MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.
Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:
We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?
Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,
a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …
If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.
And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:
[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …
Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.
So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.
On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.” Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:
The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..
[I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)
Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.
Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.
Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!
Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.
Anit –
You mentioned that we should all be against Mary Kellet as well as you believe that she is “ultimately making it harder for rape victims to come forward.”
I read the Maine Supreme Court’s decision on the case the MRA’s are up in arms about (State v. Filler – http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/2010/10me90fi.html and you can read it too, if you are interested).
After reading the facts of the case and the decision, it appears that the husband was charged with multiple counts of gross sexual assault and assualt, which he was alleged to have committed against his wife. His defense in the case was that she fabricated these claims after she realized that during their divorce there would be custody dispute over their children.
During his cross examination of his wife, he attempted to introduce evidence about protection from abuse complaints she had filed, as well as the divorce complaint. The prosecutor (Kellet) objected to the introduction of this evidence based on the theory that it was irrelevant. The court sustained these objections, stating that the criminal trial was not the place to litigate the civil issues surrounding the divorce and child custody arrangements.
In her rebuttal to the defendant’s closing arguments, in which he claimed that his wife fabricated these claims only to gain custody of their children, the Kellet asked the jury, in essense, “Where is the evidence of this?”
Filler appealed his conviction and the state supreme court granted him a new trial based on the judge’s decision to not allow Filler to cross examine his wife on the protection from abuse complaints and the divorce complaint. However, in the same opinion, the court refused to enter a judgment of acquital because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a conviction.
My question to you is, is there something other than this case that leads you to believe that this prosecutor will make it harder for women who are victims to come forward? I only know of this case because it has been cited on this blog multiple times, so I read the opinion. I know nothing else about the prosecutor. I am genuinely interested in whether or not there is some specific misconduct that I am unaware of. Also, if there is some other misconduct, could you please provide a link to any information about it so I can inform myself?
Thank you!
@ Pecunium
For once I agree with you on something: Men doing more dangerous jobs than women is not an indication of oppression of men.
However, it is an indication that on a societal scale, women’s lives are valued more than men’s. There is also a simple evolutionary explanation as to why women’s lives are worth more than men’s (Imagine the arguments I had with MRAs over that). But I for one, do not wish to live in a society that promotes evolution through “survival of the fittest” policies. And I’m sure nobody else here does, so we must fight it. And that first of all means noticing it. And that, if nothing else, is what MRAs are doing that deserves credit.
Comrade Svilova – I don’t think Anit or I said that feminism is to blame for men being encouraged to do dangerous jobs. It’s an example of ways in which women actually ARE better off under the CURRENT system (which I think most of us here can agree is NOT a feminist system or feminism would be over and done with) and something which both feminists and MRAs should be able to agree we can work together to change.
But the flipside isn’t relevant to the argument that men are “expected to”, so much as it is the case that women are discouraged from, ofttimes by the people in the profession.
Direction matters. Look at combat arms. Women are forbidden to join them. Then the MRA types, and their apoligists, point at the risks the infantry take, and say, “see, women don’t do that.”
But we do expect exactly those behaviors in the supporting arms women are in. And they rise to the occasion, just as men do.
It’s not fair to say that women aren’t expected to do things, just because we forbid them from being in the positions which give rise to the expectation. That’s the NWOslave model of biologic determinism. It’s saying the behaviors are “essential” to being male, or female.
What happens if we do a per-capita, instead of absolute, study on occupational death? Do those females who are in support arms die at the same rates as the men?
Do female pipefitters, welders, etc. suffer the same rates of occupational death/disease as men?
If the answers are different (esp. for professions like the military support arms, and firefighters, where exposure to risk is both more random, and has a demand of continued exposure/risk taking once the hazardous circumstance arises) then it might be true that “men assume more risk”.
But,the argument anit is making isn’t even that. anit is saying that the differential self-sacrifice being described means feminist arguments are null and void.
Really? What about self sacrifice that is demanded from men for women in dangerous situations? That says very clearly which gender is valued more. Even if you take all female disadvantages (including the fake ones) and put them against this one alone, they end up looking rather self indulgent to anyone who isn’t in one camp or the other. How does anything measure up to self sacrifice really?
