Great post by Ozymandias on her blog on the subject of “Who cares about men’s rights?” (Answer, Ozymandias, for one.) She offers a devastating critique of the Men’s Rights Movement and a critique of feminism I think I half-agree with as well. (She critiques feminists for not caring enough about men’s issues and responding to them with “but what about the menz” mockery; I think she’s got a point, but the fact is that lots of feminists do in fact work on behalf of men and men’s issues, from feminists involved in fighting for men and women falsely accused of sex crimes to feminist shelter workers who work on a regular basis to help male victims of abuse.)
Anyway, you should pop on over and read it.
It’s being discussed all over Reddit as well.
The post also inspired a debate on the old “chicks only want to date jerks” thing, which she’s broken out into a separate post.
EDITED TO ADD: And now The Spearhead has noticed the post.
Hell, I’ve seen it remarked (by some MRAs on MRA blogs/sites) that the notion that females can be sexual predators (thus a need to demand harsher treatment of females who sexually abuse males) is a feminist myth driven by a hatred of male sexuality. If I could remember the names of the commenters and the sites that they posted at, I’d copy and paste their remarks here.
NWOslave shaded his eyes as the lights suddenly came up in the room. Through the glare, he could make out a squad of men in the black jumpsuit uniforms of the Trilateral Commission Security Police. Each was armed with a Kalashnikov rifle, and all of them were trained on him.
The only sound was a slow clapping sound. As NWOslave’s eyes adjusted to the light, he saw a long mahogany table in the center of the room, with a single seated figure at the far end. The chair was facing away from him at first, but it slowly pivoted until he could see an elderly man. He was still clapping his hands in a slow, sarcastic rhythm.
NWOslave had no difficulty recognizing the clapping man. “George Soros, I presume,” he said.
Soros finally ceased clapping and said, “Congratulations, Mr. Slave. I admire your determination and resourcefulness in making it this far. The New World Order could use a man of your abilities. If you were to enter my employ, I could make it worth your while.”
“No deal, Soros,” NWOslave snarled.
“What a pity,” said Soros, as he began stroking a basenji dog by his side. “You could have been a very valuable source of information regarding the American resistance cells. I’m afraid you force me to resort to, as you Americans say, enhanced interrogation techniques.”
NWOslave found himself seized by two men and forced back onto a steel operating table and strapped down. A woman in a white lab coat wheeled over a complex multi-armed machine, each armed tipped with a surgical scalpel or a hypodermic syringe. The woman pushed a button, and the machine sprang to life, each arm moving into position over his body.
“Do you expect me to talk, Soros?” NWOslave sneered.
“No, Mr. Slave. I expect you to die!”
I don’t buy that story at all. What would Lord Soros (blessings and peace be upon him) want with a buffoon like NWOslave? It just lacks verisimilitude.
Stop that, you’re turning him on.
Johnny wins the Internauts! 😀
Not bad, Johnny. I would replace “die” with “suffer in exquisite agony until the appropriate safe word is uttered.” I’m not sure Ian Fleming would approve, though.
@Spear, but “pedestalized” is no listed in dictionary.com! And blog is! I know words and language evolve but… just adding -ize onto the end of every word is a crappy and unimaginative way to do it and I am going to complain about it. *pouts*
Holy shit Pez, that was actually funny.
Ah, yes, sit-coms, that bastion of feminism.
God, I hate sit-coms. Nearly all of them derive at least 75% of their humor from stereotypes that I just don’t find funny.
Johnny Pez now officially has his own trophy named after him :3 Like the Lester B. Patrick trophy xD It’ll honour the recipient’s outstanding and continued service to spreading humour and snark among MRAs. :3
The Johnny Pez trophy! :3
Also my infectious nature continues xD As this and last nights little imaginative (or Amiginative :3 ) tete a tete proved 😀
“Ah, yes, sit-coms, that bastion of feminism.
God, I hate sit-coms. Nearly all of them derive at least 75% of their humor from stereotypes that I just don’t find funny.”
If it affects men, it has to be caused specifically by feminists to be cringe-worthy or worth putting remedy to?
She was being sarcastic.
