Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!
can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.
Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.
Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.
Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.
But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.
Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.
Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
NOTE: Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?
Kyrie: Men are not barbarians or wild animals. Most adult human beings, including men, know how to control themselves, and will not turn violent if they become angry. Claiming that “she pushed my buttons!” is a valid excuse for men to use violence dehumanizes and infantilizes men, and is therefore, simultaneously, a misogynist *and* a misandrist stance.
RF, no one here is claiming it is valid besides Mr. Meller. He doesn’t really care how he comes across.
Although to be fair, our other resident MRA NWOslave would totally agree with Meller on that point, if he were around to do so!
He would, but I think he’s out working 37 hour days.
He’s capturing mammoths so that he and the other manly men can milk them. They do it for us, you know.
@CassandraSays: Mammoth Milking by Manly Men!
Rolllllllllllllllls off the tongue, doesn’t it!
New offshoot of the MRM – the MMM.
hellkell: Perhaps I misunderstood the following bit of Kyrie’s post:
“[so-called MRAs] don’t care if they have to admit that men are violent barbarians, wild animals (I mean no disrespect no actual wild animals) with no self control.”
I took it to mean that men are in fact violent barbarians and wild animals, and that so-called MRAs are “admitting” it by using that stupid defense. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I think that some so-called MRAs have a very low opinion of the male sex. Claiming that women can “make” men rape or use violence (by “dressing provocatively” or verbally “pushing buttons”) is equivalent to claiming that men have no control over their actions. This is a dehumanizing and infantilizing view of men. It is, obviously, also a hostile view of women (since it excuses violations of women’s rights).
This is why I am of the opinion that those of the so-called MRAs who think that such excuses for violent behaviour from men are in fact not just misogynists, but misandrists as well.
Edit: The last paragraph should read “[…] who think that such excuses for violent behaviour from men ARE VALID, are in fact not just misogynists, but misandrists as well.”
@RocketFrog
“Kyrie: Men are not barbarians or wild animals. Most adult human beings, including men, know how to control themselves, and will not turn violent if they become angry. Claiming that “she pushed my buttons!” is a valid excuse for men to use violence dehumanizes and infantilizes men, and is therefore, simultaneously, a misogynist *and* a misandrist stance.”
That’d be a big negative on your assessment of a given situation. If as women contend, mental and emotional abuse is DV. A womans vile tongue incessantly nagging, nitpicking and berating a man is clearly DV, yet a man seperate from the system. They’ll be no help from the State for a man who is a victim of DV, only women command the violence of the State. Since this is the case, he has only himself to rely on, and lashing out with violence is the only justice he can possibly get.
He could of course walk away from this form of violence for which he has no recourse. Women could walk away from a violent man as well, however they choose to employ State violence to punish a violent man. Since a man doesn’t have that option he sometimes chooses to employ the only violent punishment afforded him.
Fucking hell, Bee, did you summon him?
RocketFrog, meet NWO. He’s special.
Ok, NWOslave, serious question: Why does a woman, of all people, have to be targets of aggression by men because of the state? Wouldn’t it be best to just go at the source, the state itself, instead of victimizing individuals who may have little to do with you?
Even if they do have something to do with you…why use force? Why not have a debate? Start a blog, even? Because one loner attacking people will be just that, and those people get dealt with by the law.
NWO, darling, I missed you!
I do not believe the state punishes people of any gender for emotional abuse. However, men should have the same recourses to therapy and shelters as women do.
@red_locker
A vindictive wife can obsessively degrade a man with joyous abandon and he can do nothing within the law. A divorce wins him poverty as his belongings will be forfeit. By law, if he calls the police he will be arrested as the predominant aggressor. If there is yelling heard from their home, most States have a mandatory arrest policy, he goes to jail.
As an example, 2 million restraining orders are issued against men every year on the word of a woman. You can’t get much more violent than being evicted from your own home even if the woman is the violent party. If a man disobeys this order he is imprisoned.
A mans personal violence is trivial when compared to womens use of State violence.
