I swear, sometimes I wonder if the entire Men’s Rights Movement is an elaborate hoax. Our old friend Fidelbogen weighs in today with a typically pompous post on the cutting-edge issue of women’s suffrage, posted with the almost-too-good-to-be-true headline: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as half-baked satire – except that FB is serious, deadly serious. (And deadly dull, too, most of the time, but I’ll try to keep this snappy.)
Fidelbogen’s thesis:
It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.
While most people are either for or against women having the right to vote – though I’ve never met any of the latter group outside of MRA blogs – FB bravely declares himself “a third way thinker upon this subject.”
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, because Fidelbogen is going to get all philosophical on us:
I would submit that women’s historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.
Hey, it was the olden days. People wore silly hats and watched silent movies and no one had iPhones.
Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?
I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges? Hey, it was the mid-twentieth century – people were just into that shit back then.
Well, FB doesn’t mention either Hitler or Stalin, but he definitely considers women’s former lack of voting rights to be just one of those things that, hey, people were into back then:
[W]as it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? … Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was “all that”? Seriously. . . who are we to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life which we can no longer entirely fathom?
And besides, most men had been denied the vote earlier, so even if it matters and it totally doesn’t, what’s the big deal if the dudes in charge decided to deny the vote to the ladies for a while longer? As FB puts it:
[W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn’t always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?
Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn’t it?
Seriously. Those feminologicalnists are totally retrojecting the fuck out of the pastological period using their standard sneakyfulogicalnistic tricknology.
And besides, even though we’re not supposed to judge the past, and even thought that whole denying-the-ladies-the-vote thing was totally a “morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little,” FB thinks that maybe it was actually sort of, you know, cool.
I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times.
FB decides to leave that case unmade, and returns to the whole “who the fuck cares” argument.
Once upon a time, women didn’t have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such an arrangement. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That’s all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, “oppressed.”
Besides, the whole idea of “rights” is, well, just like, an opinion, man.
Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
And so, if the dudes of the world denied the ladies these “rights,” well, uh, it was “morally indifferent” yet also probably good for some reason.
In conclusion, shut your pie holes, ladies:
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
Well, unless they’re this lady. She’s actually pretty good at tooting a horn.
Well, now the world has changed, and we recognize past and current forms of oppression and work against them.
Who are you to judge?
Is it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women are demanding equal rights? … Why should it even matter? Does the average man in these days honestly feel that complaining about everything women do is “all that”?
Those were the days. Nowadays most violin concertos would be completely impossible to play on the trumpet. These kids today, composing with their artificial harmonics, their sul ponticello, and their “idiomatic” writing for soloists.
So I guess all the “rights” of “oppressed” “men” don’t “matter” either, then. Since “rights” are a “figment” and all.
Who is St. Fidelbogenus to judge modern feminists? It’s just our culture that says that women who have no say in the legal apparatus that rules their lives are being oppressed. In fact, I would argue it’s a positive good in the context of the times.
His blog header is especially ironic:
It seems it’s only okay when non-feminists criticize culture.
I love the circular argument this idiot constructs. So, a right only exists if it’s established by custom and law. However, if only half of the adult population get to decide what the customs and laws are, that’s okay, because the other half being disenfranchised is just custom and law. Sheer brilliance.
Amused–That’s why he’s the official philosopher of the Men’s Rights Church.
Haec Dixit Spatio Papa
InB4 Meller rolls up and agrees with all of the tripe in the OP.
Fidelbogen needs to have his thesaurus taken away. His ponderous prose is painful to parse.
The monarchy is neither a good nor a bad thing, but rather a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by all of the nobility. [W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the colonial population had absolutely no voice in their own governance during that comparatively trifling span of years? Furthermore, Americans were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, America simply didn’t exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
Now see how fucking stupid you sound?
Slavery is neither a good nor a bad thing, but rather a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by all free people. [W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that slaves had absolutely no civil or political rights during that comparatively trifling span of years? Furthermore, slaves were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, slaves were not considered people in the first place, therefore it was impossible for them to have rights anyhow during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hands in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
Eh, those hunger-striking suffragettes who were brutally force-fed by policemen probably didn’t think voting was all that, amirite?
“Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?”
This is why we have libraries. If the past is unknown to us, we can pick up these mysterious objects known as “books” (sorry, Apple doesn’t make them), and within those books we can find information about the past. Based on the information we find in those books, we can determine that some people at the time did not consider certain things (such as women not being able to vote, or slavery) to be befitting to their world.
