>
My contribution to the Good Men Project debate over the Men’s Rights Movement — talking about misogyny in the movement — is up now.
Batman on an elephant says check it out.
We Hunted The MammothBucking the Backlash
We Hunted The Mammoth>
My contribution to the Good Men Project debate over the Men’s Rights Movement — talking about misogyny in the movement — is up now.
Batman on an elephant says check it out.
>“I do have a quibble with this though, "This shows abortion as being used as a form of birth control." because abortion *is* a form of birth control. “I see that as a very morbid and distasteful view of abortion. While I may agree it is beneficial to have access to, I do not see it as so trivial as to be placed on par with condoms and diaphragms. Furthermore, it is unique as it is a reactionary rather then a proactive means of preventing a birth, as well as is the termination of a potential life after it has begun growing, not prior to it’s creation. As such, it is in a class of it’s own… as far as I’m concerned.Lady V. this is the last time I will say this. I agree that abortion clinics should be made more accessible. I just CAN NOT show sympathy for a group of people complaining about how access is being limited to something they themselves are denying outright to another group of people. Let me quote myself:“Lady V, I don’t disagree with you regarding making abortion more accessible,”“Be aware I do not advocate for the closure of abortion centers.” (Admittedly, I spelt closure wrong the first time)I have said this a few times now, but you still insist on lecturing me about the benefit of abortion, ignoring my agreement, and then further ignoring my arguments for why I am reluctant to show sympathy to feminists. This is the very attribute I listed above as causing my disliking people, when you asked how you could be better liked by MRA’s. Did you ask simply to find a means of getting under our skin? Of using as a means to perturb and rankle us?
>My points are, "Some people are imperfect at living their beliefs" and "Some people hold beliefs that are internally inconsistent". It is inconsistant to claim total independence, and yet want to be protected by others, with no protection offered in the other direction.For instance, some feminists would screech "I don't need a man!. I'm a independent womyn! I tell them: So, that means you don't need the firefighters who might put out your fires. Or the garbageman. Or what about the men that built your house in the first place! Or the electricians, etc. "Call out the sisterhood" on their hypocrisy!
>Part of why I give such detailed comments is because this is not merely a private discussion between Vicky and Kratch – other people are reading, participating or even lurking. And you claim to want to make abortion more accessible, but then wonder if people would behave better without it. It's hard to tell if that's what you actually believe, or if you're just musing out loud. And many feminists are totally in favor of a male pill. Most of the feminists that I know believe birth control should be widely and freely available to all genders – in fact, most of what I know about the development of the male pill, I know through reading feminist blogs. Some women might believe in trapping a man with a pregnancy, but I would have a very difficult time calling that woman a feminist. And yes, my question about likability was mostly a rhetorical one. Argue against it all you like, but I've read a lot of MRA/MGTOW/PUA blogs myself, and it seems like a woman can never do anything right in the eyes of the men who frequent there – yet they get offended when they are called misogynist. Well alright, my thought process goes, perhaps they just have a radically different idea of what a virtuous woman is. Maybe they really are angry at 98% of the world, but can find 2% of women likable. Even if it is only 2%, I'm interested to know what MRAs find is a likable quality in a woman (MGTOWs and PUAs get a pass on this one, since it's pretty easy to tell what each group finds likable). Of course, any man who is truly not a misogynist will be able to answer precisely what they find likable in women and will be able to describe the qualities they can admire. Even if that quality was 'A good Christian woman who does what she is told and doesn't talk back.'
