave. totally.please go back to your own planet, this one is already full.

John Dias
9 years ago

>My belief is that the pay gap is a reflection of female privilege, rather than female disadvantages. Employers pay extra for continuous and relevant experience that was gained on the job. Since too few employed women are willing to empower their cohabiting male partners with a choice to (A) be supported by the woman full time, (B) be supported by the woman part time, (C) be supported by the woman temporarily until he achieves an educational goal, or (D) be employed full time with options A through C as a backup — since too few employed women offer these options to their partners, those men only have the option to work full time. Options equal power, and in this sense women have more. The fact that women placed a higher value on utilizing male-provided options like A, B, C or D above means that those options were more valuable to them than the money that they otherwise would have earned had they remained in a continuous full-time job as a wage slave. For men, the only perk in being a wage slave is a few percentage points of higher pay compared to those women who are privileged with other options besides wage slavery.The pay gap reflects female privilege, despite the conspiratorial feminist myth that men who foster female privilege are somehow oppressing women. But then, feminists do have a knack for obscuring the privileges of women and turning them around to look like burdens. It's a sneaky rhetorical tactic that has enjoyed wild success on the unsuspecting public, but it doesn't work on me.As far as my views on patriarchy, I don't embrace feminist definitions of that word; it would take a wider discussion before you understood how I define patriarchy. Give me an entire post, David, and we can thrash it out. But I won't bury that discussion in the comments of one of your many feminist posts.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>IR, every feminist I know supports paternity leave. A quick google search will turn up numerous examples of feminists arguing for more paternity leave time.

nicko81m
9 years ago

>" the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh? " Proof please

nicko81m
9 years ago

>"It's a rather pathetic lie propagated by feminist haters that feminists don't care about men"So the phrase used COMMONLY by feminists "what about teh menz" really means they do truly care about men? HA!

M
M
9 years ago

>Wait what? That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip.

M
M
9 years ago

>Also I have not met *one* feminist opposed to parental leave. Not in my life!

M
M
9 years ago

>Paternal too. Oops!

nicko81m
9 years ago

>"Wait what? That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip." Can you prove this? If you can't, what does this tell?

M
M
9 years ago

>I'd also like to point you to the things I've posted just on this very blog in the past few days that often bring up concern for mens rights and the way patriarchy or kyriarchy or the system or whatever you want to call it hurts and dehumanizes men. The "What About the Menz" comment is what a guy gets when he barges into a discussion of something that affects women differently than it effects men, because it's coming from a different place and has different intents and impacts, and draws a direct equivalence that isn't particularly helpful. It wouldn't be a shorthand if it didn't happen over and over again, and has zero to do with feminism not caring about men or actively despising men or any of those myths. It's shorthand just like "tldr."

M
M
9 years ago

>Also this phenomenon is in no way unique to feminism:http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#butbut

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>also, wtf is with the "prove it" BS? This isn't math; there are no proofs, only evidence.

M
M
9 years ago

>And as evidence we can give nicko all KINDS of stuff to read, since he is really interested in the topic:http://feministallies.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-men-can-do-responding-to.html

Christine WE
9 years ago

>Still waiting for all those examples of feminist "extremism"…

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Just enjoy the wave of free traffic, David.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@M:This was quoted from your link to the Finally Feminism blog:"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."Many discussions about gender and sex dovetail on public policy, and that affects men and women alike. Men are taxpayers and citizens and have just as much a stake in health and safety as women do. What the above comment does is attempt to silence men — not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies. That is why we have a Violence Against Women Act, despite the fact that men are battered more often than women in non-reciprocal partner violence and men are attacked more often than women in reciprocal partner violence. It has become politically incorrect in crafting public policy to acknowledge the uniqueness of male pain.One time that I heard the "what about teh menz???" comment was in the wake of a 2007 appellate court ruling in California, in which a provision of the state's Health and Safety Code was overturned by the court. That overturned provision had allowed taxpayer money to be denied to any domestic violence shelters that admitted male victims, and it specifically defined domestic violence as a crime against women. When the court ruling was announced, men's advocates celebrated. It was a victory for male victims of domestic violence; with the court's ruling, now matching grants would finally be available for DV shelters that admitted men. It was in the midst of this celebration about a men's issue, and a major court victory on behalf of male victims, that I saw the "what about teh menz?" phrase being used.That phrase is specifically designed to silence male-friendly voices, especially in the arena of public policy.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Jadehawk:"for starters:" [links followed]All but one of those links went to documents that had to be purchased if read in their entirety. One of them described a study about blind interviewing of applicants to an orchestra, but didn't include the actual published study; it was just an abstract.I suspect that you thought that you hit the ball out of the park with all those links, but really it seems that you either (A) didn't read the documents yourself, or (B) were unable to articulate the findings here in the comments.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Deeze: "Just enjoy the wave of free traffic, David."I hate to tell you, but you guys are not a terribly desirable demographic.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"Every feminist I know supports paternity leave. A quick google search will turn up numerous examples of feminists arguing for more paternity leave time."Except in certain jurisdictions, such as the UK, statute prohibits men from utilizing the same amount of time for family leave that women receive — policies implemented due to the guidance and direction of feminists.

