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.
I searched for that exact string, and it’s traindodger, not me. So I don’t “make the same claim in my definition of male/female”.
A problem that certain groups face is being recognized as victims period.
Transgender and transsexual and the rest of the LGB, don’t get seen as victims by many. They get seen as “people who made wrong moral choices and need to be shunned back to goodness”, so it’s pretty hard to have them seen as deserving anti-discrimination statutes.
While women have been treated as defacto victims since the Victorian era. Wasn’t too hard to convince the dominant hierarchy to “protect the women”, it’s already part of the narrative.
I’m not sure I expect the MRM ever to be advanced or mature. One reason for this is that there is basically no serious self-criticism of the violent rhetoric and misogyny within the movement.
I think whatever progress is made on the issue of DV against men will be by people who have basically zero connection to the MRAs I write about here.
That’s not quoting other people.
I wrote that, not Schala. Also, I was not defining male and female behavior, as you put it. Rather, I was trying to determine what is stereotypically viewed as masculine or feminine.
Humans are essentially born with all of these traits in perfect balance. However, one’s parents or their peers attempt to beat a little masculinity or femininity out of you depending on your biological sex.
Besides, humans are so much more than just “masculine” or “feminine”. There are many more ways of expressing oneself and many more behavioral archetypes that we utilize for even the simplest of interactions.
“I’m not sure I expect the MRM ever to be advanced or mature. One reason for this is that there is basically no serious self-criticism of the violent rhetoric and misogyny within the movement. ”
It took 20 years for 3rd wave feminism to supplant the very overt misandry of its predecessor. The SCUM and the likes got criticized afterwards. Heck, even today The Transsexual Empire (by Janice Raymond, 1979) is still considered a good reading by some women’s studies course – and not always in a negative light either.
Even in the early days of the second wave feminist movement, and the middle and now, there are very few people in the feminist movement who approve of the nasty statements and attitudes of the extreme members of the feminist movements.
The reason you know more about the extremists is because they wrote sensational things, not because the average feminist thought that way.
So you do a disservice to claim that 2nd or 3rd wave feminists agree with these extremists-and you also ignore the vast majority of the online MRM (and yes, it is VAST) complete and total hatred of all women, most women or western women.
Instead of talking about how “hey, let us fund-raise to get this one guy in office, he has pledged to fight to get a domestic violence program that educates girls that “no hitting means no hitting, not just no hitting girls” the MRM movement spends what little effort they expend on activism to removing someone that they have no evidence is a bad lawyer-just one who messed up a jury trial.
David, I’ll start with a link to a VAWA funding rejection letter for Fathers for equal rights. Please note the reasons for rejection, in particular, the first and second reason: Also note this was dated 2002
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/VAWArejectDallas1202.pdf
Then there is the Mankind Initiative in the UK, which gets no government funding, despite having become a charity in 2001.
http://www.mankind.org.uk/index.html
RADAR (don’t think they’re MRA’s, check their featured links) http://www.mediaradar.org/index.php
They have supported Domesctic Violence shelters, and aren’t gender biased http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-Millie-Almore-Shelter-Revitalization-Act.pdf
Men’s Health network was a co-sponsor on the national Conference of Family Violence. Way back in 1994
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/DVAMADOJ1994.pdf
SAVE http://www.saveservices.org/accreditation/
I also know the Easton Alliance for the Prevention of Family Violence ran a men’s shelter here in Toronto back in 1993, that was before they disappeared. Here is an article discussing how they were constantly at odds for funds.
http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/feb12.98/features/index.html
And most importantly, you dismiss those trying to bring awareness of Domestic violence against men as “attacking”. But Men have NOT been getting the help and funding they need BECAUSE there is a lack of awareness. Hell, most of you won’t even acknowledge male victimization as anything more then an anomaly, and don’t even care when the perpetuation of “male=aggressor, female=victim” stereotypes are perpetuated, IE, perceived gender based stereotypes are re-enforced (isn’t this kind of stereotyping what feminism opposes?). Given the addendum to the VAWA that was added to ensure men were not discriminated against for funding purposes, I think that advocacy and awareness campaigns are very much doing what were intended to do, allowing those who help to get the attention they need.
“People tend to get caught up in their ideologies and less in the humanity of the situation..” Steven Easton.