>@Kratch,Actually, my first experience with MRM/MRA sites came from following a link posted on a Christian blog some time ago. I don't want to belabour the religious faith issue on this blog, but Christianity is a religious faith that I chose after studying and juxtaposing several faiths, and I have been interested in discussing various aspects of it (including "proper" gender roles) with fellow Christians ever since. The site that was linked to in the blog that I was reading just happened to be The Spearhead. My motivations for visiting there and other MRA/MRM sites is to be able to speak from a "having seen it with my own eyes" position when discussing some issues, be it here or on another blog/forum.It is quite apparent to me that even though some of the MRAs are not downright misogynists, most do subscribe to the "women are lesser than men in most everything" meme, and I can see how some of those prevailing beliefs work AGAINST trying to justify and effect some of the changes/reforms (lack of DV shelters for men, child custody and support decisions, to name a couple of examples) that the MRM/FRAs/MRAs want to see happen.If I might take one of your examples to show what I mean about the "shooting yourselves in the foot" effect that MRAs are currently experiencing…. Affirmative Action, for example. Do I support it? I have mixed feelings about it, as on the one hand it tends to uphold "otherizing", but on the other hand I don't want to see backsliding to previously acceptable hiring practices, such as this one that Carnivore provides for us:"Try suggesting that women’s suffrage is bad or that hiring preferences should be for married men supporting a family, single men and lastly women, in that order."I know that there is more to Affirmative Action than just the gender aspect of it, but he and all who would agree display why there continues to be a need for something like Affirmative Action, as imperfect a legislation that it is. The objection to Affirmative Action does not appear to be based on wanting meritocracy to be utilized in hiring practices, but, rather, that hiring practices should reflect keeping people in their "proper" place.As much as MRM and MRAs continue to bleat about feminists in particular and women in general wanting to have all the rights and privileges once afforded only to men without any of the associated responsibilities, the MRM and MRAs seem to want the male-only privileges of patriarchy (or traditionalism, if you prefer) without the negatives that primarily affect males only that are associated with it.
>@Kratch,I just finished posting a lengthy response to you, and it will hopefully appear when it breaks its way out of the spam filter.
>“It's hard to tell if that's what you actually believe, or if you're just musing out loud. “I do believe that abortion clinics should be made more accessible. But so long as Feminism actively opposes male reproductive rights, in particular, giving men a choice between the periods of conception and becoming a parent, just as abortion gives to women, for no other reason then to support a child that did not need to be brought into a world of poverty, but was done so anyways knowing the father would not support it (or not knowing one way or the other in the case of having the baby without ever informing the father)(IE, the situation as it would be if male reproductive rights were granted, not how it is now)… then I must consider alternatives that would put men and women on a more equal footing. I strongly believe in equality, and if Feminism insists that male reproductive rights are immoral and/or detrimental, and that a man should step up to the responsibility when he has sex and it leads to whatever the woman wants it to, then I believe a solution should be implemented to apply that reasoning to both genders… ether that, or acknowledge the argument is flawed (because it is).“And many feminists are totally in favor of a male pill.”And while the male pill would allow men to avoid the situation in the first place, it still doesn’t address the disparity of choice between post-conception and pre-parenthood. Just as there are medical complications for some women and the pill, so to will there be complications for some men. Those men still deserve a right to choose (but that choice should be far more costly then the male pill, so as to avoid the opt out being used as birth control over the male pill). But until a male pill is on the shelves and not 5 years away (like it’s been for decades), I will advocate for male reproductive choice.“Argue against it all you like, ““Of course, any man who is truly not a misogynist will be able to answer precisely what they find likable in women and will be able to describe the qualities they can admire. Even if that quality was 'A good Christian woman who does what she is told and doesn't talk back.'”Was my answer above insufficient? Or are you now the one musing aloud?“and it seems like a woman can never do anything right in the eyes of the men who frequent there”I’m curious if you may be equating some of the anti-feminism as anti-woman, or perhaps equating the acknowledgement as flaws as some kind of general overall attack on women, or both? I can regularly pick out flaws in my friends… My brother is perpetually late, to the point that I often tell him events I host are starting 1-2 hours before their actual start time so that, maybe, just maybe, he will arrive at a reasonable time. This does not mean my brother can do no right, or that I somehow hate him. What it means is he has a flaw, something about him that annoys me, and I acknowledge that flaw. Just because some men don’t like certain attributes in women, does not mean they don’t like women at all.
