>
One thing I am struck by again and again as I read the blogs and the message boards of the manosphere is how little basic human empathy I see there, towards women in general and towards feminists of both sexes. We see it in the routine references to women as “whores” and “cunts” and other terms that reduce them to their genitalia.
We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed. You may recall my recent post about an MRA blog that basically celebrated the possible death of a missing Las Vegas dancer. The body of the murdered woman, Deborah Flores-Narvaez, has since been found. The news inspired a moderator of the Happy Bachelors Forum to start a topic entitled “Dirty skanky whore found dead.”
And of course we’ve seen similar reactions to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others. While many in the manosphere responded to the shootings like normal human beings (displaying honest shock and horror) and others responded like typical internet paranoids (wildly speculating on how this meant the government would take away all our rights), there were others who found ways to blame women for the shootings or to twist the issue into one of men’s putative oppression. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, one commenter found an ingenious way to blame women for the shooting:
He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that’s what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can’t think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.
Others complained that the news coverage was slanted by evil feminism. From the MGTOW proboards forum:
it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.
this really shows you how society values women over men. and she’s not even dead!
Over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, one member complained that Giffords was getting most of the news coverage and that the six others who were murdered in the attack, most of whom were probably men, were being ignored:
This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.
The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.
The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the four unnamed dead people were men. If they were men, they would be considered less human than the others. They are not even human enough for the media to investigate and name. Their death, by American standards, was a tragedy but less of a tragedy than the non-death of female politician.
This comment is jampacked with an assortment of bad assumptions. To correct the most obvious of them: Giffords has gotten most of the coverage because this was not a random murder, but an attempted political assassination. Gender has nothing to do with it. When people talk about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, they rarely mention the three others who were also wounded that day. (Except for James Brady, and that’s because he has gone on to be an influential gun control advocate.)
The male judge has gotten a good deal of attention, but isn’t the main focus of the coverage because he was not the target of the assassination attempt. The girl has gotten attention because she was a child. The other victims were not named at first because authorities had not yet notified their next-of-kin. There were three men killed in the attacks, two women, and one girl.
Meanwhile, on this very blog, a regular antifeminist commenter who calls himself Random Brother has made clear that he doesn’t extend basic human sympathies to feminists. Asking whether or not Giffords is a feminist, he explains:
I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. …
If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is precisely zero evidence that Giffords is any any way a “man hater”: Because she’s a human being?
Sadly, this failure of empathy isn’t confined to the manosphere, as Marianne Kirby notes on The Rotund:
Empathy is, in its simplest form, the ability to acknowledge the thoughts/reasoning/emotions of another person as valid. It is, so to speak, being able to see where they are coming from even if you do not agree. … Empathy is, I think, coming to the realization of our own humanity and the humanity of other people – we are all simply people. …
[W]hen politicians depend on hate and violent rhetoric to stir up their followers, no good can come of it. … It teaches them that these people who believe different things are “the enemy” – that they are a danger and must be eliminated.
Is it any wonder that some people reach a point where the literal elimination of those who are different becomes the end goal?
For a long time I labeled the MRA/MGTOW blogs I’ve put in my sidebar as my “Enemies List.” It was a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to Nixon’s famous “enemies list.” But many people took it literally, and some (even if they didn’t) worried that this kind of terminology could lead to precisely the sort of dehumanizing of the “enemy” I’ve been criticizing here. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, and after pondering several eloquent emails sent to me on the subject, I’ve decided to change my “Enemies List” to, well, a “Boob-roll.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “boob” as “a stupid or foolish person; a dolt.” The people I write about may be — at least in my mind — wrong, and foolish, and sometimes hateful assholes, but they are people.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>In my opinion, having an exemption from the necessity to provide for one's own survival justifies one's subordination. But that's not the only justification in existence for authority. People who are in authority must not only demonstrate competence, but also assume obligations that subordinates are not subjected to.
>Also, regarding educational standards:If a different teaching method helps one sex to more effectively absorb the necessary knowledge and skills that are required to meet a minimum testing standard, then by all means, a change in the teaching method would be warranted on behalf of such people. That helps people to meet the standard, rather than lowering the standard itself.
>The physiological constraints women have as opposed to men is the only legitimate reason to bar women from long marches. They simply are not as muscular as men are and lose muscle mass faster. At any rate, the issue was that women were not asking to be drafted-yes they did ask. They were told no.
