>
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.
>I love this belief you all have that you can define anything however you want to define it and the world will follow suit. You have no actual clue what "feminism" means, and yet you keep yammering at educated people with invented definitions and imaginary ideologies as though it's possible to make a point about a complex of beliefs you won't deign to actually engage, or even to understand enough to get a proper definition. I don't know what circles this kind of thing works in but it's hilarious and yes IR, it is ignorant. Ignorant by its very definition. Perhaps you don't know the actual meaning of the word "ignorant" either?All the sub-topics are equally ignorant. Witman appears to not know what "humanism" is, or at the very least to be treating it as a surface-level semantic matter that is somehow more inclusive than "feminism" because it has "human" as its root. "Hypergamy" is hijacked into a whole other stratosphere of self-serving invention. You know, I know this is just a blog and that some of you are pretty aggrieved individuals, but no amount of grievance in the *world* makes words or whole schools of thought mean only what you want them to mean if you yell loudly enough or in concert with others. This blog is fun to read but the comments quickly get tiresome because you guys don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning. I'm sure this comment will receive bunch of replies about what feminism is, each one more willfully ignorant than the last. Whatever floats your boat, guys. Just remember that what you *think* about a subject doesn't make that subject *what you think it is*.Happy New Year.
>This blog is fun to read but the comments quickly get tiresome because you guys don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning.Do you know that heterosexual men can have problems too? This is a simple question, an opportunity to educate me if you will.Also, would you care to educate me as to how I am privileged, and how anything that makes me feel powerless and oppressed as a man actually somehow equates to us thinking women are "less than" men?Sorry if the latter question is a bit long, I'm trying to quote you as directly as possible. I could even bring up the quotes and my interpretation of them if you're worried I might be misrepresenting you.
>IR, your comment was idiotic in part because you accused Raul of not having original thoughts because he quoted Muhammad Ali in order to back up his point. Using a quote as evidence is not plagiarism, nor is it unoriginal.
>Apparently he lacked the facilities to fully interpret the quote, as he proceeded to state this:But if you're a member of an entrenched overclass, and you think society is holding you back… you are in need of a new outlook. What you don't need is to surround yourself with an echo chamber of others who think as you do – it will only help you to continue in misery.I've read that active participation helps accelerate the learning process, so I'll see if you can find the two contradictions to the earlier quote in the italicized text.
>MAs IR was saying, please educate us on feminism. I am really curious to know how me as the average middle class male is privileged.I have never ever gotten a logical answer from a feminist. I have at least asked a 1000 feminists the same question. Will you be the first feminist ever to come up with a logical substantial answer?
>OK M,You got me! Feminism does not stand for Feminine (Female) and the Human in Humanism does not include both males and females. I can understand that your narrow world view only accounts for females and their rights but this is happening to the exclusion of the rights of men (and children).It's time to lose the sexist nomenclature and adopt a new world view that accepts all humans as equal regardless of their gender.
