So I recently ran across a site called “Is It Normal?” The idea behind it is simple, and kind of wonderful: people confess some possibly odd thing about themselves, and others tell them if it’s normal. Now, normally (as it were) I’m against the too-rigid enforcement of what is considered “normal” behavior, especially when it comes to sexuality and sex roles. But that’s not really what we’re talking about here. Ohhhh, no. We’re talking about grown men and women eating their own boogers; having sexual fantasies about zombies; feeling an urge to jump off of high places; or wanting to be turned into a doll or manikin. (Hey, whatever floats your boat.)
Naturally, I did a search for “misogyny” just to see what turned up. Is that a normal thing to do? I don’t know, and I don’t care, but I did it and the search pulled up a couple of pretty interesting little discussions.
The one that really grabbed my attention was from a guy who said he hated female sexuality. Which may not be “normal,” though as readers of this blog know it’s not uncommon. But this guy is no Christopher from Oregon, whose hatred of female sexuality is part of a package deal that includes hatred for pretty much everything female.
No, this guy hates female sexuality in part because, well, he thinks the male body is ugly and so assumes – or at least feels on a gut level — that any woman having sex with a man is being coerced, bamboozled, or raped. Yep, we’re talking about a rich and toxic stew of misogyny and misandry here. Let’s let him explain:
I Hate Female Sexuality
What little mysogyny I have in me is directed at female sexuality. I can’t stand it that females are attracted to males, ever. I hate them a little for it, just feel it in my gut. I thought for a long time when I was younger that females were basically asexual, not interested in sex, and that romance for them was something far removed from physical love. It didn’t occur to me that anyone might find the male form attractive, and I always suspected males were using some form of deception or raping women in some way when they were with them. I don’t understand this hate and distrust for my own sex. It really bothers me.
I hate that I feel there’s something wrong with a female having an active sexuality when I know intellectually there’s not. I’m a passionate feminist and attracted to females myself. I don’t really understand this feeling.
I think maybe a small part of it is jealousy when I see a couple, and the rest mostly my wierd, incongruous hatred for the male sex.
I don’t think females are doing something wrong but that something wrong is being done to them when they engage in sexual activity, even consentual, with a male, and they’re allowing it to happen, are complicit in it. This is just a feeling I have and can’t shake. It’s not overwhelming, like I’m freaking out whenever I see a couple but it’s there a lot, subtle but persistent. I’m atheist and I’m not someone who belives sexual promiscuity is wrong or even undesirable in male or females. This is just a wierd, lingering emotional problem, like fear of the dark or something like that.
Is it normal?
So, yeah. For what it’s worth, only 14% of those reading this confession rated it normal. But, as I said, I don’t think it’s uncommon. We grow up, after all, in a society that treats sexuality as a commodity that women possess, and that men try to “get” from women – by charming them into “giving it up,” by buying it directly or indirectly (by going to a prostitute or paying for dinner), or simply taking by force.
This way of thinking about sex is pretty deeply embedded in our culture; as regular readers of this blog know all too well, many MRAs, MGTOWers, and PUAs (especially) seem unable to conceive of sexuality in any other way. Neither does the questioner on Is It Normal (who goes by the name SamuraiPeeper), even though he’s a self-described feminist.
Like a lot of misogynistic ideas, this “women own sex, men must fight to get it” idea contains a heaping helping of misandry as well – suggesting that women basically don’t enjoy or desire sex with men because male bodies and male sexuality are inherently disgusting. It’s only a few small steps from this to SamuraiPeeper’s whole muddled mixture of desire and disgust, hatred and self-hatred.
The biggest difference between SamuraiPeeper and the MGTOWers and other misogynists I write about here is that he’s aware that his views are fucked up, and is trying actively to work through his issues. And he’s actually gotten some good responses to his query on Is It Normal?
PoisonFlowers suggests that some of his hatred and disgust probably stems from a fear of female sexuality:
Is it misogyny? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. Perhaps because the image you had of women (almost an idealised impression it seems) when you were younger has been destroyed (instead of having romance that is above sex, it turns out that women can be just as animalistic as men), you feel a sort of resentment and that mixes with the jealousy and then as you say “a weird, incongruous hatred for the male sex.” This then becomes a strong dislike for female sexuality.