Since, like with most feminists, your view rests on the assumption that men are valued more than women, that dirty little secret above, kind of brings down all your other arguments like a house of cards.
anit says it shows women are valued more (“[it] brings down all your other arguments like a house of cards(emphasis added), and includes a little dig that any disagreement with that is obviously self-indulgent, if one, “isn’t in one camp, or the other.”
No examination of cause. No question as to what it is that makes for the differential… just a blaming of women for not admitting they are getting the best end of that stick (i.e. the sacrifices being discussed are somehow things women desire to be limited to men, and by not admitting the reality of what that says about their, “value” is somehow calculated to avoid admitting how well they are treated or something. Mind you, I don’t see anyone saying that means houses, or livestock, etc. which are things men (and women) die trying to preserve, are therefore held in higher value by society as a result of that).
anit’s argument rests on the idea women are being manipulative of the status quo; to gain unfair advantage. It’s, at core, saying the same things the other MRA types are saying… women’s rights are different from men’s rights, and actual equality isn’t actually in the picture being painted as, “just.”
Anit, I’m not patronizing you. I’m stating what I believe are the fact. You do not seem to understand the concept of “male privilege,” as it is used in feminist theory. I don’t feel up to providing an airtight definition at the moment, but I highly recommend that you look it up.
I agree with you in one sense, as taking gender (or any other factor that leads to an inequality or negative bias) into consideration promotes and sustains the “othering” of persons affected, which tends to lead away from equality and biases. However, gender (amongst other factors) has always been taken INTO consideration when establishing and sustaining institutions of inequality and bias, therefore the type and/or degree of actual or perceived harm or injury is not equal across all facets of humanity, cannot be treated with one-size-fits-all remedies and the real or perceived degree of immediacy will differ.
So the self-sacrificial risk of childbirth is in no way comparable to the self-sacrificial risk of dangerous situations that men tend to be placed in more often than women, yet when speaking of, to use a previous example, genital mutilation, we cannot and should not differentiate between FGM and MGM, even though the degree of mutilation and injury and the immediate and subsequent health risks are quite different depending on one’s genitalia.
I rarely if ever see MRA topics on MRA forums derailed with “why aren’t you discussing or including [insert any particular women’s issue here]?”, whereas I’ve often seen feminist topics on feminist forums derailed with “why aren’t you discussing or including [insert any particular men’s issue here]”? Is that maybe because men and women have been long and oft told and conditioned to believe that its a feminine virtue to put self and self-interest aside in order to serve, support and take care of men’s needs? Hell, even many religious institutions drill into men’s and women’s heads that woman was created FOR man, to be MAN’s helper, and not the other way around.
anit’s argument rests on the idea women are being manipulative of the status quo; to gain unfair advantage.
You are misrepresenting what Anit said here. Women aren’t doing this and Anit is not claiming women are doing this. A system in which men have most of the dangerous jobs is an unequal system regardless of the reason. I think we can agree on that. A system in which women want and cannot get those jobs is disadvantageous to women because, obviously, they are being denied something that the want. A system in which men as a result have more accidents and premature deaths than women is, obviously, disadvantageous to men because they are living shorter lives. These are not equal disadvantages and I don’t think it makes sense to try to claim one is “better” or “worse” than the other. They both suck and we should work on fixing it.
Cry me a river. I didn’t say you were responsible for correcting unintentional misunderstandings; I said you were responsible for all misunderstandings. We talked to MRAL for days when he called us cunts in practically every post. You don’t have a right to be understood and treated fairly (and neither does anyone else). And wanking about it only proves that you don’t really care about making yourself understood at all.
But then he wouldn’t have been able to score a conversational point.
Sigh. Go look at Congress, and then you may come back and politely apologize.
I mentioned this in my first reply to anit. Nailed it!
More evo psych? You’ve got to be kidding me.
There are lots of resources out there about male privilege, but here are a few to get you started.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
Male privilege does not mean that men have it “better” in every situation. It means that men are viewed as the default human beings, and women are deviations from the norm. I means that men are expected to take charge; to do things; to have power.
Treating women like delicate flowers who need to be rescued by a man is part of the system of male privilege–even though the immediate material consequences of this idea (women and children first!) are sometimes advantageous to women.
The reason a woman-focused feminist movement is important is not that women categorically have it “worse,” in some absolute sense–though in many cases, I believe that is also true. It’s that women are systemically treated as “other” in public life, and we need spaces that center our experiences.