And thus feminism (and the anti-slavery movement) was born.
*scratches head*
I mean, it’s not as if “our ancestors” suddenly went whoa, let’s give women the right to vote, and lo it was done.
Women FOUGHT for the right to vote. For some 80 years in this country. Demanded it, protested, served jail time.
So if it was all neutral and cultural values of the time blah blah blah, who were all those uppity wimminz (aided by male allies) DEMANDING it.
Logic, he does not have it.
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
It’s becoming au courant in men’s rights talking to say “Second and third wave feminists,” I’ve noticed – showing you’re up to date on those insider terms used by the oppressive harpies. So who do you think the first wave feminists were, Fidelbogen? What do you think they possibly could have wanted?
The world may never know…
He’s claiming that societal norms can’t be oppressive, yet he complains that feminists want to instill oppressive societal norms, is he not?
I’m pretty sure if I put this idiot in a thinking contest with my new plushy, the plushy would win.
Funny how the past is always perfectly knowable when trying to make sociobiological arguments.
I don’t know…
It’s not that long ago that many democracies had a (bad) census suffrage (like England)… oppression?
It’s only 40 years that in Northern Ireland only house owners could vote in local elections… oppression?
It’s not that long ago that women could vote in a referendum (Australia) if they wanted men to be conscripted… oppression?
It’s not that long ago that in Switzerland only people who served military service could vote… oppression?
Oppression is a strong word, sometimes it didn’t feel like oppression for ANYBODY back then.
Contrary to that, through all the ages you always had people who thought that it was simply not excusable to slaughter innocent people just because they had the wrong religion or belonged to the wrong people or were born “unfree”.
That’s the problem with => “I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges?”
There were Aztecs philosophers that condemned human sacrifices, Romans that condemned slavery, Muslims that weren’t happy with the slaughter and enslavement of inhabitants of conquered cities, and so on.
But there were times when a concept like the female vote was so alien that they couldn’t even come up with this idea.
And what does this have to do with “men’s rights” exactly? Hard to pretend that you’re part of a rights movement when you spend most of your time taking illogical pot-shots at women.Not to mention what everyone else has seemed to pick up on, which is that this particular attack if logical would invalidate the whole men’s rights business as well.
I mean, that’s just crazy dumb.
He’s claiming that societal norms can’t be oppressive, yet he complains that feminists want to instill oppressive societal norms, is he not?
No, no, women are capable of doing this, because we are inherently illogical, and thus capable of warping the very structure of reality around us. Which is also how we decided one day we wanted the vote, and had it, and then decided we were oppressed by not having it and suddenly there had been protests for the vote, without people even wanting it before hand, in a strange ontological paradox rewrite of…
Yeah, let’s challenge him and the plushy to a debate.
Such a philosopher this one. It was neither good nor bad, just a thing. When weighed on its merits though, “It was a positive good in the context of those times.”
That looks as if he’s actually saying it wasn’t, “just a thing,” but good.
Wait… Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
So men don’t have any right to anything. We have it from the great-thinker himself.
I wonder what happens if we apply this to the things he talks about being rights? Does he agree that his philosophy actually rules all of his conclusions invalid?
By his logic men have no reason to complain about the things he thinks are happening. If the state wants to say men aren’t equal to women… so what.
If the state wants to say, “Men aren’t allowed to have access to the children after a divorce”, so what?
If the state wants to say men have to support women; and women can refuse to talk to the men who are assigned to provide that support, so what?
Because there are no, “rights”, only laws, which some portion of the population fixes into custom.
Simon – oppression may be a strong word, but we shouldn’t turn it into another “racism”. Sometimes shit deserves that name, even if the perpetrator didn’t mean it, or the recipient didn’t feel too badly about it.
Yes.
Wrong.
And yet, he calls the 1920’s before women had the vote “mysterious and unknown to us now.” My grandmother was born in 1914 and until the last 5 years or so could tell you exactly how it was back then. There are tons of oral and written stories out there.
But let’s ignore those and instead turn to the stuff we made up just now!
And David, thanks for the introduction to Alison Balsom. She is great!
100 years ago – mysterious and unknown. 100,000 years ago – totally got that nailed down.
I can’t help but wonder, if none of this felt oppressive back then, how the hell did any social justice movement get started? Aliens?
Yes, along class lines.
Given that it wasn’t female-only, no.
In a society with mandatory conscription? Arguably not in the least.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.
AFAIK, this really only coincides with the places that don’t have a concept of the vote *at all*.