Just as an aside. Here is a governmental committee report that suggests shared parenting as being “in the best interests of the child”… If you examine the minutes (under the link report No2) you will see it is dated 1998, 13 years ago… and we still don’t have a single example of shared parenting in any western nation, with the exception of the short lived and constantly attacked Australian model. If you examine the Appendix II, you will see the Easton Alliance for the prevention of Family Violence.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031529&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&File=6
And as for VAWA’s descrimination, hows this…
Children’s services supported with S.T.O.P. funds must show an inextricable link to and be the direct result of providing services for a victim. For example, S.T.O.P. funds may support the expansion of shelter services for battered women to include programs for their children. S.T.O.P. funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children or to develop sexual assault or domestic violence curricula for schools.
VAWA funds were specifically prohibited from helping children CHILDREN! unless it was as a side effect of helping women, and you want me to believe the funds were available to men? This was just in 2004.
Page 2-7, Service Specifications
http://hawaii.gov/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp791178314775.pdf
“Back when activists started the first shelters for women, there was no govt. money for them. It took years of activism and advocacy, against considerable opposition, before there was any money set aside for DV shelters for women.”
That is a blatant lie. Errin Pizzy was provided a big house for her women’s shelter, before any others existed, by the Greater London Counsel (a Top Tier Local government administrative body). Her own words. Start of the second video.
http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/issues/na_pizzey-erin.htm
“1) They try to convince people who don’t give a shit about the issue that there is a problem. “
But don’t you denigrate this activity, as “not actually doing something to help men”.
“I’m guessing that the MRM who responded to that “baby rapist” ad with threats and violent rhetoric didn’t exactly help the cause.”
And people like you offered the opposition, claiming there was nothing wrong with it.
“They try to win over those on the other side,”
Feminism has been claiming to be about equality for both women and men for decades. They still continue to cling to that façade. Sometimes, when the other wide has demonstrated they can’t be trusted, via lies and a continuation of misandric behavior, you need to make it clear to them that that behavior won’t be tolerated. A slap on the wrist by demonstrating how the public feels will do that. After all, if they didn’t do anything wrong, Glen Sacks allegedly targeting their sponsors wouldn’t have done a damn thing.
You seem to have the arrogant focus on “if there is going to be a movement, feminists MUST be involved”. But Marcotte tried that in the good man project, and it was a sexist and selfish disgrace.
“2) Of course, there are people who can’t be won over to your side”
So you can acknowledge that, but not the idea that feminists are included amongst those who can’t be swayed, despite the hostility to men’s rights movements for simply standing up for men’s rights (there has been opposition to men’s rights far longer then there has been hostile ideologs posting hate online
“The fact that the people you’ve selected as the main villains here are feminists and/or women “
The terms are not interchangeable any more then MRA’s and men are interchangeable (or is this site dedicated to attacking men and not just MRA’s?). It’s a far too common mistake which you feminists need to get straight.
“doesn’t mean that all feminists and/or women are the enemy,”
No, but those feminists in positions of influence have largely, almost entirely, demonstrated they aren’t men’s allies, and many are very much waging a war on men. Those feminists who are posting online and doing nothing substantial are of no consequence, but at the same time, they are of no influence over the definition of feminism. As I suggested earlier, Don’t define a movement based on the comments of the nobodies who only talk, base it on the actions of the organizations representing that movement, that are actually doing something.
“I and a lot of the mostly feminist readers of this blog would in fact be supportive of a movement to address DV directed at men.”
You’ve already proven otherwise. You don’t have to agree with the MRM’s methodology in order to acknowledge they have valid concerns. I often acknowledge that I believe heavily in egalitarianism, but thinks feminism is a hate movement. I in turn get called a misogynist, by feminists… a hater of women … for wanting equality using methods other then feminism as if it has a monopoly on egalitarian ideals.
“Does this mean building a male shelter for every female shelter?”
Is that what was suggested? If so, you’ll need to provide a source. But currently, there are very few, if any, male only shelters
“At the moment, we don’t know what would be the best solution for men.”
And ignoring the problem (no demand for shelters? Not even 1 per state?) and denying it’s existence (By ignoring all the studies that show female perpetration as equal ( http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2008/ViolenceH_F2004_an.pdf ) isn’t the way to start. You are part of the problem David, not part of the solution.
“But by and large MRAs seem much less interested in actually campaigning for DV services for men and far, far more interested in using he issue as an excuse to bash feminists (and in some cases women). I can’t support that.”
If we can’t get people to even acknowledge male victimization is a problem, largely due to feminist opposition in statistics, as we’re seeing in this very thread… We can hardly expect to get money out of programs and ministries specifically biased in favour of women (even if caveats now exists within those locations to not discriminate against men), let alone the feminist indoctrinated public. You even acknowledge in your 1st and second points above that convincing people is what political movements need to do when facing opposition.