Why do you have these feelings about men? Is it the people you’ve been surrounded with throughout your life and their behaviour/attitudes? Have you witnessed a man being abusive towards a woman at any point in your life? …
You say that you feel as though “something wrong is being done to them,” which could point to an urge in you to protect women, or perhaps it is more accurate to say to protect the _idea_ you have of women that stems from the concept you had when you were younger.
randomsensuality offers some similar observations:
It definitely sounds like you want to protect the idea of females as pure, with an almost divine stature. It also sounds like you have been taught or embraced the idea that penetrative sex is inherently degrading or immoral: therefore a woman who enjoys it is equally so.
Another bit on the matter is that many men do not find it attractive when women lead the hunt, as it were. They want to be the ones in control, in the pursuit of the sex and relationships. If a woman is as much “on the prowl” as he is, then he can’t say that it was a full conquest. He wants to know he’s been where others have failed to enter, that it took his prowess to crack the nut, setting him apart and making his mate a trophy and attribute to his stature.
Lets also not forget the angle of loathing the male form, which you say you can’t understand a woman being attracted to. If you are heterosexual male, this makes sense. Of course it’s easier to wrap your brain around lesbian sex, you like women, you understand innately attraction to women. Attraction to men, is scary for more than that reason though. If a woman is attracted to a man, then she could be attracted to any man the way a man can be attracted to any woman: this vision of the situation can induce pre-emptive jealousy and defensiveness.
Meanwhile, a 19-year-old girl calling herself so_damn_unpretty offers a blunter response – and one that might do the questioner as much good as the longer, more thoughtful responses:
I love men… and cock.. and sex… so i really cant relate.
In the end, that’s probably the most important takeaway here, as they like to say in the business world. Women – most women, anyway – genuinely like and enjoy sex as much as men. Sometimes more. When a guy “scores” with a woman — she is also “scoring” with him. Rigid gender roles that define man as the sexual pursuer and women as the sexual prize may make it hard to see this, but it’s true. Not only that, but women – heterosexual women, anyway – actually like and enjoy the male body.
Guys, know this: while you are watching sports, or playing video games, or playing with yourself, or knitting (or whatever your favorite hobby is), there are thousands of women writing, sharing, and reading slash fic about dudes (from various TV shows and movies and books) getting it on with each other. There are no women in these stories, at least not in the dirty parts. Just dudes, and their dude bodies, having dude sex with each other. Freud once asked: what do women want? And to that we have a partial answer: stories about Sam and Dean from Supernatural penetrating one another’s deepest mysteries.
“FWIW, I’m anti-Dworkin because I’ve read a lot of Dworkin. She is a powerful writer (even those who disagree with her can admit that), and I understand where her anger is coming from, but I think a lot of her ideas are destructive, bad for everyone, male and female. She certainly was influential, but these days most feminists reject her ideas.”
I disagree. These days, most feminist reject her overtness, but not her fundamental ideas. Even you David, despite your claims otherwise, and here is an example of why I think this…
You have openly admitted on numerous occassions that you don’t like Glen Sacks because he (allegedly) targeted a Women’s shelter’s funding. You will often leave out the fact that the women’s shelter was participating in a public ad campaign that depicted all men as abusers.
So I must wonder, why is it you are so easily able to dismiss the ad campaign when condemning Glen Sacks? Why is it you feel that it’s more important to maintain the funding of one of many women’s shelters throughout the US? While I am open to other theories, the one that fits most easily is that, despite your claims (even your belief) that you oppose such Dworkin idea’s of male nature, you believe it (at least subconsciously). This explains why you don’t think the ad campaign deserved retribution, because “truth” shouldn’t be punished. And it explains why you believe the funding should not be tampered, because women need somewhere to run away from all the abusive men everywhere, and need all the space they can get.
And the shear opposition to enacting fairness in area’s men suffer inequities, by organizations like NOW, usually with accusations such as “but men are abusive, and changes would only allow them to be more abusive”, only supports my theory.
