Every day, it seems, I learn a little bit more about the oppression of men. Recently, for example, I learned that men who are working customer service jobs are oppressed because they are prohibited from punching their customers, even when these customers are really, really annoying, and possibly even ladies. At least that’s the lesson I took from a recent Facebook posting by MRA and frequent Spearhead contributor Jack Donovan. Here’s Jack:
Men want to carry their own weight, but to do so, they may have to take a job which requires them to choose “flight” over “fight” as part of their regular duties. All customer service oriented jobs, for instance, require men to take abuse from … someone who is angrily issuing insults and challenge cues … and reply submissively.
Even worse is when some of these poor men, like Jack, are natural “alphas” forced to take these beta-ass jobs because for some reason the people in charge of hiring haven’t recognized their awesome alphaness:
It would be interesting to see someone do a study tracking the testosterone levels of “alpha” type men who would not choose a customer service job, but who were forced to take a position where they had to apologize and beg forgiveness from abusive women and “betas” all day.
It’s almost like you have to act as if the customer is always right!
As a man who had blood in his face for *several hours* after having to hold my tongue while I was screamed at by a neurotic old female customer this week, the physical effects were pretty noticeable in the short term. I was murderously furious for hours and then emotionally exhausted and kind of depressed through the next day.
Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone – with the possible exception of the old lady, of course, and the rest of the customers, and maybe the firm employing Mr. Donovan – if he could have chosen “fight” instead of “flight,” and just popped that old bat in the nose? Problem fucking solved!
Let’s just shut down the economy and the judicial system for a day or two while we work out a way that Mr. Donovan can just punch people without any consequences. Because he’s an alpha, damn it, and he really shouldn’t be hemmed in by petty “laws” and “social conventions” and “moral codes” clearly meant for betas and ladies and other losers.
EDITED TO ADD: Donovan has responded to this post in the comments here. He says he’s not an MRA, so I’ve edited out that part. (I did find his Facebook post through a link on the MR subreddit, FWIW.)
I should clarify that Donovan did not talk directly about punching people; he talked about the “fight or flight” instinct.
@Dad 2 boys
I am a father of two male children. I joined the MRM because my older son is subject to unrelenting and merciless feminist hate at his public school. Take a look at the horrifying publicly funded dehumanization campaign that the feminist bigots are waging against 6 and 7 year old boys:
http://www.pellebilling.com/2010/11/misandry-hits-ny/
Several of the bigots on this board have expressed support for putting these kinds of sexist and hurtful posters in K-12 classrooms:
* They are not concerned that it is inappropriate to subject a 6 or 7 year old boy to adult issues.
* They are not bothered by how hateful and bigoted it is to blame only the boys for a problem that affects both men and women.
Given that:
* Perpetrators of DV are about twice as likely to be male as female
* Perpetrators of child abuse are about twice as likely to be female as male
… I wonder if the feminist bigots would feel OK about a dehumanization campaign aimed at 6 and 7 year old girls (and ONLY girls), that involved saying things like “teach your daughters early and teach them often, that it is never OK to murder her children!”
If you want to help your boys, teach them young and teach them often to avoid women throughout their lives. Teach them to have few, if any, intimate relationships, and teach them to make sure that such relationships never last longer than a few weeks. Teach them to avoid working with, or near, women. Teach them that this has nothing to do with “good” women or “bad” women. I am married to a “good” woman. It has to do with power. No human being should ever be required, under the law, to place his life, his liberty, his property, his earnings, and his children 100% under the control of another. It would be unjust if this were done to women, and it is unjust that this is done to men.
If your son ever finds himself in a relationship with a good woman, he should explain as kindly as he can that being in a relationship with a good woman is like riding on the roof of a car driven by a good driver. It does not matter if you think that the driver is good or bad. As long as men are required to ride on the roof, while women are protected by seat belts, air bags, and steel compartments — men must refuse to participate.
Simply because, in the event of any incident, the woman is protected, and the man is vulnerable. And no human being should ever bow to such a double standard.
Men, as a gender, do not exhibit innovation, creation or curiosity. Most men are mediocre people who, at best, can absorb a lot of training and do good work resting on the shoulders of others. The same is true of women. Most PEOPLE aren’t movers and shakers. Innovators and creative thinkers are just as exceptional among men as they are among women. Therefore, the people best suited for “grand occupations” are those who actually exhibit, personally, grand ability, not those who merely have a penis.
Your statement is not only wrong in every conceivable way, it’s also utterly ridiculous by virtue of the fact that women, regardless of ability, did not historically have equal access to opportunities for utilizing their aptitudes, and in many respects, still don’t.
Also: to say that men in “grand” and rewarding occupations and women in tedious and thankless jobs “complement” each other is the same as saying that masters and slaves complement each other. Slaves grow cotton and masters enjoy the profits. Harmony!!