M
M
9 years ago

>"What the above comment does is attempt to silence men — not just in "feminist spaces", but in deliberative political bodies."No, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently than men. It is not in any way about anything like that. It is asking people who are reading feminist blog comments or listening to women talk about specific things and how they specifically apply to the female experience to consider whether bringing in a male corollary, though it may not be the same experience with the same factors, diverts the conversation to places that mean people are no longer talking about the topic they set out to discuss. That is all it is saying. The uniqueness of male pain is very real, and the whole point of that post is that in the uniqueness of various experiences, bringing in similar but structurally and socially different matters can be unhelpful. I will admit that there is a unique male pain; what that 101 piece is saying is that there is actually a unique female pain too, and that there is a phenomenon, especially on the internet but in real-life conversations as well, for male participants to refuse to acknowledge this in how they reframe the discussion. It has nothing to do with the Violence Against Women Act because it is about how we behave in conversations about these things. Frankly, the idea that majority-male legislative bodies might somehow be practicing this sort of this is a bit odd. And it's not like VAWA isn't gender neutral save its name. I do believe that there needs to be more discussion of domestic violence against men. This is a very common belief in the kind of feminist circles I associate with. "What about teh menz" is not an effort to silence male voices; it's about saying "we can have that discussion as well, but it's not helpful here," and just as it isn't always helpful to bring in a similar issue affecting men to a discussion of how something *specifically* affects women, it isn't helpful for women to do that in a discussion of things that specifically impact men. If you take off your Feminists Evil goggles for a bit you will see that this is what "what about teh menz" means. Feminism is full of "male-friendly" voices too.

M
M
9 years ago

>"Except in certain jurisdictions, such as the UK, statute prohibits men from utilizing the same amount of time for family leave that women receive — policies implemented due to the guidance and direction of feminists."Well I don't know those feminists, and I will leave it to UK citizens posting here to take that any further, as I am not familiar with UK statutes.

John Dias
9 years ago

>The comment (from Finally Feminism):"What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues."@M:"No, that comment is specifically about conversations about womens issues and feminism as particular experiences or notions impact women differently…"Political discussion leads to political action. If the cultural debate considers DV victimization to be a women's issue — rather than a people's issue — then the effect is to suppress male pain by the time public policy is crafted. Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women. Male victims are barely mentioned during VAWA reauthorizations; instead, men are acknowledged in such hearings as perpetrators or potential perpetrators. Male pain is silenced; female perpetration is legitimized (especially where the Duluth Model of batterer intervention programs is in force). Don't assume that just because most of the lawmakers are male that they're automatically acting on behalf of males. They're acting on behalf of women.

Yohan
9 years ago

>David, you are running out of arguments against Western men. It's getting boring.Men are now more and more talking about you in their forums and blogs – they say openly what they think about you after you were signing up with fake-IDs lurking and nitpicking in their forum threads and blogs,totally ignoring their demands, making fun out of their personal problems.Male extremist feminists can be even more deluded than female ones… David, the male extremist feminist?That's really funny. Isn't it?But what did you expect, David? Honestly?Did you expect MRAs will admire for your drivel? If you are seriously interested in what YOU call misogyny (it's actually not misogyny) you better should research WHY so many Western men are disappointed in Western women instead of considering them all as assholes and losers. Just my opinion.

