>
A scene in Haiti, after its earthquake. |
Sometimes The Spearhead, probably the internet’s leading angry-man site, seems like a giant interactive game of “pin the blame on the feminists.” When uprisings broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt , you may recall, W. F. Price — head honcho at The Spearhead — suggested that the unrest in both countries was a male reaction to the excesses of feminism and female power.
Now he’s returned with an even stranger article, comparing the current disaster in Japan with the very different outcome of last year’s earthquake in Haiti– and blaming women in general and feminists in particular for the far more lethal outcome in Haiti.
You might think that the staggering death toll in Haiti — estimates range from 92,000 to more than 300,000 — might have something to do with the fact that it’s the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with a weak and corrupt government and almost nothing in the way of intrastructure. And that Japan’s relative resiliance in the face of an even more powerful earthquake might have something to do with the fact that it’s a wealthy nation — the world’s third most powerful economy, with a GDP per capita about 30 times greater than Haiti’s — with a great deal of experience in handling earthquakes.
But Price has a rather different, and highly peculiar, explanation: Haiti suffered more because it’s a “matriachal” country, unlike properly “patriarchal” Japan. Comparing “matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster,” Price writes that
in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, [while] Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. …
Price goes on to argue that Japan is doing better by its men as well. While in Haiti in the aftermath of the quake, the UN and some relief organizations targeted aid towards women — who tend to literally get pushed aside in the mad scramble for food supplies otherwise — Price argues that
Japanese men … have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.
Let’s set aside for a moment that it is a tad early to be declaring, er, “mission accomplished” in the Japan crisis, especially with the specter of a nuclear reactor meltdown looming. Price is a man with an agenda, and he moves fairly quickly to his grand conclusion: The two disasters, he argues,
give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.
Yes, that’s right. Feminism is the party of helplessness, disease, homelessness and starvation. Anyone who’s just made the argument he made really shouldn’t be offering any opinions on the sanity of others.
Before we get into a critique of Price’s argument, such as it is, let’s pause for a moment to ask how his novel thesis was received by the Spearhead regulars. While a few commenters did take him to task for ignoring economics, others took his absurd argument and ran with it. (This is The Spearhead, after all.) Alucin declared,
Feminism is a crime against humanity. What happened in Haiti regarding food distribution will be repeated again and again as long as feminism prevails. Fighting feminism is something good people do on behalf of humanity. The men and women of Japan will get their lives back together again far more quickly than the matriarchal people of Haiti.
The future is patriarchal. It’s just a matter of which form it will take and when the West will re-masculate.
Epoetker took it a step further, adding a bit of racism to the misogynistic mix:
Haiti is a land of men who look like men but think like women. Japan is a land of men who look like women but think like men.
Rebel, meanwhile, found a grim humor in it all:
The Haitian case is proof positive that feminism is exactly like AIDS.
No matter how many die, feminism will be the last thing to die.
It was planned that way.Whichever way you look at it, the answer is always the same: feminism is a religion of death.
Feminists are death worshippers.That leaves very little hope for the future.
Life is so short and we worry too much. And it’s so futile.
One day we will all be Haitians. LOL!!
A note: These aren’t a couple of weird comments I’ve “cherry picked” to give a distorted picture of the discussion. In fact, these comments got anywhere from 20 to nearly 70 upvotes from Spearhead readers, and almost no downvotes. There were many other comments, also heavily upvoted, agreeing with these general premises. If you don’t believe me, go take a look yourself.
Numerous other commenters, I should also note, offered frankly racist interpretations of “the tale of two earthquakes,” blaming the greater scope of the disaster in Haiti on what one commenter called its “largely negro, largely indolent society.” While some objected to the racism, many clearly racist comments got numerous upvotes from the Spearhead crowd. (The comment I just quoted got 60 upvotes and 20 downvotes.)
Getting back to Price’s argument, let’s try to unpack the various layers of bullshit here. First of all, Haiti is no matriarchy. Yes, women often head up households there. But they don’t run the country, by any measure.
Life in Haiti is no picnic for men, but women have it even worse; as one human rights group noted in a recent report, “Haitian women experience additional barriers to the full enjoyment of their basic rights due to predominant social beliefs that they are inferior to men and a historical pattern of discrimination and violence against them based on their sex. Discrimination against women is a structural feature in Haitian society and culture that has subsisted throughout its history, both in times of peace and unrest.”
