>
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.
>Yohan, I believe people have tried to talk to you about what male privilege is and you have balked at engaging them. You don't get to ignore a matter and then said it does not exist. Also, you seem quite tellingly obsessed with marriage and divorce above all else. This is called nursing resentments, not formulating a coherent and rational worldview. What did Jadehawk's comment have to do *specifically* with marriage? My short argument on marriage is that if you don't want to deal with the headache of severing a contract, don't enter into a contract in the first place.
>*say* it does not exist
>"So far no feminist could explain me what privileges these might be for the average male."Are you sure they hadn't tried to explain but you didn't listen? You appear from your posts to display a pattern of selective reading.But let's see what privilege might be explained to you:* Improved job prospects in many professions.* Being on the favourable side of the wage gap.* Few or no glass ceilings.* Being treated as if your body and choices with what to do with it are your own.* Being spoken to as an equal in most public and professional spaces.* Being better represented in the political sphere.* Being less likely to be subject to sexual harassment.There are many other privileges, but these are a start.
>Let's just see how privileged we are:* Improved job prospects in many professions.AA anyone?* Being on the favourable side of the wage gap.This has been disproved time and again. I make the same as anyone else in my field.* Few or no glass ceilings.I'm not the CEO type and most non-CEO's I know are not either. Look down at the glass cellar.* Being treated as if your body and choices with what to do with it are your own.Conscription? Lack of male reproductive rights?* Being spoken to as an equal in most public and professional spaces.Equal to whom? My peers treat me as equal but my manager treats me as subordinate.* Being better represented in the political sphere.NOW, VAWA. 10 times the funding for female cancer than all the other cancers combined?* Being less likely to be subject to sexual harassment.Creeper, loser? Take it like a man? Man UP? Are you a man or a mouse?Yes, I didn't realize how easy I have it.
>Here are a few more privileges men are born with:*More likely to be homeless*More likely to lose child custody and become an indentured servant*More likely to die on the battlefield*More likely to die at work*More likely to get a harsher sentence for a crime.*More likely to be raped, mugged, shot, killed violently*More likely to be laughed at while being abused by your spouse.These a just a few privileges we men are born with. These are our birth rights and we are fighting to the end so the status quo doesn't change.
>@percypruneWhile I appreciate your friendly reply to me, let me say, I do not notice any privilege FOR ME out of your list which clearly points to rich people, politicians, CEOs …About your list, I really wonder, what professions this might be (for ordinary people), maybe construction or otherwise heavy or dangerous work where women in general do not apply?The favorable side of the wage gap I see only because of overtime, nightwork, work on Banking Holidays, as all females around me do not like this kind of additional income.Glass ceiling, I am not a CEO.Choice to do with my body what I like, well, I would say, women have a bigger choice to use their body for their advantageSpoken as an equal in public, this depends solely on your social position, not on your gender.There are plenty of women, who have a higher educational background, higher income etc. and they have more to say than I do.Political sphere? Are you joking? I am not the son of a politician and I am not rich and I am not living in my native country anymore.Sexual harassment, just my opinion, it's up to you as an adult to avoid certain people. As a child however, you are much less protected as a boy than as a girl.Most ordinary men, like me, will not notice any benefit from your privilege list.So you think, only men have privileges, and only women have disadvantages?And women are never better off than men under any circumstances?
>Yohan, You may very well see some of the privileges I outlined in my post. 🙂
>Witman and Yohan are confusing issues of class stratification with issues of gender inequality. There are as many women as men who don't have access to the channels of power because of their backgrounds–the only difference is even when women have the highest possible qualifications, they're much more unlikely to ascend the power ladder than men are.
>I call Bullshit!It is the false feminist doctrine that confuses all of mankind with the top 5% of the richest people. Half of the population cannot possibly fit in that niche. So why are all women so opposed to the very, very rich when they are already more than equal to the average man?You think it's tough to ascend as a woman? Try being born a poor white boy in America! Your chances of climbing the social ladder are extremely difficult because you have to do it on your merit alone. Nobody cares about poor white boys and they can smell the trailer park on you when you walk into the room.Enough with the bullshit!
>I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth and I overcame that on my merit alone. I know a lot of men who are still poor.