M
M
9 years ago

>That comment, though, is not saying those conversations shouldn't happen. It is saying that it doesn't always have to happen in the *middle* of a conversation about something that is specifically about something else."Have you ever listened to a Congressional hearing on domestic violence? The whole thing is dominated by the vulnerability, needs and concerns of women."I would suggest this is not *feminism* at fault, but (pick your term) the system, patriarchy, kyriarchy, etc. It's a culture that tells men speaking up about DV is something that comes with a lot of shame attached. Feminism isn't about shutting up survivors of abuse.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"All but one of those links went to documents that had to be purchased if read in their entirety. One of them described a study about blind interviewing of applicants to an orchestra, but didn't include the actual published study; it was just an abstract."nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidence. your lack of access to scientific journals is very much not my problem. as for the orchestra thing, here it is, in it's entirety. i linked to the abstract because it was shorter: http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Orchestrating_Impartiality.pdf

John Dias
9 years ago

>@M:What is so difficult about you acknowledging the shortcomings of feminism, or those of its enabler, chivalry?Imagine that it's 1965, and you're a battered woman. There are not yet any shelters in existence to help domestic violence victims, and you're trying to raise awareness of the plight of female DV victims. What would you do (more pointedly, how would you feel?) if the quote from the Finally Feminism blog came at you this way in the form of public reaction?"What it boils down to is this: Women, not men, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss women’s issues. The legislature is no place to be discussing these issues; they're a private matter best left to the families involved."Please put on your empathy glasses! VAWA renewals are dominated by feminists. Feminists testify at them. Shelter workers, all feminists, testify. The dominance of women's issues is so pervasive that it's considered a small victory when even the slightest nod is given to male victims, such as this one with DV scholar Richard Gelles on May 5, 2010. I was shocked when I learned that they let him testify.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Jadehawk:"nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidence. your lack of access to scientific journals is very much not my problem."1. You haven't established that the links that you provided contain actual evidence.2. Your feeble attempts to justify the notion that patriarchy is responsible for women's oppression have utterly failed here in this thread, and your failure to adequately articulate and support your position is not my problem nor anyone else's. You made the assertion; you failed to back it up effectively. Not my problem.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>um.feminists are in general against "chivalry", that being a symptom of patriarchy

nicko81m
9 years ago

>nick asked for evidence; i gave him evidenceNo you didn't at all. I asked for proof. That proof being; when feminists use the phrase "what about teh menz" please indicate where they really mean…?"That phrase is mocking a certain conversation-derailing tactic, not the very idea of caring about men. Geez get a grip." Now we know if men used such sarcasm against women's issues, they would be labelled as misogynist. But the typical feminist bigot will be in total knee jerk denial about that fact.

M
M
9 years ago

>Chivalry is an enabler of feminism? Last I checked chivalry was part of the complex of behaviors and beliefs feminism calls "patriarchy" and would like very much to get rid of. I have my "empathy glasses" on here and continue to remind you that that Finally Feminism page is about people with historical and cultural privileges entering discussions people with a different experience are having about their *unique experience* and turning the entire discussion into a different discussion. It is not hurting *anyone* in this world to allow women, or the disabled, or people of color, or LGBTQ folks, or any other group to have their spaces for discussing their unique experiences, and as someone who brought up the unique pain of men above I would expect you to understand that some experiences are, in fact, unique to various classes of people because of how they are situated in this society and how various structural and cultural forces shape that experience. That you continue to insist something I posted in response to someone asking for proof that a particular internet shorthand means what it means is about spaces other than this, or is about something else, is just refusing to acknowledge that either context or context exist. This is not about denying male voices, it's about *derailing internet discussions*.

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>Your failure to read the evidence does not constitute a failure on my part to support my argument. I can lead you to the evidence, but I can't make you read it.

M
M
9 years ago

>Nicko81m, if you want to respond with some sort of logic undergirding your points I'll listen but that was nonsense. I linked you to explanations of what is meant by that phrase. I guess if I show up at an MRA site insisting that everyone talk about my experiences you will all be super welcoming and won't mind that I derail the discussion? Will you welcome me into a discussion about the unique pain of men or would that be unhelpful to the discourse?

Jadehawk
9 years ago

>"No you didn't at all. I asked for proof. That proof being; when feminists use the phrase "what about teh menz" please indicate where they really mean…?"are you having some problems with chronology? forgetting what you write? here, let me refresh your memory:nicko81m said… " the patriarchy is not a conspiracy, it's a systematic cultural bias. but twisting the concept enough to make it look "kooky" makes it so much easier to dismiss, huh? " Proof please December 29, 2010 9:54 PMand as I've already said, this not being math, we don't deal with "proof", we deal with evidence. proofs only exist in math.

nicko81m
9 years ago

>Jade, tell me where the evidence exactly is in them links?Instead of giving me a bunch of links, tell me exactly where feminists say "what about teh menz" in the meaning of what you expressed above?

1 2 3 4