>"The objection to Affirmative Action does not appear to be based on wanting meritocracy to be utilized in hiring practices,"The objection to affirmative action is largely an objection to the claim that women face discrimination in the workplace and that men do not. It is dishonest to claim men "have it better" in the workplace when there are government supported actions in place that specifically discriminate against men. And prominent feminists will often ignore such actions in favour of calling for more discrimination in the workplace to make things better for women (despite women now being the majority of the workforce). It's no different then in schools, where, at least in Canada, women have over 900 scholarship options, and men have less then 150, the gap between the number of men and women attending and graduating post secondary institutions is ever widening in favour of women (larger then the gap that existed between men and women when feminists claimed it was unacceptable) and yet government still insists on putting more money into getting women into post secondary and nothing for men. It's one thing to claim there is subtle discrimination against women in the workforce (if it wasn't subtle, it would be prosecutable), it is something else entirely to ignore active and overt discrimination in the opposite direction while doing so."As much as MRM and MRAs continue to bleat about feminists in particular and women in general wanting to have all the rights and privileges once afforded only to men without any of the associated responsibilities, the MRM and MRAs seem to want the male-only privileges of patriarchy (or traditionalism, if you prefer) without the negatives that primarily affect males only that are associated with it. "Acknowledging that prominent feminists are actively trying to reverse the power balance between men and women and attempting to stop that imbalance is not the same as trying to reverse things back to the starting point. Think about it this way, when I'm driving and I hit the brakes, it is not because I want to go back to where I started driving, it is because I don't want to continue going forward in the direction i'm going at that very moment.
>As far as I am concerned, Kratch, you answered the likability question well enough (unlike Cold, who seems to have abandoned this thread). Let me put it another way – it's called the "Yeah, But They Have a Point" game. I usually play this with Republicans, Christians and other groups with whom I disagree. The challenge is to find at least one good thing about the opposition. Granted, it's been harder for me to successfully play it with the rise of the Tea Baggers & Sarah Palin, but I can still find some good things about each (people *should* be irate if their government is not listening to them; and Sarah Palin promotes an active and healthy lifestyle). I certainly don't agree with the rest of their rhetoric, but I feel like I can safely criticize someone as long as I can successfully play "Yeah, But They Have a Point."Being critical of a particular woman, or being critical of stereotypically female behavior, is not necessarily misogynist. What is misogynist is being so contemptuous of women that one cannot find one likable thing about a woman, or one way for a woman to be a good person. It's possible to be misogynist without that (my hypothetical Christian is still misogynist, just in a different way), but I find that asking my question usually gets a good response. A lot of MRAs enjoy moving the goalposts, as Shaenon illustrated, making it impossible for a woman to ever do anything right. As much as I disagree with your particular stance, Kratch, I can at least respect the fact that yours is well-stated and that you stand by it no matter what the topic of discussion is. But on that – what do you say to the notion that a child has a right to be taken care of or that a child has a right to parental support? Does a man's right to have sex without risking fatherhood trump a child's right to be taken care of? A woman who has an abortion is not abandoning a child; a man in your case is.
>A lengthy comment from Pam was in the spam filter; it's up now, about 5 comments up, and worth reading.
>@Kratch,I'm not saying that some of the issues that the MRM and MRAs are concerned about are not without some merit, I'm pointing out that their approach, combined with other beliefs that many of them hold and air, has a tendency to bite them in the ass.Now I can't tell some of them that the patriarchal or traditional values that they cling to are wrong, even though I myself DO believe that they are wrong, because I can't and won't force someone into believing something that they don't believe, as that won't change their heart, but I CAN try to point out how some of the beliefs that they hold combined with the manner in which they air their concerns, resonates, and not in a good way, with the audience(s) that they need to reach (which is not necessarily the audience that they are speaking TO). Take my example of Carnivore's statement, for instance. To some that might just seem like hyperbole, but to others it invokes a memory of something that was very real in a time that was not too long ago in the grand scheme of things. It may also invoke memories of a time when employers could and many (but not all) did force women to quit their jobs once they got married, fired women from their jobs if they became pregnant, etc. So when they need to reach the audience that's in that proverbial car you spoke of, it's an audience that's been travelling a long uphill road in said car, and that audience can hit the brakes when they may be uncertain if they want to continue forward, but any easing off of the foot that is on that brake, and…..My next question to you is… how the heck were you able to respond to my post when it was still in the spam filter???