>@witmanNow let us see the privileges for ordinary men comparing them with ordinary women in my native EU country. 1 – retirement for women at least 5 years earlier than men, but claiming the same retirement allowance (this is the law up to 2019, no earlier revision possible)2 – no obligation for women to any unpaid military or otherwise social services (which means for most young men 9 to 12 months of no income)3 – child support by law is solely from the father to the mother (even if the child is already an adult, studies and not living with the mother anymore)In the rare cases where the child is living with the father, the mother has no obligation to pay anything.4 – Dies the husband, the wife will receive a pension, dies the wife, the husband receives nothing.I am waiting now for percyprune to explain to me my privileges out of 1 – 4. Or at least to explain me how I am an equal…To be an equal (men do not ask for privileges as feminists do) might be good stuff for a nice dream… too good to be true…
>You're missing the point, witman. Also, what does being white have to do with anything? Do you think that white men are particularly badly off?And of course I realise it's hard to ascend as a poor person–male *or* female. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are plenty of poor women about too, who have no easier of a time bettering their prospects than poor men. The reason feminists are so interested in the top 5% of the population is precisely because it's the demographic that makes almost all the decisions for the rest of us. The fact that poor people, people from ethnic minorities, and women are all excluded from this cohort leads to systematic discriminations that feminists and other civil rights campaigners want to overturn. But since we can't ascend to those positions, even when we've done everything our male counterparts have, we can still justly claim that men have more privilege than we do. The fact that you don't think it's significant that the overwhelming majority of the most powerful people in the world are male means you clearly don't understand the implications of that divide.
>witman said… I call Bullshit!It is the false feminist doctrine that confuses all of mankind with the top 5% of the richest people. Half of the population cannot possibly fit in that niche. I think, even many more than 50 percent of all men do not fit into this 'very rich category' or 'very influencial VIP' groups'.Most men are not politicians, CEOs, celebrities, the Pope and his Catholic bishops or in otherwise leading or rich position.We are men, but just out of ordinary families with moderate income.It becomes now more clear with this thread, that feminists do not understand this, simply ignore these facts.witman said… …. I know a lot of men who are still poor. Me too. But nobody cares about them. Not only men, but even boys not even out of elementary school. And there are a lot of old men, sick men and so on…You need the right gender otherwise nobody will listen and the replies you receive are merely scornful remarks. This blog is a good example…
>Blackwell said… You're missing the point, witman. Also, what does being white have to do with anything? Do you think that white men are particularly badly off? I think so… see link belowUK: new Foreign Office rules which ban white males from gaining work experience at his department.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297421/Work-experience-FO-Not-middle-class-white-male.html
>Blackwell said …… You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are plenty of poor women about too, who have no easier of a time bettering their prospects than poor men. Nonsense!It's much easier for poor women than for poor men. There are 1000s of organizations – which are receiving millions of USD and EURO out of public funds – which are caring solely for women, and for colored people, and for gays and even for monkeys… etc. etc. I do not know any major organization which takes care of poor white men. If you know one let me know.The only who cares about men – including the white man – are the MRAs and if he still can, the concerned man himself out of own responsibility. And I should not forget to mention the prisons, the only place to go, if you exclude suicide as an option.Women enjoy further a wide spectrum of feminist-friendly laws, which makes it possible for them with the help of greedy lawyers paid out of public funds to demand money from men, from companies and from the government often with ridiculous arguments.Generally much easier in Western countries for poor women than for poor men to find support of any kind.
>You guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is and are swapping out matters of class privilege for matters of gender privilege. Feminism does not focus on the upper class to make generalizations or any such nonsense — "male privilege" is one of many intersecting privileges (or, on the other side, intersecting disadvantages). The anthropologist poster on these comments sections has written a cogent explanation of "intersectionality," the way many of us are privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others. I have posted links to a very basic explanation of what feminists mean by "male privilege" but instead of reading it and thinking about it — which does not mean *agreeing* with it, just considering it on its own merits rather than just scoffing — people glanced at it or didn't even look and then went right on with their denunciations of the "feminism" they invented as an enemy. Privilege is an idea that does not just exist in feminism. It is the idea that various classes of people have advantages within a system of social relationships. I wealthy black man has class privilege but is still disadvantaged compared to those with white privilege; someone's female boss may benefit from both white privilege and class privilege but also suffer in a system that takes maleness more seriously: male privilege. If you really want to examine the subject, there is much reading you can do. If you just want to keep insisting that privilege doesn't exist, well, for people who like to talk about feminism you're just showing yourselves to be people who like to use feminism as a boogeyman without learning what it truly is.
>"You guys are absolutely not understanding what privilege is and are swapping out matters of class privilege for matters of gender privilege."This is exactly it, M. And instead of fighting class oppression (the source of some very legitimate woes), these men are waging a totally irrelevant battle against some make-believe version of feminism they've chosen to attribute all their problems too. And Yohan, why don't you go look at your prison statistics and your homicide statistics and your college admission statistics, and compare rates for white and non-white males, alright? As to the idea that there are no organisations that help poor men, I think you'll find that organisations that help the poor don't discriminate: the YMCA, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, Oxfam, and the Red Cross, to name a few. Not to mention the countless groups that help veterans. Or the many social programs that help both men and women in need.