Rape is a constant threat, and, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times notes, it “wasn’t even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago. … Before 2005, rape was considered an offense against honor, or “crime of passion,” meaning it was a minor infraction in which the perpetrator would go free if he agreed to marry his victim.”
The earthquake only made the situation worse for women. Rapes are especially widespread in the camps that sprung up in the wake of last year’s earthquake. Instead of “tak[ing] care of their families and communities,” as Price would put it, many Haitian men have instead preyed on women and girls, sexually assaultng them and stealing their food and other supplies. This is not, to put it mildly, a country suffering from an excess of feminism or female authority.
No, Haiti is in dire straits mostly because of its extreme poverty. Anyone looking at the history of natural disasters can plainly see that they tend to cause far more chaos and misery and death in poor countries than they do in rich ones: In highly patriarchal, and poverty-stricken Pakistan, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake killed an estimated 75,000, though the quake there was an order of magnitude weaker than Japan’s.
I’m not sure why I feel the need to remind readers of these basic points; the absurdity of Price’s arguments should be immediately obvious to anyone not blinded by misogyny. Sometimes I wonder if Price even believes all of the shit he shovels. Stupidity would be easier to forgive than that level of cynicism.
—
If you appreciated 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. Thanks!
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Wait, wait, I thought the evil feminist agenda was to create a socialist "daddy state" with a massive government safety net to care for people in need, mostly women because they suck at stuff and men never need government support. Now our plan is to create an anarchic banana republic with no infrastructure, no working government, and rifle-toting thugs patrolling the streets?I am so behind on the newsletters.In all seriousness, my heart goes out to the people of Japan. Even with the country's fantastic level of disaster preparedness and ability to pull together in a crisis, terrible things are happening there. Everybody, please give if you can. And to Haiti, too, as it's still in desperate need of aid.
>Price goes even further down the rabbit hole. Taking issue with the poster who pointed out the obvious apples and oranges problem with comparing a highly industrialized nation's disaster response with a barely functional third world.Poster Phloridian states: Haiti is dominated by men and always has been. The history of Haiti is one of men taking the reins against the French and dominating that society with repression via the Tonton Macoute and the military.Price counters: Matriarchal societies are characterized by the presence of a few dominant men at the top who command gangs of dispossessed, disaffected young men who grew up not knowing daddy.So, in short, matriarchal societies – run by and for those notorious women – end up being oppressed and terrorized by the men they rear. But, but, but… I thought the wimminz were in charge? Isn't that what a "matriarchal society" is???? How did those men get so alpha and aggressive with only women as role models?So many questions.
>^Maybe one of the answers is that Haitian society is trying to "re-masculate" itself.
>I think it's safe to assume that they think that every bad thing in history was the fault of feminists.Plague? Feminists.Ice age? Feminists.Atomic bombs? Duh, feminists. (Why do you think there were two? Deadly bosoms from the sky to show those patriarchial Japanese who's boss.)History and reality are trivial things that shouldn't get in the way of a good crazy rant.
>Earthquakes are caused by women showing too much cleavage. Remember Boobquake?
>Augh, really?Haiti suffered because it had no infrastructure. Women are sheltered in Japan? Because we /have/ shelters that didn't fall over…because here, we have earthquake-resistant buildings. Here, we have emergency vehicles and trained responders. Here, we have good warning and information systems. Did you know I've gotten text-messaged warnings in advance of the aftershocks? Do you think they had that in Haiti?And Haiti is not poor because of some moral failing on the part of black people, or because of some alleged matriarchy. They are poor because they have been getting screwed over by the US and France, and also the US, ever since they revolted and were forced to buy their freedom from slavery with cripplingly high 'compensation' payments. Not to mention all the abuses since. Haiti never had a chance. Thinking otherwise is mere ignorance of history.
>Thinking otherwise is mere ignorance of history.Ignorance of history is what MRAs do best.
>"Ignorance of history is what MRAs do best." LOL I thought feminists really take the cake for this.As they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history but they are forgetting that men have been forced to be the financial slaves for women. All the burdens in the outside world were all placed on men while the only problems women had was inside home.