>David – I read just about every post you write, even though I comment very seldom, and I have to say that your site is amazing. It's the only place I've seen where sometimes feminists and MRAs manage to have a dialogue. Sure – most of the time the MRAs resort to ad-hominems and some truly sad name-calling, but I've actually read a comment or two by your MRA visitors that I can agree with (or at least see and accept the reasoning behind, even if I don't agree). I think it's mostly thanks to your patience, and the patience of regular commenters, who refuse to give up and keep engaging these people.I don't think that anyone will be convinced that wasn't convinced before… but the existence of dialogue where none was before, and the promotion of at least some understanding where before there was nothing but contempt is valuable in and of itself.Thanks for that.
>“Let me put it another way – it's called the "Yeah, But They Have a Point" game….”Fair enough. But on the flip side, I would be surprised if there were more then 5 or 6 feminist posters on Davids website that could play that game with MRA’s without contradicting themselves or parroting someone else. You, Briget, Elizabeth being the 3 I can name for certain.“But on that – what do you say to the notion that a child has a right to be taken care of or that a child has a right to parental support? Does a man's right to have sex without risking fatherhood trump a child's right to be taken care of? A woman who has an abortion is not abandoning a child; a man in your case is. “I agree completely that a child has a right to be taken care of and supported. But nothing in that right states that it must be done against the supporters will. If a woman chooses to have a child against the fathers wish’s and after that father chooses to opt out**, it would be here choice to take on ALL the responsibilities in providing that support on her own. It is no different then a woman choosing to have a child via sperm Donors. She is doing so knowing full well she will not get support from the father, because that is the CHOICE she made. I see no reason that cannot be taken further in order to grant men the equal right of choice regarding reproductive rights. If a woman is capable of choosing to abort, abandon, adopt or keep a child, she is capable of making that choice with or without the support of a man, and there is nothing about men’s reproductive rights that would change any of that.**Please note again my personal acknowledgement of the timeframe in which a man can opt out. IE, within months of him first learning he is (to be) a parent. This ether gives the man who’s baby hs not been born yet the opportunity to accept or reject parenthood with time enough for the mother to make an informed choice… Or else it allows a father of a child that is already born and has been raised and supported by the mother alone up to that point, without his knowledge, the choice to let her keep raising the child without his knowledge and support, as she has been doing up to that point anyways.“I'm not saying that some of the issues that the MRM and MRAs are concerned about are not without some merit, I'm pointing out that their approach, combined with other beliefs that many of them hold and air, has a tendency to bite them in the ass.”Oh, I don’t entirely disagree. I personally hate the spearhead as being associated with the MRM. I feel it is a good tool for the MRM in finding people who are truly interested, but I see it as a place for all men who are angry or concerned to gather, including many who truly have no interest in the MRM and just seek other bitter, angry or hateful people to complain with. And those people being associated with the MRM both bother me and hurt the movement as a whole. But it also needs to be noted that simply speaking up for men and comparing what men lack that woman have been given has led to me being called a woman hater and misogynist on a number of occasions. Simply asking … “why is there a minister for the status of women and not one for the status of men” and then providing examples of ether why a men’s minister would be helpful and is needed, or if those reasons are deemed insufficient, why the women’s ministers duties are therefore also insufficient, has garnered this individual a great deal of personal attacks. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=60266912006&topic=14674But on the flip side, I think any interpretation of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks by David is personally biased to the point where he will interpret in the worst possible way, what is being said, and will refuse to acknowledge the very same sarcasm and underhanded humour that David himself uses. Furthermore, I think many of David’s posters opinions of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks are tainted by David’s own bias and the clear smear campaigning David does on this website.
>“My next question to you is… how the heck were you able to respond to my post when it was still in the spam filter???”I’m just that good. LOL but seriously, I get subscriptions sent to one of my emails (which is used solely for my MRA postings/work), and things caught in the spam filter are still sent to the subscription email immediately.There may be one of mine in there right now.
>Wow–I'm really confused by all of this. One the one side this MRA speak of mailed fists in velvet gloves is repugnant. It really seems to be an expression of utter weakness.On the other side I have these highly educated very verbal women who seems to be full of everything I couldn't stand about my wife.Really–just repugnant people on both sides of the equation.Now before any of you MRA MOFO'a get on my case–I am you–but better.I have been ripped off by the courts–i had the three hundred mile drive every weekend.I had the visitation with my infant in the front seat of a pick up truck in winter in Ontario.I wanted the mother of my child dead.But I didn't do it. And I swallowed all of it till now we have a cordial relationship where the best considerations of our child are looked after.I'm hoping once my divorce goes through to have the same situation with the mother of my younger daughter.hey–if I have to drop off the mammoth steak at the door and walk on to make sure that my kids are looked after then fine.But before anyone decides to be "okay" with that–understand that I had a real battle with the urge to take a fuckng flame thrower into court and burn down any mother fucker who got in between me and my kids. I can't tell you how angry the assumption of that 'power' by anyone made me. And secondly–I love my girls–but I fear I'm going to have problems with the way they turn out if they turn out anything like the women I have known.I'm a tall, strong, educated man with a good job who cares about his community. I love my girls–i do not beleive in corporal punishment or belittling them in any way. I value reason over faith–my daughters and I have a tradition of taking our time in museums , art galleries, zoos. The next vacation is to drumheller to visit the dinosaur digs and the Tyrell museum. I have a budding paleontologist in the eldest. I believe the way to raise them is to let them know they are loved and valued and they have the power to shape their own lives with the capabilities in their own right. I this way I consider myself a feminist. It's just that I find myself a heterosexual with no desire to have anything to do with women lately. At all. So if I am GOING MY OWN WAY.Understand its nothing personal–i just have no more time to waste with an entire gender who automatically beleive due to the possession of a uterus that their opinion on vaccination as an example–trumps actual medical knowledge. Or that their gender somehow gives them the right to criticize my choices in raising my girls. I don't even know why I'm rambling at this site actually–the separation is fresh–I'm tired. I'm angry that ui put up with all of it as long as I did and more–I'm scared of the next steps around custody–she's already trying remove joint even though I have custody for six days out of 14. And that's only because I'm voluntarily giving up the house. Its all my daughter has known and I couldn't have her move way from that. The divorce will be painful enough.I'm hoping that the end will be cordial. I just find it sad that when I speak of being happily alone for the rest of my life and actively avoiding any deeper entanglements every one of my male friends–married or single–nods and understands it. Hell they actively support the idea.My femal friends and family? They get offended by the idea. Seriously–the same response–you will get over it–you will get on board again.Like my decision is the biggest threat to them personally somehow…ah fuck it…I am a man.