>Nick, I have answered your requests before only to have them ignored. And I see you're asking the same question I responded to in another comment thread now. Bad faith engagement is not the same as seeking a substantial answer. IR:"Do you know that heterosexual men can have problems too? This is a simple question, an opportunity to educate me if you will."See this question itself is borne of ignorance. You have no reason to think that I don't know that heterosexual men have problems, and your belief that as a feminist I don't know or care about the problems of straight men is based in ignorance of what modern feminists actually believe of care about, or even about what feminism seeks to dismantle. Hint: it is not a movement about what's wrong with men or how men are bad. It's about the structural underpinnings of socioeconomic life. I expect you know some of this since you made a comment about Marxism above (though it's as silly to say feminism is "plagiarized" from Marxism as it is to say progressivism is "plagiarized" from Marxism, or the civil rights movement, or gay rights, or any other anti-oppression/human rights movement).I've also mentioned caring about men's problems in comment after comment since joining this blog. Assumptions are not helpful, and I maintain that the seemingly angry guys commenting on this blog are just all about assumption and not engagement, because the "feminism" they're talking about does not exist in the circles I travel in or in the minds of the very intelligent, very empathetic feminists whose writing I read–those people genuinely want a better world and your mischaracterization of them genuinely just makes you look ignorant, as I said before. As far as privilege, I've written about it several times in the short time I've been posting here and each time no one actually engaged the issues–they just used my responses or links as fodder for further grievance and misapprehension. I don't recall if you were one of those people, but assuming for a second that you're genuine in your inquiry:"Privilege" is not a concept unique to feminism. It is used across movements and schools of thought that study how the system of social relationships that govern human life, human organization, and human thought. It is a core idea of the idea of "intersectionality," which is an important part of the feminist thought I find most helpful. Intersectionality means that there is class privilege, white privilege, hetero privilege, all sorts of privileges, and they intersect in ways that mean it's not so simple as a man always having all the benefit in a situation, all the time, that's the end. A lot of what MRA-sympathetic guys on this blog argue when denying the very idea of privilege is actually *based in using the idea of privilege* but focusing only on class privilege. For example, saying that you were born in poverty and therefore can't be a beneficiary of any sort of "male privilege" is actually employing an argument about class privilege. It is possible to be the beneficiary of some amounts of privilege at the same time that you are disadvantaged in other ways, racial, economic, access to education, lack of disability, etc. It is about where you are situated within a system of social relationships that still thinks of "mankind" being, well, *man* kind, but also middle class or higher, and white, and able-bodied, and straight, and all those other things. CONT
>CONT"Male privilege" is not a simplistic idea that men are in control all the time and get whatever they want and women are a permanently downtrodden class–it is about the ways "male" is seen as the default in this society, the ways maleness is privileged in almost invisible ways because those ways are so much a part of the fabric of our world — and I would argue that any reasonable person *must* admit that no movement, feminism or any other human rights movement, can transform thousands of years of human habit and social structure in a generation — that it can be almost invisible at first.This blog begins discussing that idea by talking about how a woman taking her husband's name is the norm, in considered the "neutral default":http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/And it is. A woman giving up part of her identity is considered the neutral, normal way of the world when it is actually something that "privileges" the man. This is a very simple example, but it is fairly easy thing to see, is it not? Male privilege is not some simplistic idea that men have all the advantages and women have all the disadvantages. It is the idea that being read as male means you are more likely to be taken seriously, more likely to have your ideas heard on their own merit, that you are in some way the "default setting of humanity." It means nothing about men not having real problems.According to this system of beliefs, there is no such thing as "gay privilege" or "people of color privilege" or "female privilege" because the world we live in continues to see all these classes of people as a kind of *other.* This is not to say that women can't and don't benefit from the sexist undergirding of society, just that it's considered something like "benevolent sexism" rather than "privilege." It's a sexist system giving women perks for fitting into its pegs. When a judge gives a woman primary custody of a child *because she is a woman*, this is benevolent sexism at work rewarding her for being the matronly caregiver class whether she herself is actually a matronly caregiver or not. A police officer arresting the man on a DV call because he or she can't conceive of the woman being the abuser is operating on sexist ideas that benefit the woman: benevolent sexism. It is different than male privilege, because it is entrenched in ideas that women *can't* be this way or must always be protected as a class, not as individuals who are capable of doing harm to others. Feminists are opposed to things that bestow advantages on women over men because that is not true equality. In the world we still live in after thousands of years of chivalric structures and only a few measly generations of feminism, there is nothing approaching true equality on the horizon. Also, to argue that things that either study women as a class or seek to improve the position of women as a class, like NOW or UNIFEM, are sexist because they focus on *women* is missing the forest for the trees.