Food for thought. The main opposition to shared parenting is usually accusations that “it puts children in the hands of abusers”. And, while this may be somewhat true in the sense that, those rare cases where abuse from fathers can’t be proven, the child would then spend 50% of their time with the abusive father until proof could be gathered, which, with a 50/50 schedule, shouldn’t take long. Of course, what is being ignored is that, under the current system, good, loving fathers are losing their children, and, more importantly, in the rare cases a mother’s abuse can’t be proven, the child is stuck with that abusive mother 100% of the time, with no chance of the father ever spending enough time with the child to gather evidence to protect them. That’s right, in order to protect some children from being with an abusive parent 50% of the time (until prove can be offered to end it), other children are forced to spend time with an abusive parent 100% of the time (with no one getting 50% time to protect them). And the only way this can possibly be a better scenario for children is to believe that only men abuse children, and women don’t. And you suggest this radical idea is only a fringe thought?
Just want to say I love you guys and to up vote all the Bowie comments:)
MRAL, I’m not a big fan of Dworkin either but–someone may have said this a few posts back–you should read “Mercy.” First, I think you would relate to it given the level of your anger. Second, it would give you a reference point to consider whether you’re really the one being “spit on.” Also, to reiterate the point about personality–it really does make a difference. I generally prefer taller guys but one of my boyfriends was 5’6” and very sexy–high energy, positive, attentive, very funny. And he was an actor and knew his way around makeup and spandex. Just sayin’.
Actually I think the main opposition to shared parenting (in the case of divorce) comes from selfish parents who are angry at the spouse they are divorcing and want the kids all to themselves. They may think they can be a better parent, but most of the time that’s because they think the other parent is a selfish jerk (not an abuser). People don’t GET divorces because they LIKE each other!
Kratch, the “Family Place” ads did NOT suggest that all men were abusers. They suggested that boys who witness abuse are more likely to become abusers, that girls who witness abuse are more likely to end up in relationships with abusers.
You can see the ads here:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2008/12/02/anti-feminists-protest-domestic-violence-awareness-ads-in-dallas/
Explain to me how exactly you conclude that these ads depict “all men” as abusers.
Now, if you wanted to suggest that the ad campaign erred by only dealing with male-on-female abuse, well, I would agree with you on that. I don’t think the shelter should have pulled the ads that were up, but instead they should have added another ad depicting the problem of female-on-male abuse.
The people at The Family Place are certainly aware of such abuse, as they provide help for men as well as women.
Instead of trying to work constructively with the shelter, Sacks launched a campaign designed to hurt the fundraising efforts of the shelter. That’s just appalling.
If you are concerned about male abuse victims, trying to fuck with the funding of a shelter that helps both women and men is a pretty backwards way to “help.”
Do you mean “A Mercy”? By Toni Morrison? I think I will read it, actually, I’ve read a little of her work before.
@David: That link didn’t work, So I couldn’t go a look again for myself to explain it to you… But as you never did see the reasoning behind why Josh jaspers baby rapist ad was offensive, Misandrist and very much rife with Dworkin ideology in it’s overt assault on masculinity, I can hardly expect you’ll see why these ads were too.
And it still comes down to you thinking there is a greater need for shelters to protect women from the nasty abusive male half of the population then it is to hold organizations up to a moral standard that they rely upon for funding, or else have their moral ambiguity exposed to those very sponsers. They admit on their website that, now, their annual budget exceeds $7 million, and you don’t think they should be called to task for unethical behavior? You don’t think the sponsors who provide that $7million dollars should be informed when that money is spent on an ad campaign that, at the very least, discriminates against men, if not outright vilifies them as abusers?
Instead, your solution is to let it pass. Excuse or ignore the overt misandry and instead, provide further support (and funding) for an organization that has proven themselves to be misandrist and unethical. If they were willing and capable of putting out such ads, what kind of service did they really provide for men, beyond lip service or “abusers anger management seminars” (which a fair number of shelters provide in order to claim to help men too)… That assumes that their acknowledging men as victims, “NOW”, isn’t a direct result of that event.
And personally, while hurting the funding of a shelter that “help’s” men may not be the best idea, opposing the myth that men can’t be victims, only abusers, so that people can finally see those victims to help them, That, in the long run, does far more good.