>nick said: "As they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history"This is how you know that nick doesn't actually know anything about feminism, and that he doesn't actually read the comments from feminist here on the blog. The rest is how you know nick doesn't actually know anything about history.
>cactuar — didn't know you were in Japan. Glad you're ok.
>"This is how you know that nick doesn't actually know anything about feminism, and that he doesn't actually read the comments from feminist here on the blog.""The rest is how you know nick doesn't actually know anything about history."Uhuh.I have never seen a feminist in my whole life complain about what issues men had in the past.I know all too well that feminists only CARE about female issues.
>Why, yes, nicko, patriarchy does hurt men, too. Now, back to the topic…
>He also never responds when you point out his inadequacies or do anything but bleat "show me XYZ that I will subsequently ignore."
>I have never seen a feminist in my whole life complain about what issues men had in the past.I know! And I once stopped by the NAACP offices, and they never said one word about the issues white people have. I was so offended!
>Feminists only care about female issues, huh? Guess again.
>I'm going to take issue with the phrase "properly sheltered." In Sendai and Fukushima they are cold, there's no blankets, no fuel, not enough water. I saw one report from a hospital that said they had enough supplies for two days, which sounds peachy until you realize that they had no way to tell anyone this until the reporters showed up. This isn't because of a bad system or a moral failure on anyone's part. It's because there is no culture on earth capable of adequately preparing for a 10m wall of water.
>I think Nick is a spambot that is programmed to repeat certain phrases at random intervals: "feminist bigots," "perfect princesses" etc. Everything else is filler.
>"He also never responds when you point out his inadequacies or do anything but bleat "show me XYZ that I will subsequently ignore."I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage. Amnesia said"Feminists only care about female issues, huh? Guess again."How the flying fuck is it patriarchy when a man wants to do everything for a woman? He wants to be her financial slave, he wants all the burdens in life to be placed on him and save her from these problems.More than anything, this is submissive behaviour from a male.You feminists have a seriously…I really mean… seriously fucked up mentality on what patriarchy truly is. That link is really not so much showing sympathy towards that man, its more so expressing how much of a so called clueless patriarchal jackass he is.This is a very bad example that you are showing me.
>Oh my god, my head is going to explode.Didn't we give a whole list of feminist authors who wrote about men's issues in the clusterfuck that was the comments section of the robot thread?
>I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage.So you summarily dismiss feminist literature. That's fine. It's your right. But it does beg the question – why do you talk to us? What did you expect when you came to a feminist blog? That all of our arguments would come from patriarchy-approved sources?
>@ nickAs they think ONLY women were oppressed throughout history but they are forgetting that men have been forced to be the financial slaves for women. All the burdens in the outside world were all placed on men while the only problems women had was inside home.I happened to write a post on my blog recently that addresses just this type of problem. Put simply: It's not about who has what burdens, It's About Power.Also, why do so many MRAs seem to think that gender is the only possible site of oppression? Of course feminists acknowledge that not only women are oppressed, because it's obvious. People are also oppressed due to their class, race, sexuality, ability, etc. Intersectionality aside, it seems like so many MRAs chalk up to gender inequality what is really a matter of racial or class inequality.
>"What did you expect when you came to a feminist blog? That all of our arguments would come from patriarchy-approved sources?" A feminist to come up with a straight forward example to their argument instead of just passing links of long reading of feminist literature that are supposed to derail the actual question instead of getting straight to the point.Marissa said"It's About Power."This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?It doesn't make sense. In other words, you are saying a man being the financial slave for a woman is him seeking power. WTF is wrong with your brain?
>"How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?"'Wants to slave'? You have a funny command of the language, Nick. Generally, when someone volunteers to do something it is not slavery."In other words, you are saying a man being the financial slave for a woman is him seeking power."This is somewhat at odds with the actual world. The notion of the woman as a leisured class is still something confined to the wealthy and those who believe that the world should resemble a '50s sitcom. Even if we ignore that working women have traditionally held low-paying jobs make ends meet, 'homemakers' still have a substantial amount of work to do, and that in partnerships there is a split of labour that is often not in the woman's favour.
>'Wants to slave'? You have a funny command of the language, Nick. Generally, when someone volunteers to do something it is not slavery.So in a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not being submissive.Oh fuck, another double standard. Anyway…
>@ nickHave you ever been financially dependant on another person? It is not a position of power.