That does not mean that no social-justice group can or should center the experiences of men. It just means there should be some that don’t.
Again, it seems that you and I have a fundamental disagreement about how anti-oppression movements should work, and what their purpose should be. And again, that is okay. I believe that you are coming from a place of good will (even if many of the folks here think that makes me naive), and I believe that we probably want the same things in the long run.
I am not interested in converting you, or changing your mind, but I do think you will find the linked articles informative.
Ohh, “benevolent sexism” is a good term. I had not heard that before. Useful.
Plymoth, just wanted to let you know that my comment was directed at Anit; it just looks like it’s directed at you because we were typing at the same time.
I’m glad you enjoyed the column, though, ^__^
Simone – it’s cool, I got that 🙂 And I think the article you linked supports the point I was trying to make, in that male privilege and benevolent sexism can both be the result of the same unequal system and that removing the inequality fixes both of them.
Whether we think of it as:
a) no longer pushing men into doing dangerous jobs (and away from some of the less dangerous jobs that are considered too “feminine” for them)
or
b) no longer preventing women from doing dangerous jobs (and pushing them towards less dangerous jobs)
In the end we get men and women both doing the dangerous jobs and the not-dangerous jobs and both happier because they ended up with more choice about what jobs they can do.
Yup. Plus, on-the-job fatalities are about class, as much as they are about gender. Which isn’t to say that men aren’t getting a raw deal in this particular respect; they certainly are. It just adds some nuance to the whole thing.
I’m not an expert on this, but the impression I get from talking to friends from blue-collar backgrounds is that a lot of “dangerous” jobs could be made a hell of a lot safer, if employers would just implement some basic precautions.
So men–usually men from poor backgrounds–get pushed into dangerous jobs, in part because of entrenched gender roles. And then OSHA just sort of doesn’t bother to make sure the folks who take those jobs don’t die, because American society tends to view poor people as expendable. Which is, of course, a crying shame.
So part of the answer is to bring down barriers for women who want to work as tradesmen; and part of the answer is to make those jobs less freakin’ dangerous.
One thing not mentioned about the danger men put themselves into is the fact that men tend to be more of stupid risk takers then women are, fail to read the directions then women do and otherwise make it more likely that they will hurt themselves. Also, it tends to be men who cause war not women. (Note the Tend.)
“anit has decided I am no longer worthy of detailed takedowns.”
Are you joking? I’ve written far more here than anyone else since I came. Just read my responses to your accusations of goalpost shifting and the link spammed comment of yours, not to mention your embarrassing attempt to use a logical fallacy in teaching me about logic.
Sorry, I missed that. I’m sorry, I was looking for it, but it slipped past. Mind you, it’s not all that detailed, and ignores most of what I said, but, moving on.
anit, I can’t know your defintion of equality. I can only go on what you’ve said here. Unless you give a defintion, all we can do is adduce one, from what you have said.
Try not to be patronizing. I’m very willing to learn and I appreciate when people honestly point out mistakes in my reasoning. But you will have to go to the effort of pointing them out properly and not just saying “you just don’t get it”.
Not proven. When specific failures of logic, and reasoning, have been pointed out, your response was, “no, I didn’t.” You have failed to show that, in fact, you didn’t. Mere contradiction isn’t argument (e.g. see above, re tu quoque ad hominem and the shifting of goalposts)
So how to do this… well I suppose the best method is simply to continue to explain, just as I’ve been doing.
Ad hominem: is not a the use of rude language or insult. It’s the use of a characteristic, or association, which isn’t related to the actual claim; thus tainting the person. Depending on just which aspects are being attacked it’s specific form varies. You didn’t actually address the claim, you said “Interesting strategy to get approval from feminists but not the strategy of a truth seeker.” That’s not a reply to the argument.
It’s an imputation that the point is to, “get approval from feminists”. It’s non-substantive.
As to the actual argument (independent of the ad hominem), “Picking out individial venting comments and displaying them here as representative of MRAs.”…, it’s problematic. There is an implied argument there, that Dave isn’t being fair to the MRA movement because he is cherry-picking a non-representative sample. (it’s not a complete thought, and sort of butts-up into the ad hominem. As a diagrammed sentence it ends up being either a fragment, or a dependent clause. I understand how one gets lost in a train of thought, and so things like that get confused, but I digress), that’s not really accurate, because this is one post of many, and the entire site has a body of work showing that this isn’t one single example.
