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.
Hellkell, my point is that feminists did the exact same thing they lambaste men’s groups for doing. When feminists came (or come) across a service or program that denies women access, even if it is a private institution they protest against it and try to get it changed. Here we have an example in which shelters openly discriminate against male victims, in some cases going so far as to accuse men who seek help of being abusers. Men’s groups protest that discrimination, and the efforts of those shelters to prevent any organization from specifically helping male victims. It makes no logical sense for feminists to support that kind of discrimination, and yet here feminists are doing that as they claim to support male victims.
I have no problem with the same organizations providing services — including temporary housing, if needed — to any and all victims of IPV without regard for gender.
I just see nothing objectionable about providing these services, especially housing, at a variety of locations.
It is objectionable if the services “provided” to men are so limited that they basically amount to men sitting in a hotel room by themselves for a couple of days, never receiving counselling or legal support, and having no support for their children.
Here you go:
http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-501c3-Nonprofit-Organization
A basic how-to guide on starting a 501c3 which would be the best way to begin working on a shelter that specifically supports men who are victims of domestic abuse. You won’t have to worry about shelters that are organized around providing those services to women and whether or not they have the tools and facilities required to accommodate both male and female victims. I realize that it’s easier to sit on the internet, posting false equivalencies than it is to roll up your sleeves and actually do the work, but you will feel better when you make a real, physical, contribution to the cause about which you clearly feel so much passion.
And when you’ve successfully filed for 501c(3) status, I will be happy to work on development.
Get to work.
Yep, feminists are storming the halls of Masons, Knights of Columbus, Elks Lodges, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Royal Esquire Club, etc.
Go sell your schtick elsewhere.
Nobinayamu, why do you assume I have never been involved in trying to set up a shelter for men?
Cynickal, women’s shelters and other social services are comparable to fraternal clubs? Really? And for the record, women are allowed to be Masons.
I said I was done, but I can’t let this lie just slide. First, children are allowed to stay at hotels. I have kids and we’ve never been turned away from hotels during family vacations. I guess the Sandals resort is for adults only, but DV shelters can’t afford to give vouchers for Sandals anyway. I will admit many hotels do not allow pets or smoking, so this could be a concern for a battered husband who smokes or has pets.
It’s also worth noting that The Family Place does in fact offer counseling services to male victims. This doesn’t matter to Glenn Sacks and his supporters, though. They are only concerned with harassing donors and volunteers of the Family Place. Here is a quote from The Family Place about us. I included the quote since the last time I linked to a page of theirs describing services for male victims, TS ignored that and said they only offer counseling to male batterers, when they offer services to both male batterers and male victims.
Finally, whatever opinions the men at The Stand your Ground forum have regarding VAWA, they are still in the wrong when they pass around a RADAR release urging people to harass Avon sales representatives. Why should a makeup salesperson have to deal with that? I also think Reese Witherspoon was very brave to become a spokesperson in the fight against domestic violence. She is also very brave to admit that women can also be victims of intimate partner violence, a fact that is so often denied by MRA’s.
I already know the rules, though. Nobody is allowed to quote the MRA’s feelings on female victims of domestic violence. We’re supposed to assume they were just kidding when they call say women bring it on themselves by nagging or by being “button pushers”.
I also want to include some information from Paige Flink, the execute director of the Family Place. In response to the question, “Does the Family Place provide services to male victims of domestic violence?”, she said,
This interview came from Alas, a Blog.
Reading comprehension fail.
Also failure to comprehend what Fraternal Organizations actually do.
Add that to your failure to prove that feminists are lambasting these groups or protest these groups.
For the record you’re wrong about this also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry_and_women
“The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), and others concordant in that regular tradition, do not formally recognize any Masonic body that accepts women.”
We have a regular FAILTRAIN pulling into the station.
Oh, then you have been? I’m sorry but you seem to have so little understanding of the work that goes into setting up a shelter with a specific target population and program, as well as what goes into expanding the program to meet the needs of a similar but different population, I just presumed that you weren’t intimately familiar with what goes in to it.
I see you (falsely) attributing to malice what is far more easily explained by constraints of resources for programs whose funds are often limited and whose staffs are almost always stretched too thin.
I still do work, though no longer as a full time employee, for a shelter that served addicts, specifically, and did not accept women. It was a markedly successful program in a city that had a significant problem with drug addiction and there were often questions about why the program did not accept women as residents. There were a number of reasons, some of them of critical import and some which seemed, on their face, almost trivial. None of those reasons, however, were based on the idea that women: 1) didn’t suffer from drug addiction or 2) if they did suffer somehow deserved that suffering or 3) the program didn’t really believe that drug addiction was a problem.
So how have you been involved in “trying to set up a shelter for men”? What part of the process have you been responsible of aiding and/or initiating. How have you sought funding? What organizations have you partnered with in order to provide the best services to your clients/residents? How have you worked to diversify income and fundraising to ensure financial stability? What services do you provide apart from food and shelter? Are the in-kind donations and volunteer work helping to augment your operational budget substantially or does the program find itself re-allocating funding sources regularly to meet needs?