I want to point out that the paternalistic protectivist attitude Schala cites is predicated on women conforming to sexist stereotypes, and on being very privileged on other axis of social oppression. Look at the rape thread-a woman’s eligibility for protectivist crap hinges on her following incredibly brutal and restrictive and often self contradictory gender roles. But, it also only generally applies to white, cis, hetero, able bodied, rich, first world women. I think Soujourner truth put it well in her 1851 response to that kind of notion:
“That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
I also dispute this point: “It’s more of a “it’s the only thing they’re good for” (being strong, competitive etc) which also means that if they’re NOT good at that, they suck.” Look at the images we have of intellectuals and other socially powerful people-these are male dominated images. No one really goes on about how Bill Gates sucks because he isn’t good at sports, or about how Obama would be a more valuable president if only he learned how to bowl. While I agree there is more of a social expectation for men to have ability and willingness to do violence, there are plenty of other social activities for which men are given value, and, again, women are disrespected in those areas as well.
Bill Gates probably was teased for not being good in sports, but once he struck it rich, he was made. Status through money.
Obama’s status through having a unique and extremely influential political position.
But yes, it only works for conventionally not unattractive, generally white, preferably young, cis (or passing as cis), higher than working class, and not prostitute to be protected by many men.
Just like men in power are rare. Comparably speaking, CEOs represent a tiny portion of the population. Governors and even deputies, also.
And I read somewhere that feminity was aristocracy-like and masculinity was working-class-like.
It might not be a perfect analogy, but it certainly seems to fit certain things. Like how studying and being ‘bookish’ is seen as more feminine, while working manual labor (blue collar) is seen as more masculine.
@Ami Angelwings: If I may be a total fanboy for a second here, you are an amazing person. You’ve been through so much, and treated like crap by so many people, but you still have so much love and forgiveness for your fellow person (and angels and cats too, I assume!). You are a role model, seriously, and I admire the openness and sincerity of your heart. Okay, I am done embarrassing myself. At least on that topic.
@Schala: While I agree with you, one of the things that I’d like to point out about Homer Simpson is that he always tries to do the right thing in the end. Yes, he’s not very smart, he’s kind of a terrible parent, but he loves his family, and he is what I would consider to be a fundamentally good person. Most of his flaws can be attributed to the Rule of Funny (it happens because it’s funny, not because it’s good). I agree that there is a formula for sitcoms – dopey husband, snarky wife, smarmy kids. It’s a model that should probably be changed for many reasons.
Gender norms hurt everyone, if they don’t fit into them. Little boys shouldn’t have to hold in their emotions to be good, little girls shouldn’t have to sit quietly and observe. We shouldn’t be virgin-shaming anyone (and I freely admit that this happens, and I do think men get more shit about it than women do), or slut-shaming, either (and I think women get far more of this). It seems that for every gender limitation, there’s an equal and opposite one for the other. Men cannot be emotional, women cannot be logical (as if those things are opposites, which I do not think they are); men must be aggressive, women must be passive,etc. etc. These affect people in different ways, depending on how hard you bump up against the limitations of your gender. I don’t see why we can’t work on breaking down these roles for the good of everyone – if men are encouraged to be more sensitive and caring, they will be more socially accepted in roles of childcare; if women are encouraged to be more spatially-minded and “logical”, they can advance in STEM fields. Not every person wants to do that, of course, and that’s perfectly fine, too.
Some of the things on Ozy’s list really need to be looked at in context. For example, the fact that fewer men than women graduate from college is a problem, but exactly what kind of problem? I suspect, for example, that the greater availability to men than to women of highly secure, very well-paid jobs that don’t require a college degree may have something to do with it. Also: Is the difference more or less the same across all fields, or do male graduates still outnumber female ones in fields that lead to lucrative careers? The trend towards the proliferation of Mickey Mouse college degree only serves to muddy the waters; if there are virtually no men with Bachelor’s degrees in Secretarial Arts, while male MBA’s still solidly outnumber women in that field — which gender really has a problem here?
^^ Highly secure jobs that don’t require or at least encourage a college degree? Pretty sure those are extremely rare for both men and women.
I second MRAL. I’m not sure where you can find highly secure “I’m insured consistent work until I retire, with the same employer, doing sensibly the same thing, or better” that don’t require any education…
Cashier, waiter, wrapper, floor-person in a retail store? Or maybe minimum wage in a warehouse or manufacture? Minimum wage with no benefits as a videogame tester (though they do ask for gaming passion – or else you would be bored to death working there)?
Schala: Construction jobs, for one. Moreover, you are misstating what I said. Lacking a college degree doesn’t mean you can only work minimum wage jobs. There are jobs that do require a good chunk of vocational training — but not a college degree — that lead to secure and well-paid positions. You know, all those dangerous jobs that MRA’s always bring up.