>John Kilian:I don't know exactly what happens in those conversations with your female family and friends. On the one hand, quite obviously, your love life is no one's business but yours, and you should live as you choose without anyone's judgment or interference, as long as you harm no one else. I think most people will subscribe to that principle. On the other hand, if you constantly harp on a point, going on and on to your female family and friends about how sick you are of women and how you are fed up with women and how you wouldn't touch a woman with a ten-foot pole — well, there is a point at which you are kind of making it their business, because if you do that, you are trying to get a rise out of them. I mean, reverse the genders. Imagine one of your female family or friends decided she would never be in a relationship again after getting out of a horrible marriage to a real asshole. I'm sure you'd have no problem with such a decision per se, especially since you wouldn't really be in a position to have a problem with it in the first place. Now imagine, alternatively, that in addition to making such a decision, she talked at length about how sick of men and their assholish superiority she is, and how she's totally done with men because they are just repugnant people. At some point, you'd probably get your hackles up. Wouldn't you think?You should also consider the possibility that when your male acquaintances endorse your resentment of women in front of their wives, girlfriends and daughters — they are insulting the women in their lives. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take offense. As much as you claim women regard themselves as superior, isn't it interesting how socially acceptable woman-hating talk is at picnics and barbecues?i just have no more time to waste with an entire gender who automatically beleive due to the possession of a uterus that their opinion on vaccination as an example–trumps actual medical knowledge. Or that their gender somehow gives them the right to criticize my choices in raising my girls.And? This is a female flaw, according to you? Read some of the postings on this site again, if you will. A common refrain by MRA's: "Men hunted the woolly mammoth and built civilization, created great art, music and literature, built awesome buildings, designed cars and planes, while women spent all their time sitting on their asses and eating bonbons!" Since men who make such statements have neither hunted the mammoth, nor created great art, music or literature, nor designed any buildings, nor invented new technologies, nor ever contributed to civilization in any significant way, the inference to be drawn from their argument is: "I am superior to women because I have a penis, just like Mozart did." You see MRA's make that statement all the freaking time. No one on this site, to my knowledge, has ever argued that women are superior by virtue of having a uterus; but there are plenty of arguments to the effect that men are superior by virtue of having a penis. But I do have this perception that whenever women assert that they are merely competent about something, it triggers the offended response that "OMG, this bitch thinks she knows better than me!!"Also: if women didn't get a disproportionate share of the blame in child rearing by virtue of having a uterus, maybe certain women wouldn't be tempted to argue that their uterus makes them especially competent. After all, anything goes wrong with a kid, it is automatically assumed the mother is at fault. Kid gets measles? It's because the mother ignored medical knowledge, and how repugnant it is that women don't get science! Kid gets a neurological disorder? It's because the mother "allowed" him to be vaccinated despite certain well-publicized doubts regarding the safety of vaccination, and what kind of a mother would take those risks?? Pick your poison.
>“Now before any of you MRA MOFO'a get on my case–I am you–but better.”And you’ve decided to prove this by sinking to the lowest denominator… personal insults, arrogance and misogyny. You sound like the worst of the men that David regularly quotes, not their betters.“And secondly–I love my girls–but I fear I'm going to have problems with the way they turn out if they turn out anything like the women I have known.”And you can be certain your disdain for women, which WILL come through in your attitudes towards your daughters as they grow older, will not help change that.“No one on this site, to my knowledge, has ever argued that women are superior by virtue of having a uterus; “You would be wrong. It has come up on a number of occasions discussing male reproductive rights. You yourself very nearly skirt it in you comment, and certainly acknowledge that it is done…“ maybe certain women wouldn't be tempted to argue that their uterus makes them especially competent.”As to the bulk of that paragraph, is it because mothers are forced to be the caretaker, or because men aren’t allowed? I can tell you for certain that one of my male friend fathers have actually been denied the chance to spend alone time with his son by their wife (not ex) because the children had a mild fever and the mother did not trust him to take care of the child for two hours while she went out, despite his insistence that, not only was he capable, he WANTED the time, even if his son was sick. You can’t claim that mom was “forced” to be the responsible parent. I have two other friends that are treated pretty much the exact same way.
>Kratch said: "I think any interpretation of people like Paul Elam and Glenn Sacks by David is personally biased to the point where he will interpret in the worst possible way, what is being said, and will refuse to acknowledge the very same sarcasm and underhanded humour that David himself uses."FWIW, I don't think Sacks is an asshole; I do think he made a really really bad choice in the way he handled the FAmily Place issue. Elam, on the other hand, is an straight-up misogynist asshole who somehow he manages to come up with excuses, again and again, to fantasize about violence against women, either as what he sees as "satire" or more straightforwardly. Hard to find a lot of humor in stuff like this:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fqia1/the_scourge_of_rape_yeah_whatever/c1i5awy
>When I read screeds like John's I always wonder "why on earth did you get with this person in the first place? There are plenty of warning signs way before you get to the alter (or bed.)"