And you continue to insist there isn’t a pervasive mentality that denigrates and dismisses men?
Now the link worked.
First ad… Generic everyman boy “when I grow up, I will beat my wife”… Not might/may. Not have a chance. Will. This everyman figure “WILL” beat his wife. No ifs, and or buts about it. You, of course, likely rely on the notion that “any man could “potentially” become an abuser/rapist”…But that’s how the dworkin misandry ideology becomes accepted. Every man could potentially become a hero too, but we don’t go treating every man as a hero just because of their “potential”… Hell, every man could potentially become a decent, loving father, but not only does society not embrace that potential, many in it oppose it. And yet, people don’t seem to have a problem treating every man as a rapist/abuser because of their potential (of which, many men actually don’t have the potential to do something like that, they just don’t have that kind of mindset.)
The second ad is just as bad, with the every-woman figure, black no less, being killed by her husband.
And both of these ignore that domestic abuse is actually less common in marriages. So it’s an attack on that as well (though I suspect too many MRA’s having given up on marriage to champion it).
Now, the question is, are you already too certain that men ARE abusers to question whether these ads have crossed a line. (also keep in mind the outrage that was produced recently by a lobbiest group using a baby breastfeeding as imagery for sucking the taxpayers dry. The cries of misogyny that escalated from such a simple accusation that actually had nothing to do with women, but rather, was opposing a bill that would create a “nanny state”.)
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/26/3108058/lawmaker-blasts-sexism-in-texas.html
It seems not only do feminists claim a monopoly on DV victimization in their ads, they claim a monopoly on the right to oppose ads they find offensive.
They most certainly are NOT “everyboy” and “everygirl” – if you actually bother to read the entire ad it’s obvious to anyone without a bone to pick that these are supposed to represent children WHO HAVE WITNESSED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Which it is abundantly clear has NOT happened to “every” or even the majority of children.
Kratch: regarding feminism’s erasure of male victims, I recall a recent zine discussing the “Prison Industrial Complex” that made a special point of singling out women as a class that suffered disproportionately from the PIC. No similar mention of men as a class was made in the zine, despite the fact that men represent the VAST majority of inmates in prisons.
because apparently if it’s something that feminism cares about, it must always be made to be about women even if its about men.
The way I see this: Feminism is a movement that is flawed like any other. Either some feminists can aknowledge those flaws and work to correct them or they can continue to make mistakes that will cause men, in large numbers, to continue to reject and resist their message.
I guess they’ve made their choice, haven’t they? Men are the “oppressor class” (whatever the fuck that means), and so we can’t be raped, when we’re murdered it doesn’t matter, and when our children are taken away, it doesn’t matter. We’re eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, don’t you get it?
Uh, how many feminists here on this blog have acknowledged that there are forces within the movement they dislike and disapprove of? I think, like, pretty much ALL of them? How is that not “aknowledg[ing] those flaws”? The “work to correct them” thing happens elsewhere, not here. This being, ya know, a place for mockery and LULz, not activism.
p.s. – Actually I have friends who are men who have been raped and I have nothing but sympathy for them. (I can’t quite manage empathy as I have, thank [IDH], never been raped myself so I have a little bit of a difficult time relating to the actual experience)
Kratch, there’s not much point in discussing this with you if 1) you can’t fucking parse the simple sentences in the Family Place ads 2) you just keep making shit up about what I believe.
Darque, or should I say Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarque, adding vowels to words does not improve a vapid argument.
If you don’t think feminists “acknowledge flaws” and/or critique one another, you really don’t know much about feminism. And you probably haven’t read much of this blog or its comments section.
It’s not the “flaws of feminism” that caused most of the antifeminists I run across online to reject feminism. How do I know this? Because the vast overwhelming majority of them don’t actually know shit about feminism. Most of those I run across are misogynists; they’ve made up a caricature of feminism to provide them with a convenient enemy and an excuse to bash women. Even those who aren’t misogynists don’t seem to know much about feminism beyond a few random quotes (real or imaginary) from Andrea Dworkin and pals. And it’s very rare that the antifeminists who aren’t misogynists actually criticize the misogyny that’s everywhere in the “manosphere.”
