>
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.
>Hmm… I find it interesting that Cold won't really give me a substantial answer, but spends quite a lot of his time trashing lawyers?Maybe he really just doesn't like women…?I mean, if he (I am assuming Cold is male) laid down what he thought made a virtuous woman, he'd have to stop moving goalposts around, at least for part of the time. Or just admit that he straight up doesn't find women likable. @Shaenon: It was coming to those conclusions that made me realize that no matter what I did with my life, someone was ready to tell me, 'yer doin' it wrong.' That was one of my first realizations when developing my personal feminism – if every choice I make is going to make some people unhappy, then I should really only care about making me happy.
>A substantial answer would constitute more text than what is allowed in a single comment here and would not be worth my time unless it was being viewed by a wide audience. I told you how to get started, the the very first thing you did was do the opposite of what I suggested.See, I suggested that you follow the golden rule, which means that you treat others the way you would want to be treated. I'm pretty sure that, after expressing your legitimate gripes against a certain profession, you wouldn't want others to respond by saying "Maybe she really just doesn't like men…?" Unless I am wrong and that really is how you like to be treated, you broke the golden rule. People who flagrantly disregard the golden rule tend not to be liked.Before you even go there, I don't follow the standard golden rule. I treat others as they treat me and as they treat my compatriots, but when I meet people for the first time I give them the benefit of the doubt. I do this because I have higher priorities than being liked; if being liked was my only concern then I would always follow the golden rule.
>Cold, I actually don't care if you like me or not. I asked the question because I have yet to get a straight answer out of a self-described MRA on what sort of woman they actually like. They duck the question, ignore me or pretend like it doesn't matter. And who knows, maybe to you it doesn't actually matter. Maybe there is no possible way for a woman to be a good person in your eyes.
>This woman on YouTube is well-liked by MRAs and considered by most of us to be a good person. I certainly consider her to be one.Telling you that I don't consider it to be practical or a good use of my time to answer your question in full here isn't "duck[ing] the question" any more than when a physics professor refuses to tell you everything that was covered in the lecture that you missed or the course that you didn't take.
>I think Shaenon's answer pretty much summed up what MRAs want.
>Er, my HTML tag was eaten but "This woman on YouTube" was supposed to link here:http://www.youtube.com/user/marinaistehsexUnfortunately I see that she has now made all of her videos on feminism and men's issues private for some reason, but she is liked by MRAs because she shares our viewpoint, even if she doesn't explicitly call herself an MRA.
>I think Shaenon's answer pretty much summed up what MRAs want.Shaenon's answer is a strawman, but of course strawman arguments and guilt by association are about all you are good at so it is no surprise that you would agree with it.Oh, and, uh, MRAs aren't all clones of each other. I know that idea has the effect of reducing all of your brilliant "dismantling" into a bunch of mined quotes from individuals who might be actual MRAs and might be feminist posers, but it's true nonetheless. We aren't clones of each other; if MRA #1 wants X and MRA #2 wants the opposite of X, that doesn't mean that MRAs as a whole want to have X and the opposite of X simultaneously.
>Well, yeah, that list was written as if all MRAs were one dude. Which is kind of a frightening talk. But I have seen each and every one of these ideas put forth — to general assent from the MRA/MGTOW masses — on all sorts of forums. The next day someone else will say the complete opposite and get the same show of support from the guys there. Maybe I need to look around to find specific examples of MRAs stating completely contradictory things all by themselves.
>I'm not asking for a detailed analysis, just for you to take five minutes to tell us what you think makes a woman likable. Here, I'll start:What makes a person likable is when they are intelligent and thoughtful. I enjoy spending time with people who are creative, self-assured and confident. A good person doesn't lie or steal and does their best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. A good person treats everyone they meet with respect, or at least civility. A good person finds happiness in making the people they care about happy; but they don't neglect their own needs. A good person recognizes that they aren't perfect, and can accept themselves – and by extension, accept that other people will make mistakes as well. A good person is willing to let other people live their own lives as they see fit, provided others aren't being harmed. If they choose to be a parent, a good person tries hard to be best parent they can be. A good person recognizes when they've done something wrong, and will work to make amends. A good person is up front about what they believe and will stand by what they say. A good person stops for pedestrians crossing the street, avoids eating veal and recycles their old soda cans. A good person takes responsibility for their choices. I timed it, it took me just over five minutes to write that. Now, my description is gender-neutral, because I think that what makes a good person is about the same no matter who you are. However, lots of MRAs enjoy dividing people into camps based on gender, and it seems like their requirements for a good man and a good woman are different.
>Lady V, there is nothing inherant to gender that causes me to like or dislike someone. If you want me to like you, don't try. be yourself and if I like you I like you, if I don't, I don't. There is nothing someone (man or woman) can do to make me like them if I come to dislike them. But as I am a pretty easy going person, and take peoples faults as part of who they are, I don't tend to dislike many people. That said, I do have a big problem with hypocrites and people who refuse to debate reasonably. If you keep turning my argument into something else you find easier to debate, or take the moral high-ground, I will have nothing to do with you. But to my experience, you have not been one of those people. You are open to debate and tend to counter points I've actually made. Unlike many others who post here.Hide: "to protest the erosion of Roe v. Wade"And protesting the decision of Dubay vs Wells would fit right along side. Both involve reproductive choice. It's just one is supported by feminism and the other is opposed by it. "That being said, making abortion more difficult to access is only going to make that problem worse. It leads to more children, perhaps unwanted by both parents, and those children will be legally entitled to more support payments. "That's debatable. It can also be said that men and women will Actually take more care of their birth control if the fallback of abortion becomes more difficult to acquire. Additionally, adoption could become more common, which signs away the parental responsibilities of both parents. But overall, I would like to see both men and women have reasonable access to various means of controlling their reproductive rights."if you're asking about the right of men to choose to continue a pregnancy that a woman has decided to abort."No. This is not something I agree with ether. very few MRA's do (except those also involved in the abortion debate as pro lifers). Most MRA's just want the results of the abortion debate (the choice to terminate parental responsibilities) to be applied to both genders equally. You're welcome to check out the debate on another of Davids threadshttp://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/feminists-lizard-brained-sperm-hunters.html
> However, lots of MRAs enjoy dividing people into camps based on gender, and it seems like their requirements for a good man and a good woman are different.Not just different, but polar opposites, like most everything else in their dichotomous world.A good man commands obedience and a good woman obeys men's commands.
>"Not just different, but polar opposites, like most everything else in their dichotomous world.A good man commands obedience and a good woman obeys men's commands."You are equating the handful of men that David mines from MRM sites as being representative of the entire MRA. Nether I nor anyone I've seen have ever said that women must obey men's commands.But the feminist definition is virtually the opposite of that you equate to MRA's. You demand women be given respect (but feel men deserve to be distrusted, even feared as a predator and abuser, and must earn their respect), and that men should be submissive and subservient to women's needs (by allowing discrimination such as affirmative action, and hateful Domestic Violence and rape industry propaganda, without complaint). "The good men project", which this very article links to, and who's editor's and frequent writer's (Hugo as an example) are clearly feminist, demonstrates this perfectly.