>MI apologise if you have answered that exact question before. I didn't see it.Again, the answers you are giving here are not substantial."This blog begins discussing that idea by talking about how a woman taking her husband's name is the norm, in considered the "neutral default":"So if a woman changes her last name to the same as mine, what privilege is this giving me? What exactly benefits me out of all of this? That's right, nothing! So in a logical conclusion, this is not a privilege.Are women forced to change their last name in marriage? Is someone pointing a gun to their head and telling women to do it? Or do women wilfully do this by choice?"It is the idea that being read as male means you are more likely to be taken seriously, more likely to have your ideas heard on their own merit, that you are in some way the "default setting of humanity."I've heard this laughable type of opinion many times before from delusional feminists.For one small example, how the fuck can you say males get taken more seriously when if we express our problems, we are likely told to man up and grow a pair. Or if a male is a victim of domestic violence of rape from a woman, it's likely that he will be taken less seriously than a woman. That right there is female privilege loud and clear. That right there is women being taken more seriously than men.
>Males more likely to have ideas heard on their own merit? Please explain this better. Give some examples. I have never seen any example of this in my whole life.According to this system of beliefs, there is no such thing as "gay privilege" or "people of color privilege" or "female privilege"I agree with there being no such thing as gay privilege… but colour privilege and female privilege. Are you serious? What world do you live in?Anyway, to cut this short, here is an example of colour privilege and female privilege all in the one package.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297421/Work-experience-FO-Not-middle-class-white-male.html#ixzz0uf5PraL8because the world we live in continues to see all these classes of people as a kind of *other.*Well it's funny how a feminist mentions this as it seems that feminism perceives men as a class of people as a kind of *other* as we are deemed as violent, tyrants, oppressors, and women are innocent victims. Feminists have a whole different attitude towards male domestic violence victims than they do towards female domestic violence victims. So this clearly shows that feminists perceive men as someone who is the other. Women in general treat men different compared to their female friends. So to say that males are the only ones that somehow treat women as the other and to class this as privilege is a weak argument.And speaking of the examples you used for benevolent sexism. It’s funny how you prefer to label it as that instead of labelling it as female privilege as it’s pretty god damn obvious that it’s exactly female privilege.
>The forest of of male privilege has been obscured by the trees of benevolent sexism. Clever girl; playing with words in such a fashion.Gotcha!You see M, what feminists assume (ass, u, me) about MRAs is that we are against women having equal rights yet you argue our case in the idea of benevolent sexism. Most MRAs love women and I'd say that most see women as humans deserving of all the rights and "privileges" of humans. What Men's Rights Advocates are in fact fighting (resisting?) against is this benevolent sexism that is systematically eroding the rights of males and making them into some sort of second class citizen as righteous payback for some oppression our forefathers exercised over OUR foremothers.
>nick, your comment was caught by the spam filter; it's up now.
>Benevolent sexism is part of what feminists would like very much to get rid of, so if you argue that *feminism* is the enemy or that feminism is responsible for the effects of benevolent sexism you're truly missing the point. Benevolent sexism is part of what feminists would call "kyriarchy" or "patriarchy."I would disagree that benevolent sexism is even capable of making men into second-class citizens, though.
>"Males more likely to have ideas heard on their own merit?Please explain this better. Give some examples. I have never seen any example of this in my whole life."Nick, in the interest of genuinely furthering this discussion I will leave this to the social scientists reading to answer, because if this is not something you can see in your own experiences or have read about or learned about or heard from female acquaintances, the only way to make you see it is to offer some studies, and the social sciences is not my field. I can offer you experiences but I imagine that would not pass muster, nor would the ironic point that guys in these comments routinely question whether the women posting are truly authoritative voices on how they, as women, experience the world and how it treats them. Why do you guys always post stuff from the Daily Mail? That's like linking to Fox News. Grievance-driven yellow journalism is not proof of anything. Link a reputable source on the same subject, please."Well it's funny how a feminist mentions this as it seems that feminism perceives men as a class of people as a kind of *other* as we are deemed as violent, tyrants, oppressors, and women are innocent victims."You are misunderstanding the concept of "other" and "othering" in the context I used it in. Also, this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about before with regard to putting words into feminism's mouth and looking pretty silly and ignorant in the process. A whole complex of beliefs and inquiries does not become something just because you say it is. "And speaking of the examples you used for benevolent sexism. It’s funny how you prefer to label it as that instead of labelling it as female privilege as it’s pretty god damn obvious that it’s exactly female privilege."Ditto with this. You can redefine terms all you want or ignore what the actual tenets of a belief system are all you want, but that doesn't mean I have to take you seriously. "Privilege" has a particular meaning here. It doesn't mean just "perks." You can't throw out its meaning without ceding the argument.
>M,Take the case of rape for instance. Let's compare rape with murder to make it the worst thing you can do to a person because most people (including MRAs) agree this is an egregious crime. In a murder case, you cannot simply say that a murder has taken place, there has to actually be a body (murder) in most cases. In a rape case, the word of the accuser is all that is required for there to actually be a rape (even if it didn't occur). Now the media will say that all women are terrified that there is a rapist on the loose but they will not tell you that every man that does not have an alibi for that particular time frame is a likely suspect. All those men then become victimized even if she is lying because in the words of one of FEMINISM'S heroins Marilyn French "All men are rapists and that's all they are"We are not all rapists and we are in need of protection from this type of systemic discrimination and blatant sexism.My privilege? I am a rapist and that's all I am. I am not a great father, husband, son, academic, scientist, etc. I am a rapist and that's all I am!!
>Here is that same blog on "female privilege":http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/I imagine a lot of you will disagree with this section:"Not only is it subjectively favorable in its characterization of women, but it promises that men’s power will be used to women’s advantage, if only they can secure a high-status male protector. [Glick and Fiske (February 2001).]"But I would suggest that you think about the state taking the place of the "high-status male protector" in instances like divorce, alimony, custody disputes because it does not literally have to be a man.
>Witman, this may be too complex a discussion to really get into here, but as quickly as I can: the modern feminism I am familiar with has disavowed a lot of the radical feminists who said things like that, and feminists themselves actually smacked them down in their own era. People who say or said those kinds of things are not my heroines and never were, and you can see examples of this in the discussions that occurred after the bigoted, nasty radical feminist Mary Daly died. These people are the boogeywomen of a bygone age. However, I am not familiar with Marilyn French save for her name so can't comment on her specifically. "In a rape case, the word of the accuser is all that is required for there to actually be a rape (even if it didn't occur)." As in many crimes, like robbery, burglary, trespassing, etc. The lack of a $200 bill does not mean that the alleged victim ever had that $200 bill. Rape is not unique in this way. "Now the media will say that all women are terrified that there is a rapist on the loose but they will not tell you that every man that does not have an alibi for that particular time frame is a likely suspect."This is a bit of a silly argument, is it not? If there is someone out there doing harm to people, be it a murderer or a rapist or a mugger, people tend to become concerned about their *safety*. This does not mean that people really think that every person matching the suspect description is a *likely* suspect; it means that people tend to be more alert to their surroundings. "All those men then become victimized even if she is lying because in the words of one of FEMINISM'S heroins Marilyn French 'All men are rapists and that's all they are'"As I said above, feminists don't actually believe this and this is not what is going through people's minds when they find themselves being more alert to their surroundings. If the only way to ensure your safety is to pay attention to who's around you, you do that, because what else can you do? People behave this way when there are other high-profile crimes being committed according to a pattern. And the fact that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of violence — violence against men and women, though men are most likely to be the victims — or the perpetrators of rape — against men and women — means that people are more likely to be on their guard around men when they have been alerted to a string of crimes in their community. This does not mean people think *all* men are rapists or violent criminals.What else are people to do?"My privilege? I am a rapist and that's all I am. I am not a great father, husband, son, academic, scientist, etc. I am a rapist and that's all I am!!"I know not a single feminist who thinks like this, so you can rest easy I guess that feminists are actively fighting to have men seen as rapists, as all rapists. Feminists talk about "rape culture." Just like with the idea of privilege, it is a concept that means the structures of a society devalue a woman's right to own her body as wholly her own, not that men are rapists, or that these ideas about womens bodies are something held by specific individual men. It is absolutely *not* about vilifying men; it's about the idea of a fair an equal world in which we all have full autonomy over our bodies and no one, male or female, has a right to do things to us we don't want done. This means scrutinizing a woman who stops taking birth control in order to get pregnant and does not tell her partner as much as it means scrutinizing men who grab women on the subway (which is part of that daily harassment and belittling I was mentioning above).
>Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name? "For one small example, how the fuck can you say males get taken more seriously when if we express our problems, we are likely told to man up and grow a pair. Or if a male is a victim of domestic violence of rape from a woman, it's likely that he will be taken less seriously than a woman. That right there is female privilege loud and clear. That right there is women being taken more seriously than men. "Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking. Patriarchy is not kind to men either. It's about dehumanizing men into people who can't fully express themselves or fully be themselves without being reminded that they're transgressing a harmful gender role, and criticizing this kind of thing is part of feminism too. I recommend Tony Porter's short speech "The Man Box" as an introduction to those criticisms. "Privilege" is is a way of saying that those who are part of the historically more powerful classes benefit more from those roles than do the historically disadvantages classes, because the roles we are all given privilege one kind of being over another. It is not saying that it is genuinely good for the *individual* on either side. A man who is good at playing that macho role that can be so harmful to the individual has many benefits in this society. Is this what MRA-ish types are talking about when they talk about alpha males? Possibly? I don't know. A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group. That is part of what "privilege" means. A woman can use these sexist ideas to get back at a man–she can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection. Does that make sense?
>Tony Porter:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td1PbsV6B80
>M,I would hazard to guess that we are in the same camp under a different flag. If you are actually FOR male reproductive rights, then God Bless YOU! You just need to know that people like French and Dworkin have tainted feminism almost beyond repair; much the same as any crude misogynist taints the MRM.Please answer this question for me:If a man and a woman are drunk and have sex (with her on top) is he a rapist, she a rapist or both of them rapists? Now what happens if he is on top but she is just as willing? These are the unfair laws I speak of that paint men as rapists if the woman can claim that she was drunk. Mind you that I have (in my shameful past) woken up beside a less than stellar woman after a night of drinking and just had to suck up the fact that I slept with an undesirable woman and in no way felt that she violated me.
>I have no answer on the drunkenness question. This is not a subject I've ever really felt comfortable drawing a hard line on, as it depends so much on the individuals. My position on acquaintance rape is simply that we each as individuals have absolute authorities over our bodies and what is done with them, and that if someone says they don't want something done even if it's someone they've had consensual sex with before, that is a serious violation of one's body autonomy. One reason feminists focus on this, on the idea of consent, is not to harm men or support a world in which men are unfairly accused but because our culture does not yet understand the idea of absolute body autonomy for women the way it grants a fair amount of body autonomy for men. I am not saying that the culture grants this idea of autonomy on any of us absolutely, just that the female body is seen much more as a kind of public common than is the male body with regard to sex and sexual acts. As I said before, I have been groped by strangers more times than I can count. In order to stop rape — and to stop *misunderstandings* about what rape is — it's important to further this idea that each of us has to consent before something can be done sexually to our persons. This is what feminism fights for, not for the idea that "all men are rapists" or anything like that. I don't think Dworkin has damaged feminism beyond repair. So long as the world isn't equal, there is work to be done in any movement regardless of what its members may have advocated, be it black superiority or lesbian separatism or anything that is used to vilify a very broad and multifaceted human rights movement and its beliefs.
>Raul Groom said… That statement is not mine, but the statement of a child born to a middle class black family in Louisville, Kentucky during segregation. Now I understand… I have the privilege to become a heavyweight boxing champion.Thank you for enlightening me. NICKO81M: I have asked many feminists many times about proving to me how I as the average middle class male is privileged. Every single time I have asked this question, I have never got a straight logical answer. All I get is cockeyed laughable crap … For the average ordinary male (and those below average) privileges do not exist, more the opposite – as mentioned already in this thread most homeless people are male, most people in prison are male, most people doing dangerous and heavy work outdoors are male, most jobless people are male….but who cares?
>If a wealthy person tells you that sure, they were born rich but the reason they're where they are today is solely because they're really smart and a hard worker, do you immediately accept that there was no privilege at play for this person? You seem fixated on the ability of wealthy men to attract a certain kind of woman–if one of those men told you all of the things above about how he's rich because of who he is and not because of any societal advantages, and he also attracts the kinds of women who date him because of his personality and his looks alone, would you accept that? That person was given certain advantages in access to power and the *appearance of power* that influenced how they are seen and where they sit in the world…and yet these privileges are mostly invisible to the recipient. This is what *privilege* can look like to the *privileged*, Yohan. I say this as someone who, like most of us, is a beneficiary of some amount of privilege.
>M"Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name?"It's not a so called privilege as there is no benefit. This is what I was asking you before. How on earth can it be when people change their last name to the same as mine? Does it make me get more money? What exactly changes in my life that all the sudden makes me more privileged than before? What do I get out of this?It never ceases to amaze me when seeing the things feminists come up with. This is nearly as bad as what I saw the other day. This feminist was claiming that it's female oppression to only refer women as females.Feminists seem to come up with the dumbest crap to claim their delusional victim status."Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking."Am I missing something here? How on earth is it "patriarchy" when men are being belittled for showing concern towards male problems? No wonder why I don't take 99 percent of feminists seriously. A woman who is good at playing her role is playing the role of someone who is dumber than men, who is weaker than men, who is good only as a caregiver and needing protection. These *roles* as they are written favor one class as the superior group.It depends how you look at it. To me, it seems that men had to go out in the real world and put up with the stress and physical labour from the demands of their employers in the work force. While women simply lived far less stressful and physically demanding lives as they only needs to take care of kids and do house work.The man paid for everything to keep the woman living. In other words, it seemed that the man was the woman's financial slave. And to get into this position, the man had get down on his knees and bare gold and jewellery for the woman to approve the marriage.It had nothing to do with women as being perceived as someone dumber than men. If that’s the case, please provide some proof. However, women perceived as someone weaker, yes this is the case as biology doesn’t lie. This is not sexist. And this is why men were put out to do all the hardest task to keep living while women had it easy at home.“he can play weak after assaulting a man and get the police to believe her, but that is not privilege because it is premised on the idea that she is naturally powerless, sweet, and needs protection.”THIS IS PRIVILEGE FFS. If she can manipulate the laws and judgements based on her gender, this is undeniably a privilege placed by gender. In other words, its also called having an incentive which all relates to having privilege.
>M"Nick, do you not think it is a privilege for a man's children and his male children and their male children to carry on his name?"It's not a so called privilege as there is no benefit. This is what I was asking you before. How on earth can it be when people change their last name to the same as mine? Does it make me get more money? What exactly changes in my life that all the sudden makes me more privileged than before? What do I get out of this?It never ceases to amaze me when seeing the things feminists come up with. This is nearly as bad as what I saw the other day. This feminist was claiming that it's female oppression to only refer women as females.Feminists seem to come up with the dumbest crap to claim their delusional victim status."Being told to grow a pair when you express real problems is wrong, and is part of what feminists call "patriarchal" thinking."Am I missing something here? How on earth is it "patriarchy" when men are being belittled for showing concern towards male problems? No wonder why I don't take 99 percent of feminists seriously.