David – I think I know what’s going on with those ads! See, the people who designed them put a big bold eye-catching phrase up top to make people pay attention and want to read the smaller text underneath. This causes two reactions:
Normal Person Response: “What? That nice little boy will grow up to be an abuser? No, I don’t believe that! Let me read the rest of the ad to find out why they’re saying that.”
MRA response: “Misandry!! Feminist conspiracy! I can’t trust anything else in this ad after reading such blatant hatred and bigotry so I won’t even bother!”
I think the ads are the exact opposite of misandry, in fact. The ads say that little boys who witness abuse may grow up to be abusers themselves. This is demonstrably true – cf ‘cycle of abuse’. It also implies that abuse is a learned behavior, rather than something innate within masculinity. The extension is that if every male baby born could grow up in a household free from abuse, then quite likely none of them would grow up to become abusers.
If you believe that there is something inherent in men which causes them to be abusive, and that this is an inborn characteristic that cannot be changed, and that it’s more important for women to not antagonize abusers than it is for abusers not to abuse… then yes, I can see why you might think this is ad is misandric.
And no one is arguing that men can’t be victims, or that male victims shouldn’t be helped. All we’re saying is that when you first cast about for resources to help solve this problem, you shouldn’t look to women’s program funding first.
@MRAL–no, I meant Dworkin’s semi-autobiographical novel “Mercy.” But Morrison is a good writer. Actually, I think you might get a lot out of “The Bluest Eye.” It’s a bit heavy-handed in places, in my opinion, and what happens to the little girl is unremittingly awful (similar to the main character in “Mercy”), but it’s a powerful and important text that shows how an abusive social structure creates the monsters it then punishes. The little girl is the scapegoat–she doesn’t perpetuate the abuse, but her only alternative is disconnecting from reality.
Actually, to correct myself–she internalizes the abuse and that leads to her disconnect from reality. She is psychologically and emotionally overwhelmed by the horrific experiences the world inflicts on her. Morrison shows how this abuse is systemic rather than essential to human beings. It’s kind of the point of the ads the others are trying to explain to Kratch.
MRAL:
Ah, more’s the pity. If you were just here for the lulz, I’d sort of understand. The point where you said that Andrea Dworkin’s fatness invalidated her writing was the point where I threw up my hands and concluded, “This guy can’t be for real.”
If you are what you claim to be… a guy who’s bitter at the whole world after only two decades in it, for reasons that look innocuous to everyone else… that’s just pitiable.
(Maybe stay away from the word “Eye”, femalespectator. 😉 )
Mediumdave, that was done advisedly–“The Bluest Eye” is about vision, perspective, and standards of beauty. All totally relevant to MRAL. Also, it is a good book and one that lots of people should read. Hopefully we will keep funding humanities departments…By the way, I consider Dworkin an extremist, but I have a great deal of sympathy for her and agree with you that she puts forward some powerful arguments about issues that are central to feminism.
Generic everyman boy “when I grow up, I will beat my wife”… Not might/may. Not have a chance.
Much like when a child is depicted as saying, “when I grow up, I’m going to be a policeman!” unfairly depicts all boys as having no options in life other than to go into law enforcement.
Kratch, it’s an expression commonly stated by children about becoming a policeman, fireman, or cowboy turned on its head to point out the consequences of growing up in an abusive home.
Dealing with MRAs is like dealing with Republicans: they have their own language, code, catchphrases and outages which are all completely obscure to everyone outside their club, until you encounter your Fox-news-watching uncle ranting about something you’ve never heard of and wondering where he got it from.
“Kratch, there’s not much point in discussing this with you if 1) you can’t fucking parse the simple sentences in the Family Place ads 2) you just keep making shit up about what I believe.”
Except, in my last post, I even argued some of it from the standpoint that you acknowledged, IE, a failure to acknowledge men being abused. I noted that it makes no sense to provide further support and funding for a place that has demonstrated, through highly questionable ad campaigns, that you even acknowledge was, at the very least, in error, as being less then adequately supportive of male victims. But you would rather dodge that argument by questioning me personally and swearing at me with profanity for not agreeing with how you parse the issue.