NWOslave:
Verbal abuse leaves the victim with several options as to how to react. Some of these options are unethical, and choosing one of these means that the victim ends up performing an unethical action. That it was in response to another unethical action does not change the fact that it is unethical. Lashing out with physical violence against another person (unless in self-defense) is an unethical action, and therefore, it is not justice at all. At best, it is revenge.
Walking away from verbal abuse *is* a form of recourse. A reasonable person will try to choose an option that does not escalate the situation into further violence. Since men can act reasonably, then not doing so is wrong.
It is unfortunately correct that many human societies have an appalling double standard as regards female-on-male violence (both of a psychological and of a physical nature). This applies both to the formal justice system, and to the cultural judgment of such violence – male victims of abuse by women have great difficulty in even accepting that they *have* been abused (physically or psychologically) by a woman. Men are unreasonably and unfairly expected to just “suck it up”. Fighting this injustice is a genuinely valid and important men’s rights struggle; it is the struggle for men’s right to be taken seriously when they are the victims of abuse. However, men do not win this right by making up excuses for being *perpetrators* of abuse. An excuse that essentially reduces to “but she MADE me do it” infantilizes and dehumanizes the person using that excuse, and claiming that it is a generally valid excuse for men is equivalent to claiming that men do not have control over their own actions. Claiming that men are not capable of controlling their actions is misandry.
You do not have the right to “punish” someone who is your equal.
@ozymandias42
Since the vast majority of therapists are leftists and women as well, I doubt going to a feminist therapist would be all that helpful. A man simply gets the same demeaning abuse from his therapist as he got at home.
Aren’t you taking courses to be a therapist, dear Ozy? One can only imagine what advice you’d give to a man.
That’s crap, NWO, and you know it. The state doesn’t just roll in and take everything. Men can hire lawyers, yanno.
I don’t what to put words in ozy’s mouth, but if it were me, probably something like; “It’s not your fault, don’t blame yourself. You’re not weak for being abused. Let’s talk about boundaries and red flags”?
Clearly anything other than “you should go beat that bitch up” would be unacceptable in NWO’s world. Letting a man cry in therapy is probably emasculating when seen from his unique worldview.
@RocketFrog
“Verbal abuse leaves the victim with several options as to how to react. Some of these options are unethical, and choosing one of these means that the victim ends up performing an unethical action.”
The original perpetrator of an unethical action, in the case I’m describing, is the woman wagging her vile tongue. Since the original verbal abuse was unethical, why would you expect the response to be ethical?
I’d love to stay and chat but I’m worn out. And since the conversation has already devolved down to excusing womens actions, talking about boundaries and red flags, and men bawling like children to a feminist therapist without feeling emasculated, I’ll leave you to your ideology.
Shora: I’m not even going to be that kind of therapist. I’m going to be a sex therapist.
But if in my practice I witnessed a woman being verbally abusive to a man, I would provide as much support as I could to help him leave the relationship and a referral to a competent therapist to help him rebuild his self-esteem and sense of boundaries afterward.
NWO: You have to be ethical in ALL situations. That is what ethical means. Just like you are not allowed to kill puppies if the puppy’s owner attacked you, you are not allowed to beat up people if they verbally abuse you.
Awww, already, NWO?
I am amused he is skeptical about boundaries and red flags. Since boundaries are just “people shouldn’t do this to me” and red flags are “people who do this are more likely to do bad things to me in the future,” I’d think everyone would be in support of them.
I would NEVER excuse an abuser. EVER. There is NO EXCUSE for abuse of ANY kind.
Whatever, NWO. We know you believe in escalation. You’re not exactly the conflict resolution go-to guy.
NWOslave:
I would expect a man to act ethically because I am of the opinion that most human beings, regardless of gender, are able to make sensible choices, guided by reason and ethics. If you do not think men can do so, then you have a much lower opinion of men than I.
If a woman chooses to engage in psychological abuse of a man, as in the scenario you describe, you are correct that she is perpetrating an unethical action. She, also being a human being with the capacity for reason and ethics, has chosen to psychologically violate another human being. Doing something that one is fully aware is wrong may or may not be explainable, but it is not excusable.
This does not grant her victim the right to do something wrong himself. Someone doing wrong to you may *explain* why you choose to do wrong in return, but it does not *excuse* it, and this has absolutely nothing to do with gender.