You could try to argue that all he does is cherry pick the outliers; and the implication is there, but it’s not explicit.
Which is why the response from Kave, which you keep trying to dismiss, is apposite. You made a claim (that Dave is being unfair). Kave made a reply: Show us that he is being unfair.
You came back with, “Well they may have a justification for all the things they are saying, so Dave is being unfair to them, even if he’s not cherry picking”.
That’s not failing to respond; you did respond. You may think your not mentioning Kave by name changes it, but the way it works (this is logic 101; it’s taught in Speech/Debate, and Introduction to Symbolic Logic, as well as Philosophy).
1: a claim is made (You: this is unfair to MRA types…ignoring the ad hominem; ad hominem are often things which can be stripped. The problem with them is they show either a lack of thought, or a desire to distract. The third option, less savory, is their use by someone who isn’t arguing in good faith).
2: A response is given (Kave,and others, saying: OK, assuming you are correct, show us evidence that supports your position).
3: Evidence is given.
That was where you moved the goalposts. It’s not that you didn’t respond. It’s that your response was to present a completely new argument. In formal debate that’s called “dropping”, or,”failing to carry”. In those cases you have admitted (through your silence) the opposing side’s correctness. This isn’t formal debate, which means you could; at any time, pick that back up.
So go ahead, point us to this “non-misogynist” MRA sites, and show that Dave’s work is unfair to the movement.
I don’t think my representation is a straw man. First, I took what you said. I’ve linked to it, so it’s plain to the meanest understanding exactly what you said. Here, just to be sure, I’ll do it again.
Lets imagine for one moment that there was a systemic injustice towards a group of people. If some of them make a forum and try to point out and fight those injustices, you are always going to find a lot who are just venting. They’ve been hurt and they found a place where they can let that anger run free.
That’s not an “explanation”. You posed a hypothetical. In that hypothetical there is a systematic injustice. That’s where the justification comes in. You could have buffered it. You could have said, “if a group thinks it has a legitimate grievance”. That’s open. That allows for one to consider the reactions in an MRA site, independent of the actual merits of the claim.
You didn’t pose it that way. You stipulated an actual injustice. Not just an occasional one, but a systemic one.
It doesn’t help that the situation being discussed is in relation to the question of a different systemic injustice. One that the people here tend to agree is going on. That actually creates two problems because it means there is a structural bar to convincing people that arguments counter to that (e.g those of MRAs) are meritorious (and it can be done… see the questions about the ways in which males end up in higher risk professions), and it asks that the one injustice be measured against the other.
So, no, it wasn’ta strawman. It’s possible I misunderstood you, but the subsequent writings of yours make me think it more likely than not that I understood you well enough.
As to your reply to kirbywarp: Where else is he going to commit “character suicide” in a comment he makes here, but here? I don’t see anyone stepping up to agree with you either (and Snowy did actually make a joke mocking the idea. so “”nobody answered” isn’t true either)
Derailing: One need not be rude to derail a conversation. One merely need to make a comment which causes the topic to shift. So that defense of your position doesn’t work either.
If I have misgendered you, I apologise.
As to your assertion of “fallacy”, there isn’t one. I made an argument; the argument was
1: a statement of my estimation of your motives.
2: It was a syllogism.
3: The rules of syllogistic argument are that the premises be true, and the conclusion must follow from them.
As structured, there is no fallacy. I may be wrong, but the logic is good.
As regards the question of my being right or wrong: It was supposition, and the use of, “guess,” make that clear. The underlying question is therefore, “can my position be supported from the available evidence?” That doesn’t need guessing. I based my statements on the things you said. I know [and did when I wrote them] that you would disagree with my characterisations). Based on what you have said, I stand by them.
From the evidence you don’t think MRAs are completely unjustified. The evidence we have of MRAs is what we’ve found on the web. You assert there are MRA sites which are not like the ones we have been discussing, which are dealing with actuall issues of inequality that are specific problems of men, which feminists are ignoring.