Schala “What is especially damning is that people who claim to be for equality are fine with stepping on victims for ideology’s sake.”
Well said.
Schala/Trainspotter: I’m sorry, I misread who had written that.
An Act that is entitled “Violence Against Women” says no to funding to something working on stopping violence against men? Shocking. Cuz you know, who would think that the government actually follow the law.
What I did note, and you certainly ignored in your comment there Kratch, the director gave information to help the applicant find funding that is not VAWA since the requested aid is not within the laws parameters.
The second link does not appear to get direct funding from the UK government and that is something they probably are lobbying for. They should receive support-but under Cameron, I doubt it.
Also, this is not about these groups-they are trying to solve a problem of domestic violence against men without showing the hatred that the Spearhead-for instance-does on a daily (if not hourly) basis towards women. And you know what? I think they make the effort harder because they, like the radical feminists of yore, get the attention from the media for acting in that manner.
I think it is pretty clear to me (and I would wager to David) as well as to you that there is a difference between MRAs at the Spearhead and the hardworkers at the Mankind Initiative. I did not see the seething hatred of A Voice For Men-I saw people asking for help funding and also telling people about how real violence against men is and it should be addressed.
Also, AGAIN, getting the funding and the resources for these things is NOT going to be easy nor will you have feminists just drop everything and say “we will forget about all the women that are still being abused, stalked, harassed, trafficked, murdered, screwed over and just focus on the men who are having similar difficulties.” That is not about equality-that is about making women do your bidding because men are in pain and god knows no woman should ever get anything when a man is need anywhere.
Yes, I am being hyperbolic but good grief, it should be pretty fucking obvious that feminists should not be expected to give up their life’s work achieving equality for women because there may be a current imbalance of women getting some help instead of men.
“What I did note, and you certainly ignored in your comment there Kratch,”
And what you seem to ignore is the fact that I was specifically told that men weren’t discriminated against in VAWA funding.
But you only prove my point further. You seem to think nothing is wrong with the countries primary domestic violence prevention funding being discriminatory towards men, and I’m expected to believe people aren’t harboring Radical anti-male ideologies?
And secondly, It was provided in direct response to Davids insinuation that MRM organizations don’t do anything for male victims. The fact is, there has been clear cut discrimination against men built into official policies, and that indicates that awareness campaigns have a very significant part to play, and every other post David is complaining that MRA’s are wasting time spreading the word rather then doing anything.
I’m going to ignore the rest of what you have to say because clearly you are violating David’s posting policies by grossly misrepresenting what I had to say. You are doing so by ignoring the fact that I posted those links and comments in direct response to a challenge laid out by David himself, and my responses about VAWA funding were very much relevant to accusations that VAWA didn’t discriminate against men.
“@Marc In other words, we should feel justified in dismissing anything we don’t agree with because people don’t put their real name on things? That would be Marc …? Or should I just dismiss you as an anonymous troll?”
No. You didn’t read my post!
I explicitly stated that there is no reason to dismiss a rational argument by an anonymous poster (like my post).
But it’s simply sad and an enormous waste of time to bother (even write articles like on this blog) with personal stories, introspection and unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors.
Marc: “No. You didn’t read my post!”
Actually I did read your post. But all that it contained was your unsubstantiated opinion that it isn’t worth peoples time to debate anonymous authors opinions.
What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person (hence why yours is unsubstantiated… just to back up my own opinion with a valid reason).
You are wrong, I gave you a reason: One shouldn’t bother with unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors because you don’t know if they are meant serious.
“What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person”
Oh no, value nihilism / relativism again…
You can also make an argument that it is completely subjective what is right or wrong (for example read Michael Ruse’s “Is rape wrong on Andromeda?”)… you may still get thrown into prison 😉
To be honest, I don’t care if value nihilism or value relativism is true. I will always make my arguments pretending that they are wrong… otherwise I can’t reach other people. If I want people to stop eating meat, I will argue as if they objectively do something unethical. If I want my friend not to waste five hours of his day playing WoW, I will argue as if there are objectively far more valuable things to do.
“If I want people to stop eating meat, I will argue as if they objectively do something unethical. If I want my friend not to waste five hours of his day playing WoW, I will argue as if there are objectively far more valuable things to do.”
And people might ignore your pleading unless they already agree with you.
Yell all you want at your cat that they’re not carnivores – because it’s unethical, they still have teeth made to destroy raw meat (and can eat small prey if they want to).
