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.
Toysoldier, you want some proof that MRA’s harm female victims rather than help male victims? Sure, let’s look at some of their other actions, since you have invented a rule that I am not allowed to quote MRAs’ own words to show their opinions on female victims. I could give you hundreds of such quotes, but I don’t need to to because I have other proof anyway.
Here’s an example. Avon is currently selling bracelets and T-shirts to raise awareness about violence against women. Avon is a company that is mostly run by women, and women are it’s customer demographic. Anyway, the MRA’s at the Stand your Ground forums have decided to boycott Avon and harass Avon sales representatives to show how angry they are at Avon’s decision to take on the cause of helping female victims. They could have decided to ask corporations to take on the cause of battered men but instead they only attacked anyone who wants to help battered women.
I know you don’t think there is a problem with suing shelters for women and children, but it is a horrible thing to do. Not only does it not help male victims, it hurts female victims. Shelters are already struggling economically to make ends meet, and frivolous lawsuits force them to waste their money on legal fees. The MRA’s should use their money to build their own shelters. I keep telling you that this is what needs to be done for male victims, but you refuse to listen to me.
Yes it does. Abusers are liars. They will learn to work the system to their advantage. Male abusers like to say that they beat their wives in self defense, or claim that they are actually the victims when they’re not. Some of them try to portray their abuse as mutual fighting, in case the battered wife ever tries to hit back in self defense. They learn these excuses from MRA websites like AVfM or The Spearhead. This is why the MRM is called the abusers’ lobby.
Anyway, if a battered woman comes to a shelter, it is probable that the man she is leaving will try to track her down. Abusers want to control their victims, and the most dangerous time for her is when she leaves. A lot of abusers become stalkers once their victims leave. If you read about the profiles of batterers, they will tell any lie they think will get them close to their victim.
Darksidecat mentioned that if a person is admitted to a shelter, and their significant other follows zer, then the best course of action would be to give the second person a hotel voucher they can use. It would be very dangerous to admit an abuser to the same facility with the victim. It would go against the purpose of it in the first place. By the way, darksidecat, I apologize for using the term coed. I should have used the term gender neutral.
Don’t bother with Toysoldier. He’s dishonest and inconsistent, and we already have a giant thread full of his weaselosity.
Yeah, you’re right hellkell. Toysoldier is wasting my time.
Toysoldier, I am not going to bother responding to you anymore unless you can prove that MRA’s that care about female victims of domestic violence exist. I am saying they do not exist. If you believe they exist, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it. I can not prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Then again, since MRA’s don’t care about female victims, you can also graciously admit that you want feminists to build shelters for men but you don’t care that the MRA’s won’t do anything for women.
Well, not that it’s at all a surprise, but no. No you didn’t understand me correctly.
Sorry, Toy!
thebionicmommy: Again, you argued that men’s activists as a group do not care about female victims, so you must prove that as a group they do not care about female victims. One guy making a comment does not prove anything unless you can show that most or all men’s activists agree with the comment. As for your example, it is not from StandYourGround, it is from RADAR, and their press-release states, “If you are an Avon customer, refuse to purchase anything from Avon until they stop forcing radical social agenda on America and the rest of the world.” RADAR takes issue with I-VAWA because “[it] would change the world by inflicting America’s flawed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) on the rest of the world, before Congress reforms the program to help women and families.” In short, RADAR opposes I-VAWA, not female victims. Do you have any evidence that male abusers have pretended to be victims to get access to their female victims? Likewise, do you realize female abusers also work the system to their advantage, and that as a result of feminist policies women can claim they are victims and get the males they victimized arrested?
Bee: Then please clarify why it is okay for feminists to fight against sexual discrimination against women, but not okay for men’s groups to fight against sexual discrimination against men.
toysoldier, like I said, MRA’s don’t care about female victims. You want to build shelters for men. That’s great, and I won’t do anything to hinder your efforts. Now you have a plan, nobody can stop you, so what are you waiting for?
There’s work to do!
From my last comment: “My only argument is that if MRA activism starts and ends with trying to limit resources that women have access to, then it starts looking a lot more like punishment than actual activism.”
Oops, Toysoldier, where are my manners? I forgot to
bid you adieu.
Toy Soldier, we are not playing this game with you any more. If you are going to keep showing up and making claims about what you think feminists do and do not do, you are going to have to prove them. Links to MRA websites are not objective proof. Attempts to turn the question around and ask everyone else to prove that what you’re claming isn’t true are going to be ignored.
Either debate honestly, or be met with derision and a refusal to engage. Your choice.
thebionicmommy: The “I’m right because I said so” tact is rather childish.
Bee: Except men’s activists are not trying to limit women’s access to resources. To the contrary, they want men to have access to exist services, which is exactly what feminists did 40 years ago. But do you not find it contradictory that you essentially support and condone feminists limiting the resources men have access to?
CassandraSays: It is not claims if I link to examples of feminist-run organizations refusing to support male victims. Given that you just ignored the evidence I presented, you should follow your own advice and debate honestly or be met with a refusal to engage. I have no need to deride as you do a fine job of making yourself look foolish.