We have been willing to give you some benefit of doubt, i.e. no one said, “you lie,”, but rather we have asked for substantiation of your claim. This is no less than you have demanded of us; with your request that we go and “argue for men’s issues on feminsit boards” (this, by the way, is a trifle disingenous, as we have an unknown burden of proof. The examples we give of men’s issues which feminism addresses you have already discounted. You are, in effect, asking to have a negative proven).
Now, as to the question of the “fallacy” you say is in the 3rd premise: Show me an MRA board which isn’t saying, “the women have too much power.”
I’ll wait. I’ve got time. Because the ones I see, are complaining that women can force them to be fathers. They ought to have the right to “walk away” if she won’t get an abortion they offer to pay for.
They complain that women have a conspiracy of, “false rape” accusations; and they have the state in on the deal, “ignoring” that “half” of all rape accusations are false.
They complain they have to pay child support if the marriage ends in divorce.
They talk about how the present system makes it “too easy” for women to leave a relationship.
Those are the things they spend their time talking about. What is the “equality” they are seeking?
How is it equal? What justifications do they have for their claims?
I’ve looked, I’ve gone to Spearhead, I’ve gone to Roissey, I’ve followed various links as I go to and fro on the web. I’ve made polite (and topical) comments. The responses were not encouraging, and have never caused me to believe they want equality. You seem to think they do.
Which is why I don’t think your ideas of equality, are all that equitable.
Good Lord that was long.
Plymouth: I don’t think I am misrepresenting him. He said that even if one takes all the disadvantages women have, that singel factor removes them from the equation, and that it’s self-indulgent (which is an odd concept, and seems to mean, contextually, “self-serving”) for anyone to not admit it. It’s possible that the, “your” there is directed at one person, but the arguments he is saying are null and void, that’s an awful lot to say is invalidated.
Since his argument says that all the rest falls, “like a house of cards” when that is taken into account… well feminists are doing that, because they aren’t accepting that all their arguments are invalid while that condition exists. His claim is all encompassing.
I agree the situation needs fixing, but I don’t think his contention is valid, nor the conclusion he draws sound.
Good Lord that was long.(Pecunium)
The understatement of the century. Pretty verbose for sure.
Also, it tends to be men who cause war not women.(Poster)
“If women were the world leaders there would never be any war, just intense negotiations every 28 days.” 🙂
To ward off any nasty comebacks I apologize for the sexist humour. 😉
Pecunium,
I usually just lurk here, but I do read just about every single comment…and after reading this thread I felt compelled to de-lurk and say that I love you and want to marry you and have your articulate, erudite children.
See? feminism CAN get you laid!! well, virtually, anyway…
The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
I lol’d. Andrea Dworkin was a lesbian and lived in a best-friend-roommate relationship with a gay man. People who haven’t actually read any of her books are really funny; they always seem to have this idea that she claimed that sex is rape.
Anyway, I’m confused as to why women should be upset that men don’t want to marry them—more for me! (I kid.) No, but I generally consider it a pretty bad idea to marry anyone who doesn’t want to marry you. You can still have sex, right? (Use condoms and dental dams!) And you can still be friends… does anyone see a problem with a society in which men and women are friends, and occasionally have (protected!) sexytiemz?
You know, just a thought: maybe this whole “marriage” thing is providing a template that’s fucking up our ability to have actual relationships.
In some dirty or dangerous jobs, women are treated like intruders. Just read on the MRA sites what some men think about women being firefighters, fighter pilots, sailors, or police officers. When women are shunned for choosing those jobs and then choose pink collar professions, then they are criticized for taking the safer jobs. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I don’t criticize men for not entering jobs like nursing, early childhood education, or secretarial positions because I know that men in those jobs deal with a lot of stigma from society. I was annoyed that the movie “Daddy Daycare” implied that men are less competent at taking care of small children, although at the end the men did a good job and enjoyed it, too. This is not the fault of feminists. Feminists want people to have whatever job they want regardless of their gender.
And that would be less preferable than war?
And that is just one of the wants of feminism that is self-indulgent. As the baby incubators/dispensers, women’s lives are deemed more important and more worthy than men’s lives, and that trumps all…women should recognize and admit this, then STFU and let men decide who gets what, as it’s abundantly clear that women get too much already.
And that would be less preferable than war?(Pam)
Take a chill pill pam, it was a joke.