And his son should explain, as kindly as he can, that his love life is none of his dad’s fucking business.
You are right, men commit more DV than women. Is that somehow proof that men are “oppressed”?
Women are far more likely than men (more than twice as likely) to be primary caretakers of children, too. If you accept the fact that failure to physically care for one’s child is a form of child abuse, men commit child abuse at far greater rates than women. Even if you stick to conventional definitions of child abuse, however, when adjusted for hours spent with children, men are much more abusive towards children than women.
Girls ARE subjected to dehumanization campaigns all the time. Girls are systematically taught that their clothes and legal behavior that harms no one justify sexual assault and other forms of violence against them. Girls are routinely taught that their only worth is as incubators and servants, and that nothing else they do in life matters to anyone. Girls are constantly taught that they need a relationship with a man to validate them as people, and that they have no value as human beings apart from their looks. The insinuation that a boy may grow up to be a rapist if he is raised in the traditional rape culture is not nearly as dehumanizing to men as all of the above is to women.
@Amused
Thanks for putting that in quotes. I kind of like it. I have been looking for a great way to explain why NAWALT is really irrelevant. I think I have found it. Any young man can understand how vulnerable he is in a relationship where all the legal, social, and institutional protection is for the benefit of his partner, and none for his. What is difficult is explaining to young men why this means that they have a MORAL obligation to avoid relationships with women. Now, I have it. The car analogy is perfect.
In relationships men are required by law to remain exposed, while women re protected by thousands of social assurances and safeguards. A man of good conscience MUST refuse to participate in this kind of arrangement, even if the woman driving the car is a “good” woman.
If you want to quote it again, here it is:
>>> Being in a relationship with a good woman is like riding on the roof of a car driven by a good driver. It does not matter if you think that the driver is good or bad. As long as men are required to ride on the roof, while women are protected by seat belts, air bags, and steel compartments — men must refuse to participate. <<<
It’s the “Being Antz’s Sons is Awful Show!”
I have to say, what Antz is doing to his sons is child abuse.
@Amused
You claim that girls ARE subjected to dehumanization campaigns all the time because:
* taught that their clothes and legal behaviour justify sexual assault
* taught that their only worth is as incubators and servants
* taught that they need a relationship with a man to validate them as people
First of all, this is simply not true. But let’s get past that.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT DONE IN THEIR SCHOOL, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, IN AN EXPLICIT CAMPAIGN TO DO THEM HARM.
There are probably still a handful of families in the United States that subject girls to the kinds of dehumanizing and horrifying vileness that you speak of. I agree that, in the EXTREMELY RARE cases where this happens, it is a terrible awful thing. However, I am speaking about an intentional, government funded campaign that EVERY boys must endure. This is different from your examples in two ways:
* Quantitatively — every boy is affected, compared to a tiny number of girls raised by Neanderthal parents.
* Qualitatively — it is far more wrong for a government to intentionally persecute its own people that in is when misguided individuals do the same thing.
There is no comparison.
I am just astounded that not one of the bigots on this board has the compassion, the empathy, the humanity to condemn this campaign of taxpayer funded dehumanization and humiliation of boys in elementary school:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/misandry-hits-new-york/
I would have thought that at least one person would say, “Dang, we got it wrong on that one. It is clearly wrong. Children should not be subjected to adult issues, and boys should not be singled out for condemnation.”
Even the misandrist prophet “Dr. Phil” always says that it is child abuse to subject children to adult issues that they have no control over. How can it be that not one person will come out and say, it is WRONG to put these hateful posters in classrooms? It is astounding, and a clear indication of the moral turpitude of the entire feminist hate-movement.
“Tell me, after I build a road for a bit of lovin. What task will I need to perform for my next dose of lovin? A hot tub? And after that? A new car? And after that? A new house?”
I was kidding, but since you asked, how about acting like a normal human being and treating others like normal human beings. That’s usually a turn on.
I never “reward” my boyfriend with sex. I have sex with him because I want to and he wants to too. Sex should be a mutual thing and not a pat on the back for being a good “alpha male”.
The whole sex strike thing reminds me of that episode of Friends where Monica and Rachel got back their apartment from Chandler and Joey by making out in front of them….
Antz – I truly pity you. The MRM have really done a number on you.
Try to understand this; your point of view is so ridiculous that NO-ONE will take you seriousing outside of the MRM. This isn’t “feminist governance” of the “gynocracy” – it is because your beliefs are based on far fetched, wildly exaggerated nonsense.
NEWSFLASH!
Women have property and earnings of their own!
NEWSFLASH!
Couples divorcing that feature a parent losing contact with a child, whilst simultanteously losing their home/property/earnings, are a myth – a myth perpetrated by the MRM for obvious reasons. You fell for it hook, line and sinker
You, Anthony, are nothing but a dupe. You acknowledge “good women”. Indeed, you are married to one (or so you say). So why not have some faith in humanity? Even if this evil apparatus to oppress men existed (which it doesn’t) do you honestly believe that your sons will fall prey to it? It’s so, so pathetic. It is so, so sad.
Move on from the MRM – they are the dregs of humanity. I’m sure, deep inside you, there is a spark of decency. Look at your fellow MRAs, consider what they say and how they say it. Then GET OUT OF THE MOVEMENT for your own sake but, especially, the sake of the children who will one day view you as an outlandish, outrageous, creditless bigot.
Anthony… you have a strange idea about what mysandry looks like.
I think that “eat your vegetables” is quite an important advise, as well as “write your homework”. Not to mention the “respect women” part. Aren’t you a bit curious why such thing even should be discussed if there was no issue?
Or somehow: “respect someone who according to statistics is more likely to be subject of abuse” is something that kids should not see/hear, because the world excludes them until they hit puberty?
I wonder what you have to say about all those messages/newspapers/lyrics/magazines/films/tv series/ads that casually show violence in extremes as well as support hate between kids/adults/sexes. Because I have almost never heards a critique from MRA like you any comments about those issues when it’s not about how evil feminists ruined boys.
And the whole women abuse children more, that’s simply not true: http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm
There is quite a lot of reading, I admit, but is a good example why what you are saying is complete BS.
Please educate yourself a bit more before speaking such things, because this stuff IS serious.
Gender has nothing to do with abuse per se, culture HAS, especially culture that teaches everyone that women=ibad, men=good and aligning everything a person is/can/want/think to their gender and not their personalities. It is mainly MRA’s who speak vile and horrific stuff about women, about inflicting harm, about killing women, torturing women but somehow a poster saying respect women is mysandry?
Dude, it is not about a great conspiracy against men and boys, it is about addressing a problem for which there are hundreds of meters papers, statistics, examples and so on.
The whole idea about changing our attitude towards what is acceptable and unacceptable is kind of ruined because each one of us lives in the culture and the society it has formed and though everyone on theory has the right to choose, that is not really the case.
By the way, the first place I went to look for help regarding the above boy-hate campaign was “feministing.com”. I actually believed that feminists were capable of compassion and empathy. I soon learned what feminists think of men who ask for “help” in addressing sexism that affects men.
I was not born an MRA. Your view of MRAs as being jaded fathers or deadbeat dads could not be farther from the truth. We are desperately trying to PROTECT our children from the abusive, feminist, anti-boy environment that YOU created for them.
#Joanna & #AntZ
Acknowledging that women like sex as much as men and that it isn’t a currency that the woman has over the man is the first step to having a fulfilling sex life.
AntZ – try this approach.
Joanna – good point, well made!
Please explain to me, what abusive environment creates “respect women”.
I dare you.
“Try to understand this; your point of view is so ridiculous that NO-ONE will take you seriousing outside of the MRM. ”
I believe you. Like I said before, the first place I went to find help regarding the dehumanization campaign at my (then) 6 year old’s Elementary school was feministing.com. I was vilified and ridiculed for asking for help for my son (at the time my 8 month old was not born yet).
It was only AFTER being rejected by feminists that I went to Pelle Billing, and he was kind enough to run a story about it:
http://www.pellebilling.com/2010/11/misandry-hits-ny/
I should point out that the posters disappeared from my son’s library (where they were). In all fairness, I never saw a poster in his classroom, but I presume that there were posters in other classrooms.
I wonder if it occurs to the radical psychos on this board that this kind of single minded anti-boy/anti-father attitude by feminists is what is driving the growth of the MRM? I shake my head at this sort of thing, because it is counter productive. From a simple strategic point of view, why not condemn the “twin sisters” of extremist feminist anti-boy/anti-father vileness:
1) Unambiguously condemn any publicly funded campaign that singles out boys (and not girls) for “education” about women’s issues.
2) Unambiguously condemn the practice of felony (not misdemeanour) prison time (not jail time) lasting years (not weeks) for fathers who fall behind on child support.
50% of MRAs would call it a day if feminists would abandon these two, extremist, inexplicable, inexcusable positions. But NOBODY WILL. I just don’t get it. Why? For what possible reason? What do you have to gain from this kind of thing? It is beyond comprehension.
“I was not born an MRA. Your view of MRAs as being jaded fathers or deadbeat dads could not be farther from the truth. We are desperately trying to PROTECT our children from the abusive, feminist, anti-boy environment that YOU created for them.”
Translation: I am a societal screw-up who; despite the vast majority of the my species providing evidence otherwise, believes that 50 percent of the population can’t exist with the other 50 percent. I now want to impart my psychosis on my two sons. Who, if they survive becoming cut and paste drones of my idiotic philosophy, will likely grow up utterly embarrassed at my stupidity.