Actually, writers, artists, radio hosts, scientists, doctors, even tradespeople, etc etc etc are all things men can do and be praised for it or be seen as worthwhile… it’s hardly CEO/athlete or nothing… as teens, some of the coolest ppl in my school were guys who were writers, or good at video games, or dance, or acting, or good at XYZ in XYZ genre (and yus HS does suck for a lot of ppl, as so many of us rly know from firsthand exp 🙁 but it’s not the rest of life : )… and once you LEAVE school, it’s even more open… there are a LOT of experiences and ppl out there… I’m hardly an expert, but I’ve seen this in working in computers, working in the trades, working in a research lab, sports journalism, and social work where I’m currently at… even if that’s how it seems to some in theory, that’s not how it is in reality… : if you’re saying women are lucky cuz if we’re narrowly pretty (and fit certain other ideals of acting) it’s great and for men it’s nothing or CEO… that’s not true 🙁 As Klopbop points out, we need to get rid of gendered ideas in GENERAL, incl discouraging boys and girls from doing and feeling and acting in certain ways, and “boys will be boys” crap that justifies bullying and violence, and ideas of thinness, beauty, etc in girls, and etc etc, but life is way more complicated than “a girl is (fairly narrowly) pretty, she has the world, a guy has to be a CEO/Athlete or he’s garbage” : (my life would be awesome if it was… but then a lot of guys lives would be awful if it was too 🙁 )
First well paying job that does not require a college degree that comes to mind: mechanic.
Second? Politician.
“And I read somewhere that feminity was aristocracy-like and masculinity was working-class-like.
It might not be a perfect analogy, but it certainly seems to fit certain things. Like how studying and being ‘bookish’ is seen as more feminine, while working manual labor (blue collar) is seen as more masculine.”
That’s utter crap. And I say that as someone who grew up very poor and went to an expensive private university on scholarship. Poor women are expected to do labor-low paid, low respect, menial labor-with lower wages on average than then poor men. Work is not seen as masculine, everyone works in poor communities. Anti-intellectualism in poor communties is generally against both genders. While the dynamics of drop outs vary across poor communities (girls drop out more in rural areas, boys drop out more in urban ones), intelligent educated girls and women are still expected to defer intellectually to their male peers and a granted very little respect. The girls who do well and get degrees still only make as much as their male counterparts with high school diplomas (factory and construction jobs pay far more than service and caretaking jobs). Despite the fact that women in poor communities tend to be more educated-they are not given much respect for it.
In upperclass cultures, academics are not seen as un-masculine. And, again, girls and women are expected to defer to men who are equally or less educated than them on intellectual matters. Take a look at discussions of women in math and science, of the percentage of professors who are women. In the upperclass, where education is seen as status building, women tend to be less educated than men and less respected for it even when they are not.
You description of labor, education, and gender roles sounds more like an upperclass romantization of what the poor behave like rather than an actual analysis of the structures of poor communities.
“That’s utter crap. And I say that as someone who grew up very poor and went to an expensive private university on scholarship. Poor women are expected to do labor-low paid, low respect, menial labor-with lower wages on average than then poor men. ”
I never said poor women weren’t expected to do this. But they’re seen as less feminine for it. And men seen as more masculine for doing manual labor that isn’t sewing. Like lumberjack.
“The girls who do well and get degrees still only make as much as their male counterparts with high school diplomas (factory and construction jobs pay far more than service and caretaking jobs).”
Factory jobs usually pay minimum wage, with no tips and no union.
I’d have loved a service or caretaking job, when I was younger. But apparently, since I had a penis, I was only good enough to babysit my own younger brothers (I’m the oldest of 4). Nobody else asked for my services.
I knew any professional caretaking job was definitely going to be a very very uphill climb, so it was off the list from the start. And retail politely told me “we only hire women”. So I went in factories, to get fired for not performing enough – because having a penis doesn’t make you magically strong enough to do heavy lifting. I got fired from 3 of those 5 jobs.
Then I went on welfare, and haven’t worked pre-transition after that. I transitioned and have only had one job since. As a videogame tester. Min wage, no benefits. It was majority men working there, but they had no issue with women being there or being hardcore gamers (a sort of requirement for being a tester – you need to “endure” 7-8 hours a day of the same game, possibly for months).
The reasoning for not giving benefits to testers is that there is a lot of demand for the job, since it’s seen as a very easy job where you just play. It’s not that, and there is a high turnover rate – but they’ll never keep their good employees if all they offer them is a fun job with abyssal conditions only someone living with parents could accept.