>Oh, and M, just saw your comment on the 'feminist cat' post that reads very similarly to what I've been trying to argue in this posting. It seems obvious that a lot of the grievances aired by MRAs are class-based, not gender-based. Not that I expect the peanut gallery to agree…
>White men living in the US (or any Western country, really) in 2010 who say "WHAT privilege?!?!" remind me of the old story about God and Moses hanging out and Moses asking why God didn't do something to help this one particular wretched guy, so God put a giant diamond in the road and the dude tripped over it and hurt himself. If you are living in 2010 and you're a white man (as I am) and you can't see that you are one of the most privileged people in the history of planet earth, you're never, ever going to be happy unless you fundamentally change your outlook.
>Seriously. I am white, hetero, not disabled, and from a middle class background. I am aware of my privilege, even though privilege by definition can be hard to see without critically examining the world around you and how you are situated in it. The blanket rejection that men have privilege is just bizarre. Would that we could all switch genders for one day so that these guys could experience the fun of being unable to leave your house or apartment without being belittled and harassed.
>M,I fully understand what you're saying. I just call bullshit because in any situation anywhere in the world, it is harder and tougher to be a man. Let's take the DR Congo for instance. There is a lot of focus on the women and the systematic rape that goes on there. Nobody thinks about the men who are disfigured, dismembered and dehumanized except to blame them for the rapes that in many cases they are forced to commit. I really feel badly for the women who endure such circumstances, but I also know that it is not easy to be a man in those countries.I used to be a feminist until I started to experience discrimination due to my gender. It was then that I realized that I am a Humanist. I believe in equal rights. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I believe that everyone has the right to self determination. What I do not and will not tolerate is anyone telling me I have privilege when I have lived my entire life in feminism.
>And if you think that men are not belittled and harassed on a daily basis, you have your head in the sand. We fear for our lives and we fear for our safety. We have additional burdens as well such as the safety and lives of our women and children that we are expected to protect and die for. When that plane had to land on the Hudson river and was quickly filling with water, guess who got to evacuate first. Women and children first. Perhaps the next time a boat sinks we can make sure the children get a life boat and then fight it out for the rest of the seats.
>I am also a humanist. I don't see how that is contrary to feminism, which is actually, believe it or not, about human rights. Denying that privilege exists only harms the cause of human rights.It is so strange to me that you say you have lived your whole life in feminism — feminism is not the dominant ideology in this society. What you are describing with regard to the Hudson near-crash is chivalry, an idea based in sexist structures that feminists would like very much to see gone from the world. Such a thing is the end result of a culture that is still based very much in sexist roots, not something that feminists applaud. Were you really a feminist? Because it's kind of a basic idea of feminism that such chivalrous sexism is definitely harmful and unfair. I don't know where you're getting the idea that people are only concerned about women in the Congo. It is not easy to be a man in *any* country, as it is not easy to be human generally. We are all subject to socioeconomic forces beyond our control. Refusal to even *acknowledge* male privilege makes one a pretty bad humanist.
>And refusal to see that Feminism is a flagrantly sexist term makes one an exceptionally bad humanist.If you support or condone any legislation or law that mentions the gender of the victim/accused in any way, you are part of this sexism and I hope that your father/husband/son/uncle/cousin/etc never falls prey to these sexist and discriminatory laws for you will be eating some bad tasting crow for as many years as it takes to clear their good name.
>So feminism as a term is in itself sexist? What? A human rights movement seeking to create a more equal world by lobbying for the humanity of an oppressed class tends to begin with the issues of the oppressed. This is pretty much how inequity is best addressed, because the people who are beneficiaries of inequity tend to not get on board quite so readily as the disadvantaged classes. Pick your human rights movement–it stared as an agitation for the rights of the oppressed. What it calls itself is a truly silly quibble. Before there was the civil rights movement there were "race men"…were they "racists"? No. They were activists for equality.The word "feminism" does not make the movement itself sexist. You are making an absurdly surface-level argument. And you are forgetting that feminism is about changing the structures that create inequity, not about vilifying men. One of the characteristics of privilege is that its absence, and the condition of true neutrality, is seen as discriminatory, as privilege is viewed by the privileged class as "the way of the world." The "Feminism 101" blog I've linked here previously tries to explain that with the phenomenon of women taking their spouses' names being seen as "normal" and women keeping their own name — a situation of true neutrality — being received as somehow aberrant, or even sexist against men. Men and women do not have an equal playing field in this world, and by and large the things that do favor women in some way are 1. the minority and 2. created by sexism, the system of sexism, and not be feminism somehow seeking to oppress men. The chivalric system I mentioned above is a good example of that.What legislation or law are you talking about? Something like VAWA? Because that's just a name for a law that is gender neutral. And the idea that there needs to be some sort of movement to stop violence against women is not built on the idea that violence against men ought to be ignored. Both are noble goals. Both have different contexts. One does not exclude the other, and the system that shames men for reaching out for help due to domestic violence was not created by feminism, but by the systems feminism opposes.