I think the treatment of livestock can sometimes be appalling just for profit, and am for better conditions. We can live with killing them, but let’s not make a sport of also torturing them. This argument might reach more people than a “you’re objectively wrong to eat meat” would.
And about “valuable things to do”, unless they have chores to do that they didn’t do, and are your housemates (thus it affects you), you have no reason to even argue that. I could be defrauding people and make big money if I don’t get caught, that’s valuable in financial terms – but not something I value. Working 70 hour weeks is also not valuable to me. I refuse overtime, to play “more WoW” sometimes, yes.
That’s just valuing quality of life over slaving away for cold cash. Something many women choose to do (flexi-hours jobs, 4 days a week jobs, part time jobs).
Marc: The issue isn’t anonymity. It’s credibility. Each person has to decide what is credible, or not. There are tools we can use to make that assessment.
One of them is rationality. Let’s use it on your comments.
I’ll start with the more recent, since we should expect them to be the more developed arguments; the product of refinement in response to comment/critique.
You are wrong, I gave you a reason: One shouldn’t bother with unsubstantiated opinions of anonymous authors because you don’t know if they are meant serious.
This is a bad way to look at an argument. Unless one has reason to believe someone is arguing in bad faith one has to assume the person means what they say. Even if they disagree with it (what I presume; being charitable, is what you mean when you say you always make my arguments pretending that they are wrong), because a logically consistent argument is still valid.
Moreover, all we don’t assume a person is being honest in debate, then there is no point in debating with them. Not because they are unknown to us (which is not the same as anonymous, I’ll get back to that), but because if they are lying/acting in bad faith, there is nothing good in them, and they should be ignored.
Moving up a little: “What is or isn’t worth someones time is completely subjective, and individual to each person”
Oh no, value nihilism / relativism again…
No. Nihilism is the idea that nothing is worth anything. Relativism is any of a number of things. This happens to be a form of subjective objectivism. If an individual’s opinion is of no worth, then there is no point to argument at all. If how one enjoys spending one’s time isn’t a valid tool in deciding to spend it, why have it at all?
The entire discipline of aesthetic is based on how each person defines what is attractive/pleasant. Previous people’s opinions may inform (such as the Greek Ideal of the Golden Mean), but they cannot be the final arbiting tool, as what pleases each person is, at core, unique to that person.
So this argument of yours fails the validity test. Even if it were valid (that Kratch were being a nihilist; we have proven that relativism, even as you misunderstand it isn’t material) is unsound (i.e. each person does have to decide what is pleasant, and reasonable, in how they spend their time).
Now to the core of your basic argument: Anonymity. Yes, anonymity allows people to say/do things they might not be accountable for. It makes it possible for someone to make a whopper of a lie and not be branded a liar. Moreover it makes it possible for them to be patently offensive and not be, personally, villified.
But anonymity isn’t pseudonymity. Persistence of presence = identification. I am not using my actual name here. If I were, as NWOslave does, not attaching my name to any other part of the web, I would still be a known quantity. My words are attached to a specific name, and my quirks of spelling, typing, grammar and punctuation will make it harder (though not impossible) for me to hide my presence.
You also ask us to weigh the rationality of the argument before considering it. This is almost completely at odds with the rest of your actual statements. You make shit up (your “conservative estimates” are exactly the sort of unsubstantiated personal opinion you decry; which you are offering as support of your argument. It may be you are attempting subtle irony; by including an example, but if so this is a lousy place to attempt it, since it undercuts your credibility).
So, yes, an anonymous comment should get no more weight than the reason/logic in it. But, just as with a commenter I have never seen before, it should (consonant with it’s apparent validity) be treated as an argument in good faith, just as a first time commenter is treated (who is, actually, no more to be trusted than the anonymous one; even if there is a name attached. The first time poster has no track record, and so no social credibility).
Your advice would make the argument impossible. Everyone would be presumed lying, and only when measured against some abstract (i.e. not personal) measure would we listen. At that point why bother at all? Who grants the credibility? I do. Which is why my time is mine to decide.
It also undermines community, as it puts everyone under the burden of needing to prove, in some way, that they are “good”. That’s a version of what happens at The Spearhead. GO there and argue, as reasonable, and rationally, as you like about the usefulness of child support, or that women can be good authors/scientists, etc., and see what happens.
It’s not pretty. You will fail to match the template of their objective (as opposed to subjective) beliefs, and they will be doing exactly what you are recommending here.