Another week and it’s still a toy soldier thread. Dude needs a life.
Rutee, coming from you, that’s a laugh.
@Cynickal: NWO probably assumes the separate “Eastern Star” for wives of Masons counts as being a mason.
Then there’s the “Job’s Daughters” for daughters/granddaughters.
And a “junior mason” for the sons/grandsons group — I don’t recall that name and cannot be arsed to google.
I was shoehorned into Job’s Daughters.
It’s a fucking sick organization.
Too bad we cannot have a Love Train:
http://youtu.be/M1cTun4foMM
@ ithiliana, They’re seperate but equal. See? It says so… uhm… somewhere. But it totally is! Because FYMYNYSTS were sieging the meeting halls with cookies and torches and sternly worded letters and pussy embargos! And then they took all the Mason’s $MONEY$ so the only thing left were Free Masons that no one wanted because they were free or something!
Toysoldier is also not considering that the unique needs of male victims might not be met at a womens’ shelter. A battered man escaping a violent woman might feel frightened living around many women, and remind him of the abuse he has suffered. Victims of domestic violence oftentimes suffer from PTSD and being surrounded by people who are like their abusers is another trauma on top of the original trauma. Many shelters are set up like dormitories, and a male victim might feel very uncomfortable sharing sleeping quarters with hundreds of women. His need for privacy might also be compromised at a womens’ shelter.
The gender segregation is not due to malice or sexism, but is simply a measure of protectiveness of victims. That’s the same reason that prisons are also segregated by gender. The main problem that I actually do see with gender segregated facilities like shelters, prisons, and restrooms is that they do not meet the needs of LGBT victims. Hopefully there is a way to meet the needs of LGBT victims while also protecting male victims with PTSD from the trauma of living with women.
This is one of my points, precisely. There are many residential programs that are segregated by gender and malice, generally, has nothing to do with it.
An organization that has spent 20 years trying to help female victims of domestic violence may, on the surface, seem to be more than equipped to help male victims of domestic violence. When you really study what the shelter provides beyond a bed and hot food, however, it becomes readily apparent in what ways they may not be able to deliver adequate –let alone exceptional- service to a male resident.
And the reverse is true as well. Like I said, one of the programs that I work with does not accept women as residents. It does however accept women for its group counseling services, some of the one on one counseling services, and partners with programs that help women specifically on creating model that will work for them.
Nobiyamu, thank you. When you mentioned that drug addiction recovery shelters for men don’t admit women and had valid reasons for that, it got my thinking in that direction. Male victims have unique needs, and not all womens’ shelters are prepared to meet those needs. There are practical matters that make it difficult to force existing womens’ shelters to admit men. When new shelters are built, it might be possible to make them gender neutral, but they would have to be built and run differently to make things work. Retrofitting existing shelters, especially dormitory style ones, to make them gender neutral would be more difficult.
Some womens’ shelters have group therapy sessions. If men were in those sessions, women might not feel comfortable discussing sensitive topics like rape, molestation, or other traumas from their past. Likewise, some male victims might not feel comfortable opening up about such matters around women either, especially considering they have already been victimized by women in their relationships. I see some benefits from gender segregated therapy, but again I’m not sure how to have that and still meet the needs of LGBT victims.
Some shelters for women not only offer male victims hotel vouchers, but they also give men referrals to homeless shelters and other transitional housing options for men. They are trying their best to help. When TS and other MRA’s complain the hotel vouchers don’t last long enough, they bring up a good issue to tackle. They could raise money for male victims living in hotels to allow them to stay longer in the hotels.
Obviously meeting the needs of all victims is a complex task, and there are no easy answers. There aren’t enough safe places for battered men to go to, and it is a worthy cause if MRA’s want to build them. It is wrong, though, for MRA’s to sue and try to defund existing womens’ shelters since it does nothing for male victims and only harms female victims. I’m frustrated by MRA’s that make demands from feminists but are too lazy to do something themselves.
That comment shows how important it is READ what others write before your respond. I said about hotels. I wrote about the vouchers shelters give to men. The hotel vouchers most shelters give to men do not cover any children the men may have. The vouchers are typically for single-bed hotel or motel rooms just for the men to sit in a for a few days.
That quote is actually a response to Sacks’ campaign, and according to the services listed on The Family Place’s site, they are geared for women. The services listed on their service page used gendered language, except for one instance under “Outreach Services” where they use ‘victim’ instead of ‘women’. Presumably that includes men, but nothing on that page makes that apparent. (Coincidentally, according to The Family Place’s own site, they have only counselled a whopping 9 men via their outreach program, so it would appear that organization does not assist many male victims of domestic violence.)
No one at SYG urged anyone to harass Avon sales reps. The author asked people to politely voice their concern for Avon supporting what they feel is a biased policy.
How can they deny women are victims of domestic violence if their argument is that men are also victims of domestic violence? That sort of intellectually dishonest nonsense is precisely why I do not want feminists involved helping victims. You are so wrapped up in political views that you cannot see past them.