>@Elizabeth:1. Women also cannot throw grenades farther than men. For example, in grenade training the army had to erect a grenade barrier wall to protect the female soldiers from the blast of the grenades than they could not throw far enough. This adaptation lowered the standard of safety, but it enabled the less-capable female soldiers to pass basic training. In an actual battle situation, such women would be endangering the lives of their fellow soldiers — both male and female — if they attempted to exercise such a basic task as throwing a grenade.2. Women never asked to be drafted. Feminist organizations — thinking that they represent all women — asked for women to be subject to the draft. I'm going to assume that you can't produce credible polling data that demonstrate that the desires of women in general were in harmony with the feminists in this matter of equal military draft obligations. Prove me wrong if you think you can.
>Preliminarily, John Dias, nothing in your comments addresses my main point — that is, that if this "ability to ensure one's own survival" (as YOU define it) is the prerequisite to having the full panoply of civil rights, then the overwhelming majority of men are not entitled to civil rights, since the overwhelming majority of men are incapable of ensuring their own survival according to the criteria that you've suggested. Furthermore, taken to its logical conclusion, your theory would mean that men are to be subordinated to women who are more capable than they are to survive — again, according to your criteria; and that men's political and legal entitlements would decrease with age, due to waning physical strength. In other words, if your comments are taken at face value, they simply don't support the proposition that authority is to be assigned on the basis of gender, and that women are to be deprived of legal identity and civil rights simply for being women.The bigger problem with your argument, however, is that the criteria that you set for being in authority or being relegated to the status of property are wholly arbitrary. Why should those who have greater physical strength and endurance be the only ones with rights? Because they supposedly can ensure their own survival? I wouldn't be so sure. To begin with, even in a primitive world with simple tools, physical strength means nothing in the absence of intellect — and intellect is spectacularly good at compensating for physical weakness. Therefore, I don't see why a muscular idiot should rule over a frail genius.More importantly, we don't live in a primitive world — we live in a world where wars are increasingly technological, and physical strength is becoming less and less crucial. You may have the biceps the size of basketballs, but they won't ensure your survival in a technologically advanced world unless flabby intellectuals, who can't bench press for more than a few minutes, provide you with the technology that WILL ensure your survival. Your vaunted ability to survive in harsh climactic conditions is mostly attributable to modern medical science. In the Middle Ages, the number one killer of soldiers was dysentery, followed by other communicable diseases and exhaustion, with warfare being a distant third. Your ability to throw a grenade won't ensure your survival or anyone else's survival, if people, including women, most of whom can't throw grenades properly, won't keep coming up with new antibiotics to treat a variety of infections that may kill you. Perhaps it's those with the strongest brains, rather than those with the biggest muscles, that should lord over everyone else? Let's say, we'll limit the right to vote to people with PhD's and those with an IQ of at least 150.History also shows that at least over the last 500 years or so, wars consistently have been won by those NOT with the bravest soldiers or the most brilliant generals, but by those who have the most materiel. So perhaps everyone should be submissive to merchants, since their generation of wealth ultimately makes all the stuff that supplies militaries?All these are rhetorical questions. Substantive Due Process means that all human beings enjoy equal rights, not subject to arbitrary categories, and it is a principle in which I deeply believe. But asking these questions does demonstrate that it's not such an easy thing, determining what it takes to ensure one's survival. Ultimately, it's an interconnected world, and there isn't one person out there, man or woman, who can single-handedly ensure his or her own survival. And thus, it is a false criterion. Inalienable rights, remember?
>@Amused:You're not debating in an intellectually honest manner, and simultaneously you are accusing me of doing exactly that to you. That's a typical rhetorical tactic that I have seen feminists employ, and it is meant to put their opponents on the defensive. It's actually quite manipulative in my opinion. I won't dignify your accusatory rhetoric with a response until you practice debating in a logical, non-manipulative manner.But I will offer this clarification of my own statements. Civil rights are bestowed by government policy, which stems from State authority. Patriarchal authority is not derived from the State (despite the fact that feminists claim that the State is an extension of patriarchal values). Some feminists have gone so far as to acknowledge the reality that patriarchal values are insulated from State control so long as intact families exist. And so this idea that I'm making a comment on civil rights is completely missing the point in my view. Within a family in which authority relationships are defined by common beliefs, reinforced through the family itself and other cultural institutions, authority need not be enforced through the barrel of a police officer's gun. It is enforced merely by the provider of the means of survival establishing his value to his family by repeatedly demonstrating the uniqueness of his provision and protection. This creates a cocoon of material and physical security within which nurturing and comfort can be provided. What disrupts the delicate harmony of this arrangement — thousands of years old and tried and tested — is the intervention of the State, manufacturing excuses to intrude into the private lives of people who choose to live this way. What you paint as civil rights are really just the excuse for the State to lord it over the population and impose various obligations on them. This phenomenon of government's heavy hand has only intensified under feminism, resulting in grave injustices that feminism has attempted to justify.No further debate by me with you will occur from this point onward, until I have confidence that you will not engage in further attempts to assassinate my character and until you start to engage my arguments solely on their merits.