Kratch, in the case where I got what you were responding to wrong, I apologize.
I do however not see how it is wrong to have an official actually follow the law-and try to help where the official could help. That is why I still find what you were claiming to be disingenuous.
I also said there is a vast difference between the people you posted about-the Mankind Initiative seems to be a good example of an MRM that is so different then the Spearhead that I do not believe that it is in the same movement. The Mankind Initiative is not talking about how evil women are-it is talking about how to fix a problem that no one cares about very much.
And instead of coming up with some reasonable compromise-you fall into the same trap you accuse feminists of and try to drive away the people who would normally support your efforts to help men on their problems as men. You could say “you know what, the Violence Against Women Act is discriminatory against men because men are hurt in domestic violence too. How about I and other men worried about these men work with feminists to create a ‘End Domestic Violence Act’ that includes ALL the people who are harmed by someone being violent?” But you do not.
And you seem to think that David’s mockery of the MRAs and MRMs who write such vile things about half the human race is hurting your cause-it is not, the people saying the things originally are the ones who are hurting your cause. Go after them.
“I do however not see how it is wrong to have an official actually follow the law-and try to help where the official could help. That is why I still find what you were claiming to be disingenuous.”
The issue is that VAWA is/(was) Sexually discriminatory, despite claims otherwise. The issue is that it demonstrates an misandric mentality, where male victims are discarded or denied acknowledgement, and for what purpose? none. Nothing is gained by this kind of discrimination. Nothing is gained by excluding men from DV funding, even if the goal is aimed at helping women. It only exists within VAWA because of a prevalent anti-male perception, which is the very thing I’ve been arguing since my first or second post. The fact that you don’t seem to have a problem with discrimination, only further demonstrates how widespread and common this misandry is.
The fact no-one has spoken up to correct you or denounce the attitude that discriminatory VAWA funding is bad, only reinforces my opinion of feminism as a hate movement. It’s unacceptable to discriminate against anyone for how they were born and raised, if you were truly an egalitarian (like most feminists claim to be), you’d already know that.
I also have to wonder if you find this to be a problem too?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/report-proposes-closing-womens-prisons-2293495.html
I just told you that if you want to solve the problem of male victims of domestic violence not getting help they deserve because the VAWA ignores them that the solution is not to whine endlessly that men are ignored or currently being discriminated against which is what you are doing right now.
The solution is to start lobbying Congress to change it to the End Domestic Violence Act-that stops the discrimination against male domestic violence needs because it no longer singles out one sex over another. Shocking, a solution that respects both sex’s needs for help with domestic violence. It can even include something like “hitting is bad no matter who does it” education programs to teach both little girls and little boys that hitting is bad.
Also, I think it is stupid to end women’s prisons-some women should be locked up for committing criminal acts.
Damn tags.
“The solution is to start lobbying Congress to change it to the End Domestic Violence Act-that stops the discrimination against male domestic violence needs because it no longer singles out one sex over another.”
It’s already been tried in 2004.
They didn’t repeal the act or making it gender-neutral in name. They only added something that says they can’t discriminate against men in funding, while keeping the VAWA name.
They’ll say that a gender-neutral name is not needed, because it’s something that happens more to women (and this, regardless of statistics – until they are blue in the face).
So then the problem has been solved-the name is just a misnomer now and I really do think they should fix it. But it is a minor thing and the fact that they got the Republicans do anything that involves spending money is a miracle.
Plus, just because they said no this year, next year and the next fifty years is no reason to not keep trying.
Good thing MRA’s weren’t running the civil rights movement. Since MRA’s seem to have this insistence wanting feminists and women to stand down on advocating for women in spaces where women need it, they should probably model themselves like the KKK or Nation of Islam.
MRA’s have a similarity to the KKK in that they often say since blacks are “all equal” now, there’s no need for blacks(and other minorities) to be vigilant in fighting for and defending their rights. Also much of the MRM is racist anyway.
Then you have the NOI(Nation of Islam), wanting social justice for black people is a good thing. This is not something you can achieve in a majority white nation by calling white people devils and who knows what else.
Much of what is said in the MRM about women is pretty much like what klansmen say about blacks and NOI says about whites. If they insist on keeping that as a part of their movement, they need to run on donations from MRA’s and not try to obtain government funding. This is what the KKK and NOI do. Are MRA’s able to put their money where their women hating mouths are?
I did not consider myself a feminist until I came across all the woman hating rhetoric on the internet. I now full on wave the feminist flag. For having a goal of fighting feminism, I can only state they are way doing it wrong.