And you also dodged the mention of Josh Jaspers ad campaign. Remember, we’re discussing not the validity of these campaigns, but the idea that Dworkin’s idea’s are still prevalent, so much so that they have become too commonplace to even notice as misandric. And you’re refusal to see even the slightest bit of misandry in ether the Family Plan’s campaign, or in Josh Jaspers PSA, only prove my point.
Here’s a few campaigns for you to support:
A little girl and boy, smiling at the camera. A caption that reads, “My mother is going to kill me rather then let me see my dad” Followed by a blurb about how “narcissistic and Bi-polar mental disorders can cause people to become a danger to their children and others.”
Or
(A young girl Facing the camera), “When I grow up, I’ll set my family on fire while they slept because my husband stayed late at work last night and I assumed he was cheating” Followed by a blurb about how “narcissistic and Bi-polar mental disorders can cause people to become a danger to their children and others.”
Do you think the blurbs about mental disorders takes the sting out of that initial attack? No, The call for attention to narcissistic and Bi-Polar disorders is not sufficient to excuse the initial hateful stereotyping.
Or how about this one, which is far closer to the family plan ads:
(black boy facing the camera) “When I grow up, I’m going to be in a gang dealing drugs, stealing and killing rival gangs members” followed by a blurb about “children who grow up in impoverished neighbourhoods have a significantly increased risk of being involved in gang related criminal activity and violence”
Despite the fact the ad doesn’t make mention of race (where family plan DOES mention gender), doesn’t make an ad like this any less racist for the insinuations it makes, especially in the absence of any other ads that offer alternative possibilities (such as white girl gangs).
“MRA response: “Misandry!! Feminist conspiracy! I can’t trust anything else in this ad after reading such blatant hatred and bigotry so I won’t even bother!””
So only feminist’s are allowed to cry discrimination and sexism at things they deem questionable? Ad’s who’s catchphrase labels men as abusers, and “requires” a second comment just to bring that into a somewhat more reasonable focus (IE, OH, those abusive men (not people, still just men) came from abusive homes) shouldn’t be seen at all as offensive, but the term FireMAN or policeMAN, now there is something to get angry over.
“All we’re saying is that when you first cast about for resources to help solve this problem, you shouldn’t look to women’s program funding first.”
In Canada at least, Domestic Violence funding comes directly from the Ministry for the Status of Women… I am uncertain, but I believe the US funding comes from the VAWA Program. So, where else should we be going for money then to women’s funding? There is no ministry for the status of men to provide male funding. There is no VAMA program in the states. And attacking hateful ads ISN’t going after women’s funding, I have no idea where that even came from, other then the all too common feminist retort “Doesn’t matter we claimed we were about equality, we got what we wanted, DO IT YOURSELF”
Furthermore, isn’t that what David is angry at Glen Sacks for NOT doing? David has said Glen should have gone to Family plan and worked with them for male victims IE, He should have gone and used Family plan’s female budget for male victims.
Furthermore, Glen Sacks is fighting for family court reform, not running domestic abuse shelters. Challenging the perception of males as abusers, which is relevant to his goals in that they are used as accusations in order to gain tactical leverage in custody deputes, is an entirely different matter then supporting the abuse victims themselves. Glen is being attacked by David for doing something within his field (challenging perceptions used to often in family courts) and not doing something outside his field (helping abuse victims). IE, Glen is being attacked for staying focused on his goal. And it still bothers me that David feels the best solution is to support and work with those who offend you rather then calling them on their offensive behavior… all the while, running a site dedicated to calling people on their offensive behavior…
“Generic everyman boy “when I grow up, I will beat my wife”… Not might/may. Not have a chance.
Much like when a child is depicted as saying, “when I grow up, I’m going to be a policeman!” unfairly depicts all boys as having no options in life other than to go into law enforcement.”
You don’t see a difference between “I’m going to” and “I WILL”? “I’m going to” can denote a degree of choice or possibility. “I will” does not, and is far more absolute.
The fact that MRAL has apparently read some Toni Morrison and would contemplate reading more also makes me wonder again if he is a troll. Well, that and a million other things.
Kratch, give it up. You’re misreading the ads.
Heh, nice try, Kratch, but you know perfectly well that those situations are not equivalent.
Wait, no love for Toni Morrison?