>Actually, if legal abortion becomes less accessible, that just means that desperate women will try other measures to end a pregnancy they don't want – like black cohosh, which only works some of the time and only early in a pregnancy, and which can cause more problems (for instance, it can potentially kill a woman if her pregnancy is ectopic). And abortion is already pretty difficult to get, depending on where one lives. If you're a fairly well off woman living in an urban center, you're likely able to find a provider, pay for it and take the time off work. If you're a poorer woman living in a less densely populated area, it's going to be harder – especially if you live in a state which has placed extra restrictions, like mandatory waiting periods. Men who are terrified of the responsibilities of fatherhood should be all for making abortion easily accessible to all women. The key to reducing abortion is increasing education and the availability of reliable birth control (which you can usually also obtain at clinics that perform abortions). I'm all for the development and commercial accessibility of a male pill, and I know many male friends who are hoping for it as well. These are men who know that condoms fail every now and then, and that once the egg is fertilized, the choice is out of their hands. Also, Amanda Marcotte had a much more articulate response to the idea of 'paper abortion' than I.http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/link_farm_and_the_emotional_exhausting_men_who_believe_themselves_so_oppres/
>A good person doesn't lie or steal and does their best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.Strawman arguments are the result of intellectual laziness at best and deliberate lying at worst, and either way they increase the amount of suffering in the world.
>Kratch:Is that case being appealed to the Supreme Court? It looks like it was decided in the 6th Circuit court.
>Kratch: "It can also be said that men and women will Actually take more care of their birth control if the fallback of abortion becomes more difficult to acquire."This argument doesn't make much sense to me. We should put barriers in people's way so they act more virtuous, as we define it? What happens if they don't act like we'd like? They are punished by having a shittier, more difficult life. Why not accept that people aren't perfect and give them as many tools as possible to reduce the harm that could come from their decisions? What's the downside?I'm pretty sure that people are not going to stop having sex and that birth control is not going to become infallible. We know how people act and what the consequences of those actions are, that's all of the information we need to craft policy focused on harm reduction.
>Kratch-Dubay v Wells was dismissed according to Wiki.I think his argument was a bad one-the courts do not generally take the lead in changing public policy.
>Briget said: "you can be an anti-statist and a feminist at the same time. Today's political "feminism" has been taken over by statist philosophy. Being known as anti-statist could get one kicked out of many feminist circles today. What would the hypocritcal liberal Democrats say: Get out of my movement, anti-statist anarchist! Of course.Feminist "icons" like Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton are warmongers who send more troops to Afghanistan. They support bank Bailouts and Bush-era legislation like the Patriot Act. They are Okay with the death penalty being in most states. They support the war on drugs! This is NOT humanist, pro-equality action. If YOU support them, you do NOT support "equality." The hypocritical NOW organization pushes for custody for the mother in all situations, regardless of parental fitness. They made excuses for a mom who drowned her kids, going after the father, mostly. They've done worse things than that. If you support NOW, you don't support equality. The list goes on. Some of the earliest feminist "heroes" were racist, like Margaret Sanger. She talked about "inferior races". Wonderful. Others, like Christabele Pankhurst, tried to shame men into fighting in the war, with the white feather campaign. Yeah, I know the Non-feminists and Conservatives have done a lot of damage, too, the Bushes, and Mccarthy's. But if I had to write about all the bad, and the hypocricy of "Feminists" who endorsed patriarchal values like chivalry, and INEQUALITY, it suited them, I would be writing posts all day.
>@springer80:Is your point "Some people in the past who did good things also did bad things" or "Some people are imperfect at living their beliefs" or "Some people hold beliefs that are internally inconsistent"?Those things are true about people, it's not a solely feminist malady.
>You are equating the handful of men that David mines from MRM sites as being representative of the entire MRA. Nether I nor anyone I've seen have ever said that women must obey men's commands.Why do you (and Eoghan used to do this, too) think that my (and anyone else who opposes MRAs and MRM) only knowledge and experience with MRAs and MRM comes from David's site? I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been aware of and have perused MRA and other MRM sites from long before David's site even existed.Here are some comments from The Spearhead alone, never mind other sites that I've frequented, that do tend to lean towards espousing that women be obedient to men:Carnivore:"When God created mankind, He ordained that men should lead and be the authority while women should follow and submit to men's authority.""The question, of course, is not what I or you or any other man wants; the question is, what is good for and promotes a society and culture. Historically, that is clear: a patriarchy with a private life of solid, father-led families and a public life run mainly (99.99%) by men."Toby:"This dependent relationship requires the child to submit to the parent’s authority just as a healthy adult relationship requires the female to submit to the male’s authority."Elusive Wapiti:"Although I realize that many, if not most here are not observant Christians, a more perfect illustration of why feminism is a rebellion against God and His created order could not be offered.The order goes like this…God – husband – wife – children. It was set up in this way not because men are somehow better than women…the Bible is quite clear in that regard…but because this arrangement works for the benefit of us all. Little wonder then that we as a species suffer terribly when this order is corrupted or inverted."ramzpaul:"In a similar manner, submitting to your husband is acknowledging that he has legitimate authority over your life."Welmer:"So, in a society bound by laws that evolved as a means to govern male behavior, the only way to maintain a balance of power between the sexes is to grant men authority over women. Men submit to the law (both spiritual and temporal) and women submit to men. When women are no longer under male authority, lawlessness prevails because they are not bound by the law.""…this mastery over wives was just another difficult job for most men. It's even worse now, because women are not broken in as girls."zebert:"All females are to be surrendered to the central authority (of men) at birth."David Collard:"Nobody likes to obey another human being, or even comply with his wishes. Women will always complain about following their husbands. The only really important question is: does she actually do what you want her to do? Nothing else matters.""I have no compunction about expecting my wife to honour my wishes as to how she dresses and behaves. I don’t like women in trousers, and I expect her to wear skirts or dresses.""Frankly, if any man here thinks telling a woman what to wear is too extreme, maybe he needs to reconsider his programming. That is nothing."
>My initial post was too lengthy, so here's the remainder:Simonsen:"I’ve found a lovely Eastern European woman, pretty, smart, entirely traditional, who basically hates American women, views them with utter contempt. Why? Because she gets them for what they are, and she has kept her own family’s values. Look at her family VERY closely – this is what you will get. In my gal’s case, dad is a true patriarch, of the kind not seen in the USA for decades: good-natured but a tad grumpy, authoritarian, and openly contemptuous of women doing anything but housework and cooking – he treats them as cute but clueless and needing male supervision 24/7.This, of course, is exactly what my gal expects (and why, before me, she found American men clueless and pansified). And this is what I get. Her dad and I, of course, get along spendidly."Anonymous:"Being a husband, therefore, involves having that mailed fist, but with a velvet glove over it. Ideally, all the wife ever sees is the glove, but at some level she knows the armored fist is there."Keyster:"The natural balance of power in the male/female bond has been compromised by feminist culture. The more people come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin to correct it."
>Lady V, I don’t disagree with you regarding making abortion more accessable, but I find it disturbing when people demonstrate a hypocrisy by claiming women need and deserve “more” access to abortions while simultaneously denying men even a semblance of the choice that abortion gives women… For the exact opposite reason they demand abortions (IE, women need abortions to prevent parenthood when something unexpected happens… but men should take responsibility and pay their dues when something unexpected happens.). I can not in good conscience advocate for abortion without doing so for male reproductive rights simultaneously, and if someone chooses to reject my call for male reproductive rights, my choice to defend it, and to acknowledge the double standard between men and women in this regard, does not take away from my agreement that abortion is a good thing. The simple fact is, so long as feminists tell men that they should take responsibility for any sex that lead to children, while denying them any say into whether that sex even leads to a child (and if they don’t like it, keep your pants on), I am willing to apply those same arguments back at them in the abortion debate.I’ll read Marcotte’s article later, but if it’s anything like that joke she posted on good men’s project, I highly doubt it’s even remotely as articulate and intelligent as what you could come up with on your own.Hide: “Is that case being appealed to the Supreme Court? It looks like it was decided in the 6th Circuit court.”I am not certain, as I am not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the American legal system… But I think the Supreme Court has already rejected it…http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/decisions/10-laura-lewis-dad-support-child.htm“This argument doesn't make much sense to me. We should put barriers in people's way so they act more virtuous, as we define it?”Be aware I do not advocate for the closer of abortion centers. I actually agree with them. However, the arguments levied against male reproductive rights are no different then those trying to be avoided by abortion. Take responsibility for unwanted parenthood. If the solution to men’s reproductive rights concern is to ether use a condom and suffer the consequences should it fail, or stop having sex altogether, then that solution should be equally adequate for women as well (with or without abortion), who have far more options, and even more effective options, then a condom. If that solution is deemed inadequate for women, then why is it not also inadequate for men? Therefore, while I don’t advocate putting up barriers for women, I don’t see it as anything unreasonable so long as feminists and courts likewise keep barriers in place for men. As to what you quoted… Many people these days, men and women, think of abortion as an easy fix. The rates of abortion have skyrocketed over the last decade or two. Some places more then others. This shows abortion as being used as a form of birth control. If abortion becomes less available, both sex’s will not have the fallback of abortion. Men currently assume or trust women who claim they don’t want kids, and when pregnancy occurs, she refuses to abort. Without the trust that abortion is available, men may take more responsibility. Women likewise sometimes think they don’t want children, but upon become pregnant, change their minds. If abortion was no longer as accessible as a fallback, getting to the pregnant part and changing ones mind would become less frequent. Admittedly, this may be offset by the number of truly accidental pregnancies that would become more difficult to stop (but there is still adoption and abandonment), but we can’t be certain to what degree ether of these factors will play out.
>"Why do you (and Eoghan used to do this, too) think that my (and anyone else who opposes MRAs and MRM) only knowledge and experience with MRAs and MRM comes from David's site? "because I have openly seen some posters here claim that they can't be bothered to go to a link David posted to see the source of the quotes he provides, that they will simply take Davids words at face value. This followed by the fact that all opinions of MRA's are based upon the same pool, IE, the spearhead, that David mines (IE, even if you do visit them, your motivations may be ether similar to David's (finding justification to attack the MRM) or based on David's direction (given he rarely posts from anywhere else)). Lastly is many of you seem to lack an understanding of the actual issues being fought for my MRA's, and instead have some pretty far fetched assumptions or misrepresentations, of which any time actually spent reading things other then the hate spewed at the spearhead (IE, a place where angry bitter men gather, whether they have purpose or not. IE, akin to a bar where they can trash talk all they want with absolute anonymity.) would result in a more clear and reasonable understanding of the issues. Now, while you may or may not be an exception, I know for a fact some of Davids more vocal posters are exactly what is described, and I know based on their own confessions.
>Kratch:I understand your position. 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 might not think it is the best idea to have multiple abortions, but I am not willing to be the arbiter of what is a good and valid abortion and what is not. I also think that the image of a lady who has abortion after abortion is a bit of a canard. As a rational lady, I imagine most women respond to abortion the way I responded to mine, by saying, "Wow. I'm not going to fucking do that again." and then doing everything they can to not. But then, that's also the way I respond to getting cavities filled and having the flu because I did not get vaccinated and other minor medical interventions, because we're all doing the best we can.
>The rate of *legal* abortion has perhaps gone up, but abortion has always been around. Women have always had ways to try and get out of a pregnancy they didn't want, like the herbal methods I cited earlier. Pennyroyal and feverfew can also serve as early term abortifacents, and it's thought that giant fennel could as well (giant fennel being hunted to extinction in Roman times, likely because of its birth control properties). And when abortion becomes inaccessible, infanticide goes up. Way up. Infanticide wasn't even a crime in most of the world until fairly recently (recently being the last few centuries or so). Basically, by restricting abortion, all you're doing is putting women's lives at risk. Not every woman changes her mind when she gets pregnant – some just do not want another child, and will do what they have to so they won't. You're also ignoring the cases where an abortion is needed because the mother's health is at risk, or when it's discovered the fetus has such terrible defects that it will not live long after birth.