And did this loser sock puppet himself with “Dad 2 Boys “? Because, between the purple prose and grand stupid gender assumptions that reflected someone who never got out much, it was identical to a perfect parody.
Thing is, I try to maintain a healthy lifestyle and to eat a balanced diet. Therefore, when some agency tells me to eat more vegetables I kinda don’t feel offended. I know it’s good advice in a country country where people tend to eat too much meat and bread, and not enough vegetables. I have a relative, however, who eats nothing but deep-fried lard and grains smothered in butter; he even adds stewed meat to oatmeal. Not surprisingly, that man finds the advice on eating one’s vegetables personally offensive, intolerant of his preferred lifestyle, and probably some conspiracy on the part of tomato-growers or something.
Similarly with homework. The only people who get offended by that are those who claim they have the aptitude, they just aren’t “homework people”.
I suspect the same is true of those who react vehemently to messages directed at boys about respecting women. It’s because they teach their sons not to respect women, and to abuse women, that they find such messages offensive.
@ Amused: I know someone that will only eat fruit if his mother peels it for him. This guy is 25. The MRAs think we’re not concerned about men’s health? Stop eating crap for god’s sake!
Once again, just astounded. Several of you have looked at the posters. You know, in your hearts, that this is wrong. Why not say so? All this nonsense about vegetables and homework … is this the way you rationalize what you are doing?
Why are boys being taught about violence, but not girls?
Why are boys and girls being told that only boys are violent?
Why is any of this happening in an elementary school environment?
Why are all of you OK with this?
I do not understand, really.
In our society we have huge issues with men abusing men, with men abusing boys, with boys abusing boys, with boys abusing girls to such dissproportionate numbers that the link I have sent you is sometimes considered modest and not correct as reality could have higher numbers… and yet you somehow try to equal some rumors about men going to jail if they don’t pay support (examples, please? Can you quote 20 cases for the last 5 years?) as somehow a reason that a list of posters about respecting other people (women) is mysandry?
Are you insane?
Violence is NOT a normal way of communication and interaction. There is a huge difference between being active and violence. I like sports like kickbox, karate, however I don’t like people beating each other to pulp, because they didn’t like the haircut of the person they are beating.
Get the difference?
The criticism is towards VIOLENCE and not about gender.
I have seen similar posters with girls on them and worded similarly.
Zarat, there’s nothing about violence in those posters. It’s just “respect women”
I looked at them. All they said was “respect women”
Maybe I’m a feminazi bitch, but i don’t see anything wrong with telling people, even young boys, to respect women.
So to everybody asserting that men invent everything. Ada Lovelace, Admiral Grace Hooper, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Radia Perlman, Shafi Goldwasser, Karen Spärck Jones, Mary Allen Wilkes. And those are just the names any CS/IT nerd should know off the top of their heads.
#AntZ
Fella, TRY and open your mind;
2) Unambiguously condemn the practice of felony (not misdemeanour) prison time (not jail time) lasting years (not weeks) for fathers who fall behind on child support.
This law doesn’t exist – you’d need to remove the term “for fathers” for it to be accurate.
You can recite the flawed statistics for female on male DV all you like, the facts are that males are the perpetrators of the overwhelming majority of violence. Does this mean that men are inherently evil? OF COURSE NOT. Does it mean there is a problem with what is perceived to be masculine and male? YES. And guess what…
NEWSFLASH!
Anthony, feminists have NOTHING to do with encouraging and fostering dysfunctional male stereotypes. It is men who adopt these and men who view other men as lesser men for not adopting them.
#AntZ – what would you do if your sons suddenly ask you why they should never trust their own mother, because she is a woman?
It’s funny you should bring that up, Joanna. Advertisers of unhealthy, highly processed foods routinely target men and tell them that clogging up their arteries and ruining their kidneys is a way to express their manhood and show the lettuce-serving bitch who is boss.
I really liked the opening scene in Mad Men, when the characters are pondering how they are going to market cigarettes, now that new research has just been published showing a link between smoking and cancer. One character, a psychologist, suggests an edgy approach: embrace the message that cigarettes are deadly instead of downplaying it, and turn it around to work to your advantage; convince the target audience that smoking and thereby subjecting oneself to an increased risk of cancer is a way to live dangerously, an adventure, if you will. Don Draper acknowledges that this approach may be effective, but rejects it on the ground that it is “perverse”. And yet, today, advertisers use that very approach to sell harmful products to men.
That would be a legitimate men’s issue. But the MRA’s don’t seem to think so. Why? Because those commercials exploit toxic, misogynistic narratives about masculinity, they flatter those “values” that MRA’s cherish the most: that women are the ones who should do all the cooking, anyway; that women’s work, including the work taking care of their husbands, is to be devalued and denigrated; and that men shouldn’t have to follow any rules, even rules imposed by simple biology.