I read Ampersand’s softball interview when he first did it. I would have asked what those services entail, how long they house men, and what shelter they provide for men with children.
What makes you think I never considered that? I am fully aware of the unique needs male victims have, and I am completely aware that many, if not most, would uncomfortable around women, particularly the feminists running the places. However, that is precisely the reason why those shelters should involve people familiar with treating male victims, involve more male volunteers to help address men’s needs, and keep counseling sessions separated by sex. Yet that does not mean shelters cannot provide services to male victims.
Why would you house male victims the same quarters as women?
In this case, it is purely due to sexism and malice. There is nothing preventing these shelters from providing the same counseling to men as they provide to women, and nothing preventing them from choosing a space that can house two separate groups of people, like hundreds of other government-funded services do.
I’ve spent the last week with friends, dude. You’re not studying for mid terms so you can troll Feminist sites, which you suck at. What makes you think you’re inane attempts to go “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I” will stick?
Also that I will remember to say “Your” instead of “You’re”? Silly Rutee.
You know if Toysoldier spent 1/4 of his time and energy actually helping male victims of domestic violence as he did trolling feminist sites and telling people how he’s experienced all domestic violence programs all across North America…
In a life or death situation, people can’t always live luxuriously. There is nothing preventing someone from bringing their children with them to a hotel. If you have extra guests in a hotel room, you could ask the front desk to provide a roll-away bed and crib. If those are unavailable, you could also set up a pack and play or bring sleeping bags. It’s not the best, but it’s better than being in a violent home.
After the tornado, people had to sleep on mats in the gymnasium at the local college while they waited for their insurance companies and FEMA to set them up in better living arrangements, like FEMA trailers. It wasn’t ideal, but at least they had a roof over their heads. That’s the same way with domestic violence shelters and hotels. They are temporary living quarters only, so they’re not going to be like staying at the presidential suite of the Bellagio.
You keep changing your story. At first you said they didn’t help male victims at all. Now you’re saying they aren’t helping enough. More male victims need to go to them for help for them to have bigger numbers. It’s like how you originally linked to a Scottish Parliament discussion about a bill to set up a hotline for male victims of IPV to try to prove feminists block legislation to help male victims. Everyone pointed out that the bill passed, but you still maintained it was proof feminists block legislation. Blocking a bill and passing a bill are the exact opposite of each other.
No matter how polite you imagine the Stand your Ground people to be, not many Avon salespeople want total strangers calling them to complain about VAWA. A lot of Avon salespeople are elderly women and they don’t need that kind of stress. They don’t even know what VAWA is. They’re just minding their own business selling makeup and Christmas decorations.
If you don’t want feminists involved in helping victims, then what in the name of Pete are you doing here anyway? This is a website with feminists. You came here first saying feminists aren’t doing enough for male victims, and now you say you don’t want help from feminists. How can we even begin to make you happy if you don’t know what you want?
Okay then, we already agree that there are benefits to having male victims assisted by other men, living in arrangements with other men, and attending counseling sessions with other men. Why are you so adamant that men should stay at womens’ shelters then?
You have no proof that malice or sexism have to do with anything. Some of the shelters do offer counseling services to male victims. Some of them do give male victims hotel vouchers. If you want them to build new shelters that can separately house men and women, then you have some serious fundraising to do, because contractors won’t build those for free. Ideally, all victims of violence, all drug addicts, all homeless people, and anyone else needing help getting back on their feet would have plenty of help. Unfortunately, private donors and the government don’t pay enough for all this so they do the best they can.
Homeless shelters are also separate. I don’t really see why it is a problem to have DV shelters the same. The only real issue I see is the treatment of trans-gendered people. As far as TS and MRA’s if they want existing shelters to expand men’s services, why don’t they help with funding to expand buildings and rooms available. When I was homeless, I stayed at a shelter run by an organization that had a men’s and women’s shelter. I don’t know much about the men’s shelter; as I did not stay there but the women’s shelter took DV victims, recovering addicts and homeless women.
Anyway, more funding + expanded space = win
MRA’s building their own men’s shelters is a better option in some ways if there activism is insisting on including anti-feminism. There is no way feminist’s should work with those that believe their movement should not be. There is just no getting around that, sorry.
TS, I also don’t see any problems with Avon endorsing the International Violence against Women Act. The MRA’s keep bashing Avon and Reese Witherspoon for their endorsement of the I-VAWA, but don’t give specific reasons why. I think Witherspoon is an excellent spokesperson for female victims, and she is brave to discuss such a politically sensitive topic. This is what she said at the International Women of Courage Awards Ceremony.
Andrea Jung, the CEO of Avon said,
These women are not bashing male victims when they speak out for female victims. They are using their celebrity and financial clout on the behalf of many women around the world who don’t have the resources necessary to leave violent homes.
If MRA’s want a corporation to take on the cause of male victims of domestic, that’s a great idea. They would have better luck going for a company that caters to a male demographic, like how Avon caters to a mostly female demographic. They could also benefit from finding a celebrity to endorse their cause and help spread their message out to the public.