>Amused: History also shows that at least over the last 500 years or so, wars consistently have been won by those NOT with the bravest soldiers or the most brilliant generals, but by those who have the most materiel. This is not true, USA lost the war against Vietnam, which had significantly less materials than the USA. Today every corner of Vietnam is fully controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.
>Okay, insert feminist to that statement I made.Feminist women did demand to be drafted, they were told no.
>John Dias: I addressed your comments on the merits. Your character is of no interest to me — and if I poured cold water on your apparent conviction that muscular strength is the be-all, end-all of survival, and showed you how other people, including women, assure YOUR survival by providing you with tools and conveniences that you (apparently) take for granted, your choice to take offense at that has nothing to do with me. A lot of people are deluded that they could survive if only society would leave them alone (and go away with all its conveniences, roads, electricity, running water, and modern medicine) — but that's only until their first infection or serious illness; these people are wrong and so are you.Whatever you meant, as long as you are appealing to patriarchy and history, what IS intellectually dishonest is your refusal to acknowledge that patriarchy — for thousands of years — used political and legal institutions to sustain itself. In a patriarchal society, male authority over family has the force of law: women have little to no recourse against abusive husbands; men who kill or maim their wives suffer few to no consequences; and women are barred by law from getting a professionally useful education or pursuing gainful employment. At the same time, male obligations in a patriarchal society never had the force of law: a man had a moral obligation to support his family, but could not be compelled to do so; if his wife perished because of his failure to protect her, he would suffer no legal consequences whatsoever. Your suggestion that patriarchy in the good old days existed because the State didn't interfere is simply not true. Patriarchy fashioned legal and political systems, and to deny that is simply absurd.As for whether patriarchy should be practiced within a family — that's up to each individual family. Of course, the woman in such a system is required to cooperate with her husband by rendering herself as helpless as possible. Also, to the extent that male authority in your theory is based on the "uniqueness" of his contribution to his family, I suppose she's supposed to be useless as well, and to remind herself daily how he would be just fine without her, but she would perish without him. Hey, people who decide to live this way don't bother me one way or another, but once they start brandishing their lifestyle as supposedly ideal, they expose it to examination and judgment. In any event, inasmuch as you demand respect for such arrangements simply because they exist, perhaps you should be a little less critical of other types of relationships, that aren't founded on domination and co-dependency, and where both partners provide what they can provide best without one lording over the other.
>Yohan: This is not true, USA lost the war against Vietnam, which had significantly less materials than the USA.Today every corner of Vietnam is fully controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.Okay, it's not merchants then. Communist societies have more materiel by virtue of the State's ability to commandeer whatever it needs without pesky lawsuits and legislative debates. Perhaps it's communists who are best equipped to assure society's survival then.
>John Dias: I've reread my earlier comment, and I honestly cannot find ANYTHING in it that can even remotely be construed as a personal attack. I therefore call your bluff: you couldn't rebut my argument, so you resorted to ham-fisted claims that I supposedly insulted you. All I did, was dispute your arguments. If you construe that as an insult in and of itself — this is yet another manifestation of patriarchal entitlement; although no one likes to be disputed, men who subscribe to the notion that they should possess the entirety of public discourse take particular umbrage at being contradicted by women.You premise your complaint against me on my supposed misinterpretation of the term "patriarchy". I think my understanding of patriarchy is far more accurate than yours, but why take my word for it? Let's consult a dictionary. (Is Merriam Webster impartial enough for you? In case you have any doubts, "Merriam" isn't Miriam, but the last name of two men.) The dictionary defines "patriarchy" as "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy". So, we have societal organization and the involvement of the legal system on two counts: keeping wives subordinate and dependent and ensuring inheritance laws that favor males. So it seems to me, my approach to patriarchy as a social, legal and political system is consistent with how patriarchy is commonly understood, and your taking offense at me is therefore unjustified.You are, of course, free to define terms for your own purposes. But if you choose to define a term in a way that's significantly different from how that term is normally understood, it is your responsibility to apprise the public of your definition, before you start getting all riled up because others don't automatically define things the way you want to define them.
>John, I fail to see any "character assassination" in Amused's comments either.Also, I note that if you read, yes, Gerda Lerner on the history of patriarchy, you can see that it has always been intertwined with and supported by laws and state power. Indeed, much of her work is based on analyzing such patriarchal laws.
>David:When someone intentionally misstates the views of another in accusatory fashion — then attacks those views as they would attack a straw man — to me that is a roundabout way of attacking someone's character. To attack an argument on the merits, you should quote the statement of the person who you disagree with, then offer your commentary about it specifically. Then quote another statement, and offer your commentary about it, and so on.Finally, in Lerner's view, patriarchy as she defines it started in the Greek city states. But true patriarchy — not the feminist definition which I reject — began in the garden of Eden. I use the Bible as my source. Lerner also attributes patriarchy to the will of man, specifically naming Aristotle as its philosophical grandfather, as though authority over the family or family clan by the father has no other merit than the secular value the Greeks attached to it. Feminism is a secular belief system by its essence. In her book, Lerner has envisioned the tearing down of the family in her expression of what I consider to be a chilling Utopian fantasy.
>People who are in authority must not only demonstrate competence, but also assume obligations that subordinates are not subjected to.That's probably true in many scenarios, but not all. The one who will become the authority and the one who will become the subordinate in, say, the household is bestowed at birth (or even before). A man does not have to demonstrate competence nor assume obligations in order to be seen as the head of the household, that's just naturally assumed because of his maleness. Sure, their female partner could pick up the slack in areas where they are deficient or shirk their obligations, but women have long been conditioned to do so in such a manner that it would not be seen as usurping the man's authority. His authority was unquestioned no matter what, he need not have demonstrated any competence to have had this authority assumed.
>Pam – And now we have the opposite problem, where women are automatically assumed competent (winning custody of children in grossly disproportionate numbers despite evidence that suggests fathers make better single parents than do mothers) regardless of reason. Progress!
>@Pam:"A man does not have to demonstrate competence nor assume obligations in order to be seen as the head of the household, that's just naturally assumed because of his maleness."Since authority is reinforced by competence, as well as cultural reinforcement, it is also destabilized by incompetence. If you lose the respect of the people for whom you provide and protect, there will be a lack of harmony in your family. Stop trying to paint male authority as abusive. Authority is justified both by competence and also the obligations of authority.
>But true patriarchy — not the feminist definition which I reject — began in the garden of Eden.Using the Bible as the source, yes it did begin in the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve fell from grace and were made to depart the garden. Patriarchy is a Fallen system, not a system under Grace.
>I did not paint male authority as abusive. I painted it as something that is always assumed, not necessarily earned.
>And now we have the opposite problem, where women are automatically assumed competent (winning custody of children in grossly disproportionate numbers…Because women are automatically assumed to be the primary caregivers, and that seems to suit most men just fine, at least while their marriage (or other co-habitating relationship) is intact. It's only when the cohabitating relationship is disrupted that the assumption of who should be the primary caregiver (thus given custody of the children) comes into question.I'm all for men being awarded custody of the children, and the woman paying him child support out of her earnings, if they are the primary caregivers.
>@Pam:"Because women are automatically assumed to be the primary caregivers, and that seems to suit most men just fine, at least while their marriage (or other co-habitating relationship) is intact."Automatically assumed by whom? You really like the use of the passive voice, don't you? I detect a not-so-subtle accusation embedded in the above quoted sentence, as if you're saying that when women choose the caregiving role, they were somehow intimidated into it by the father. In fact, caring for one's children while financially supported by a provider is a blessing, and it is also a voluntary-accepted privilege."It's only when the cohabitating relationship is disrupted that the assumption of who should be the primary caregiver (thus given custody of the children) comes into question."Why should it come into question at all? A continuing relationship between the child and both parents is vital to the interests of both the parent and especially the child. The fact that the providing father loved his former family by being away from them is not negated in any way by the mother loving her family by being the primary caregiver. Parenting time being split 50/50, or close to it, is perfectly justified because otherwise it is not usually in the interest of the child. An 80/20 arrangement of parenting time is, however, an entitlement that is expected by many mothers who are seeking to max out the amount that they expect the father to pay them in child support. That is what is an unjust expectation, namely the desire to financially profit from a family breakup. It is perfectly reasonable for a father to expect a substantial change in his parenting time following a divorce.
>Automatically assumed by whom?Obviously the Family Courts for one, and in most heterosexual cohabitation relationships, even when both the man AND the woman work outside the home to provide a monetary income.I detect a not-so-subtle accusation embedded in the above quoted sentence, as if you're saying that when women choose the caregiving role, they were somehow intimidated into it by the father.You really like to detect things that I'm not intimating at all, don't you? What I'm saying is that when a heterosexual couple chooses to have a child or children (or haven't yet chosen but pregnancy is the reality of the situation), the underlying assumption is that it is the woman who will be the primary caregiver, and that underlying assumption, the 80/20 split, doesn't seem to faze most men at all while the relationship is intact – that's not intimidation on the father's part, it's complacency; dare I say that, for a large number of men, it doesn't even occur to them that they could or should take on a larger portion of that responsibility . What I'm saying is that men who are concerned with father's rights (in general, not just as in Father's Rights Activism) should be exercising their rights to play a larger "hands-on" role with their children not just only after the relationship has gone asunder.In no way do I diminish the importance of a child having a relationship with both father and mother, I think that that close to 50/50 split in parenting time should be strived for when the relationship is intact as well as not.That 80/20 split is not only expected by mothers (who, by and large, were doing the 80% all along) when custody arrangements are being determined, it's also assumed by the Family Court due to it being the predominant structure within intact relationships. If fathers start taking on a larger "hands-on" caregiving role, the Family Court may eventually catch on to that and then, perhaps, custodial arrangements will be more evenly split. The fact that the providing father loved his former family by being away from them is not negated in any way by the mother loving her family by being the primary caregiverThe mother, in loving her family by being the primary caregiver, was/is also providing. Why is providing viewed in strictly monetary income terms?
>Women also tend to take the role of primary parent whether the father wants it or not. They will often gatekeep: stating the rules by which the father may interact with the child and disapproving and rebuking the father if he breaks these rules. The rules are typically stated as being good for the child, but in many cases they are nitpicking and not about safety in the least. I have listened to my friends complain about their children being dressed inappropriately (a pink shirt with green pants), they were fed incorrectly (cereal for lunch), they were dirty (missed a bath) or dad was not spending quality time with the child (dad was watching cartoons with child). These dads were criticized for doing things differently than with mom, none of which were harmful to the child. Mothers (most mothers in my experience as a parent and as a former day care provider) gatekeep to some extent. Men do not become primary parents in many cases because they are not allowed to be. Mothers tend to be far more controlling than fathers in my experience. I have met one man who was a gatekeeper, but he was divorced father of a gatekeeping woman. (I thought he was bad until I met his wife-I was watching their children before school every day)Also, what would you say to a mother who wanted to stay home with her kids and the father wanted her to work. What would you say to a father who wanted to stay home with the kids and the mother wanted him to work. What if the mother assumed she would work and changed her mind once the baby was born?What if the father assumed he would work but changed his mind once the baby was born?I think the preconcieved notions of women being primary care parents and men being breadwinners is still a problem, just not the problem you think. I would say, if you think women have it so bad, would you be willing to switch roles? Would you be willing to have the assumed responsibility to pay for your family? You would have no choice but to work, even if your spouse suddenly decided to stay home. You would be seen by society as a dead beat if you did not pay for your ex-spouse to raise your children. Primary parent may provide love, but so does the working parent. Also, more women today are working than men, due to the recession hitting men far more than women. We will start seeing a change in the status quo, and it is not men who will be unhappy about it.
>Oh, and Pam? I noted the same thing John did. You are not as subtle as you think.
>Pam made no insinuation, and after being accuse dot if, made even clearer what she meant. Men do not become primary parents in many cases because they are not allowed to be. Mothers tend to be far more controlling than fathers in my experience.Do you have any evidence of this beyond anecdote? Obviously in some cases this is true, but I would imagine it happens the other way around more often, because fathers with patriarchal values tend to want to have final say over such matters, and because they tend to prefer more traditional man-works-woman-takes-care-of-kids family structures. My own admittedly anecdotal evidence: the patriarchal, misogynist, alcoholic father of a friend, who refused and still refuses to allow his wife to work. Maybe in John's logic this is a "privilege," but it was not one she had a choice in. (She could have gotten a divorce, I suppose, but then she would blamed for breaking up the family and seeking to "profit" be seeking child support by the MRAs.)
>LOL!!! I'm not trying to be subtle, you and John are expecting innuendo and so are reading it into what I'm saying.Primary parent may provide love, but so does the working parent.Problem is, in patriarchal families, the working parent is seen as providing while the non-working (outside of the home for a paycheque, that is) parent is seen only as receiving. What the non-working parent provides for the working parent is devalued or taken for granted.I would say, if you think women have it so bad, would you be willing to switch roles?I have been the breadwinner, supporting a man who stayed at home. And guess what? People still viewed him as the head of the household…the boss of me.