40 years ago there wasn’t much in the way of existing services to access. The current shelter movement was build from the ground up by dedicated feminist activists. What people keep asking you is why you’re so unwilling to do the same for male victims.
In any case, going back to not engaging for good now. You’re a toxic person, what a friend of mine used to call an energy creature that feeds on negative emotions. Such people are always tempting to engage with because they’re so very irritating, but it’s ultimately a waste of time to do so.
NWO. Which homosexuals do you love and cherish.
You pretend that you can hate the group, and like the members, but your (repeated) statements are quite to the contrary. In the abstract you pretend that you are ok with people, but presented with them you insult them, abuse them, say they are disgusting.
You say that they repulse you, but you aren’t hating on the, nope, nosirree… but when “feminists” say they disapprove of the actions of MRA (which are actually hurting women) they are hateful. You hate people who are doing you no harm, and you hate people who are protesting people who are doing them harm.
You are proud of those hates.
You are a goat
Wrong thread.
TS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v799OVORFY
Forty years ago there were plenty of male-only services and programs that feminists fought against on the basis that the services and programs discriminated against women. Feminists did not build shelters from nowhere. They modeled them on existing support services, and they got tons of male support. But that is irrelevant because feminists claim they want to help all victims and oppose sexual discrimination. If that is true, why do feminists oppose allowing existing services to help male victims? Why, after spending decades fighting sexual discrimination, do feminists suddenly objecting to anyone challenging discrimination against men? It is as if feminists are opposing men’s shelters and men’s groups simply because they help men.
Honestly, no one who supports male victims would oppose granting men access to existing services.
@Toysoldier:
Forty years ago there were plenty of male-only services and programs..
So you are saying that FORTY years ago (1971) there were lots of MALE ONLY shelters for MALE victims of domestic violence???
Citation seriously needed.
Because I graduated high school in 1973, and I don’t recall ANYBODY acknowledging domestic violence at all.
So what are all these male only services and programs that existed in the 60s and 70s only to be destroyed by feminists?
And I want specific names and links.
So, Toy, your contention is that prior to 40 years ago, there were shelters set up and funded by men, for battered men, which feminists demanded to be turned over to them?
This is an alternate history that does not exist in anything I’ve read. If this is not what you’re contending, your statement makes no sense.
@Bee: You and me both. The work of setting up shelters for battered women and children (language used then) did begin in the 1970s, arising out of the anti-rape and various other feminist and civil rights movements. That’s fairly accurate. But to claim there were all these MALE only, MALE run, MALE supported shelters for men? Complete and utter total fucking fantasy.
Not that any of our restrolls will believe it, but here are some useful sources on history of domestic violence in the US.
http://www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu/Curriculum/310DomesticViolenceIssuesAnIntroductionforChildWelfareProfessionals/Handouts/HO3DomesticViolenceTimeline.pdf
http://www.turningpoint6.com/pages/history.shtml
Did the women working then know about men suffering from DV (much smaller percentage)? Possibly not — but there’s nothing as many have said here to stop men from also working on the issue, as some ARE, and over the past forty years, the understanding of battering and domestic violence and abuse has changed.
But some past utopia where men had all the shelters because of their wives beating on them?
Did. Not. Exist.
No, I am saying that 40 years ago there were plenty of male-only services that feminists objected to. Whether they were domestic violence shelters is irrelevant because feminists claim to oppose all sexual discrimination. Yet when men’s activists object to women-only services, feminists call foul. It is ironic that feminists would take issue with something they do themselves, and hypocritical for them to claim to oppose sexual discrimination and then support women’s shelters refusing to help male victims.
Again, no one who supports male victims would oppose granting men access to existing services, yet here feminists are not only supporting sexual discrimination, but basically saying male victims do not deserve any assistance from existing services. Feminists tend to forget that sexist nonsense affects real people (granted, feminists do not think of males as people).
It is terrible for people to take gratification from other people’s suffering, but apparently such immorally fuels feminists rather than disgusts them.
Yet when men’s activists object to women-only services, feminists call foul.
Which specific situations are you referring to? You’re summing things up and framing things in a certain way. I think we should know which specific things your’e referring to and what the specific arguments were.
“When MRAs object to women-only services, feminists call foul.” is pretty general and can be interpreted in a number of ways. xD
“This is an alternate history that does not exist in anything I’ve read. If this is not what you’re contending, your statement makes no sense.”
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that TS has come to us from either an alternate reality or another planet.
Or, you know, he’s just a liar who for some odd reason doesn’t realize that many of us were alive in the 70s and therefore know that what he’s saying is nonsense.
““When MRAs object to women-only services, feminists call foul.” is pretty general and can be interpreted in a number of ways. xD”
No, silly, they mean women only services at church! Which would be totally unfair and bad for the community! They’re just trying to bond with their sisters in Christ via singing hymns together.
No, it cannot. It is pretty specific given that the discussion is about feminists denying male victims access to women’s shelters, something it appears feminists support despite feminists claiming to oppose sexual discrimination.
According to you, it’s not: