So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the regulars are engaging in a bit of self-reflection. Well, that may be a bit of a generous description on my part. They’re discussing the question “Are we fanatics?” Not surprisingly, they conclude that they aren’t.
Yet this is the most upvoted comment in the thread:
Those of you who have studied twentieth century history may have remembered Lady Hitler’s war on the Jews, the Romani people, and homosexuals; the Great Feminist Purges of Lady Stalin; the Cultural Revolution of Lady Mao. (Oh, wait, there actually was a Madame Mao, and she was a pretty evil gal, though she owed her power largely to her husband and was ousted shortly after his death.)
Moving on from all that war and starvation stuff, let’s return to that first sentence, since MRAs are so fond of blaming eeevil feminists for the draft.
The link in that sentence goes to a discussion of an organization called The Order of the White Feather. Take it away, Wikipedia:
In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.
It’s worth pointing out that at the start of WWI, people of all political stripes and in all the countries involved were pretty gung-ho for the war. Even the big socialist parties of the day quickly forgot their pledges of international solidarity in favor of supporting their national war efforts.
So where do the evil feminists come in? Well, a couple of the most famous British suffragettes signed onto the White Feather crusade: Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst. And yes, they supported compulsory national service — though they supported it for both men and women: men would go to war, while women would be required to work in factories.
Of course, the Order of the White Feather didn’t represent all feminists at the time. Indeed, it didn’t even represent all the Pankhursts: Christabel’s sisters Sylvia and Adela were pacifists.
Even aside from all that blather about feminists being responsible for wars and concentration camps, it’s highly misleading to present the story of the Order of the White Feather as “proof” that feminists are warmongering all-male-draft-lovers. As a quick visit to Google will demonstrate, feminism has a long history of antiwar activism, dating back to the 19th century — when feminists first organized Mother’s Day as a protest of war.
But, hey, MRAs, if you want to invent your own mythological version of history, knock yourself out. You only make yourselves look like the fanatics you are.
Thanks to this thread in the AgainstMensRights Subreddit for pointing me to this most edifying discussion.
Judas betrayed Jesus because that bitch Mary Magdalene friendzoned him and hooked up with that alpha son of God instead (even though he was a big hippie mangina). If she had just realized what a Nice Guy Judas was then Jesus would never have died, and the Church wouldn’t treat women like shit. You brought 2000 years of religious bigotry on yourselves, ladies.
“Thought the furry pill was for prevention of hairballs, tho’ …”
That’s what THEY wanted you to think.
🙂
If a few ribbons bother you then clearly none of you have ever been exposed to the most unfortunate fashion trend of the late twentieth century, best known for its belief that there is no such thing as “too many accessories”. Behold – Decora.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/55c84a163569002bff2aa0a1b554abcd/tumblr_mf4wynejfe1rdleujo1_500.jpg
Kitteh –
I’ll pass the compliment along. I love that I can be a shameless cat lady around here. Better yet, it’s encouraged.
Cassandra – URGH! I hope I can eventually unsee that.
I think I’ll stick to the 17th century version.
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/184630/1/Sir-John-Corbet-Of-Adderley,-C.1676.jpg
This blog has some gorgeous paintings and surviving clothes from the 16th and 17th centuries – lots of ribbon, lace, jewellery.
http://thepragmaticcostumer.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/
I think this girl wins just because of the random paperclips below her eyes, and also the perfectly centered cartoon bunny.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/puricute.answers/2011/03/19/a1b9315aa782bcf6bb574acc488e2c8f7.jpg
The big pouffy sleeves on 17th century dude always make me wonder how much they got in the way when entering carriages and so on.
You can opt out of fatherhood, @snore. It’s called a condom.
You know, that would be a pretty decent cause for y’all to take up: start demanding male birth control from BigPharma. The technology has been there for years, but no company is willing to spent money on drug development because they don’t think the market’s there. Prove ’em wrong.
My eyes hurt looking at those paperclips!
The guys’ sleeves probably weren’t as bad as the women’s sleeves were, earlier. The really big ones in the 1630s were padded to keep them in shape, and would have been a damn nuisance. Though nothing could compare with these for sheer weight and being a pest:
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/henry8chatsworth.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YOjm8fZgrGE/UHgJIlou6dI/AAAAAAAABNw/FsY4YVJpWXE/s400/Jane%2BSeymour%2Bcolor%2Bportrait%2Bby%2BHans%2BHolbein.jpg
Time for me to head off, catch yez later!
Also, neck ruffs with a big open space between them and the top of the dress. Why did those exist? They’re about as silly as the paperclips, honestly, and were probably a lot more uncomfortable.
snore, because your commrents have generally been both hostile and derailing? I mean, at least have the decency to pick one.
Wow, I just caught up on the thread, that was a good one. Wasn’t there some troll from New Zealand who wrote (serious) mra history? I think he was in the ‘best manboobz trolls of 2012’ finalists or something.
I’m really bad with names.
Snore: How dare you not allow me to barge into your living room and rant about whatever I want? I’ll be there in 5 minutes; hope you’ve cleaned up.
Anyway, I am probably one of the more sympathetic people to the whole MRA “paper abortion” thang just because I think the welfare of a child should not depend on hir having two parents who love hir. If I could be convinced that there’s a method to do this that doesn’t totally f*ck over kids forever, you’d have my vote. (But I think it kind of depends on socialism existing.)
In the meantime, people with sperm who are worried about impregnating someone should probably take measures to make sure that doesn’t happen, because that is the world we live in. (And so should people with eggs.)
I just realized that getting behind causes that would have far-reaching social impact for men and women makes too much sense for MRAs. They’re too busy doing important stuff like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-22887138
Is it just me, or does anyone get the feeling that the MRA’s are blaming feminism for everything the same way some old literature blames “bad mothers” for everything.
They attribute almost… supernatural abilities to feminists. I remember being told by a MRA on YouTube that feminists have male slaves… and I was like… great where do I sign up? To date, I am still waiting for my man slaves to arrive and am growing impatient.
;P tee-hee.
I greatly dislike the idea of strict liability for sperm, but that is rarely the case brought up.
I also dislike the framing of pregnancy in a rights and responsibilities framework. We spend an inordinate amount of time blaming people for the children they have as opposed to working to improve their welfare.
The argument about the unfairness of women being able to voluntarily enter motherhood and men being forced to do so involuntarily seems more like a neat trick to hide the requirements of parenthood mothers are generally required to perform when the father is sought for child support. It tries to make “voluntarily” provided services not count even though they account for the lion’s share of the work.
Plus the article avoids dealing with the difficulties placed around abortion. The article also avoids addressing the poverty a child pushes many women into. Oddly enough, the same MRAs who hate child support also hate welfare.
Really though, I just wish we didn’t treat single mothers so poorly that they felt the need to have an abortion. I wish we didn’t treat kids as burdens and a means to control adults. I have no idea how to solve it, but I find the “solutions” of the MRM to be self-serving pleas to avoid paying to support kids they helped produce.
So I realize this is back a page, now off topic, and mostly answered, but that trans* question! My take on it, besides the obvious “because insurance” answer, is yeah, dysphoria. But also, the difference between a physical disorder and a mental one (though frankly, stopping the whole “physical disorders are more legit” shit would be nice).
As in — it’s a mental disorder! Fix zir mind!
Versus — it’s a physical disorder! Fix zir body!
This is in ideal land though, back in reality DSM V is finally getting around to changing Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria. Cuz yeah, the problem here isn’t mental but anatomical (and social, but hello the rest of GLBT being not a disorder just cuz society is stupid)
And now me and my blasted anatomy are going to bed, sorry to comment and run!
—-
Ok, nearly going to bed. First!
Victorian England
Women invented hysteria to get sympathy and get out of anything mentally or physically demanding. Asylums were actual asylums, places of rest. The hydrotherapy wasn’t water torture but a sauna. [avert eyes, it’s about to get rape apologist] The “pelvic massage” wasn’t forced on women, they sought out doctors to cause “paroxysms”, but not because they enjoyed it, they did it just to make their poor beta husbands suffer — get your doctor to cause orgasm, be too tired later!
FTR, pretty sure women did seek out such services as, well, basically the same as sex work now. Pay the doctor for his time, get a “pelvic massage” focused on you alone…and it was acceptable. Of course, it started right shitty. (Like, one of the stories behind fainting couches, and fainting rooms in particular, was to give the lady some privacy while she was being “massaged”)
Now I really am going to bed!
I’m confused, even if feminists=white feather=war, those feathery people were British, right? And while British history is far for being exempt from blood on its hands, they’re not the one who built extermination camps or started WWII.
THIS!! My state passed THREE anti-abortion bills today, including a transvaginal probe requirement.
Yes I read that NY Times article earlier. The “paper abortions” thing attempts to draw a false equivalency between a bodily autonomy issue and some men wanting to “opt out” of parenthood. Women have autonomy (as they should) over a process that occurs in their body, and so they should have the option of terminating that process if they choose to. That men don’t have this option stems from the fact that men typically aren’t the ones who get pregnant. You’d think mra’s, with their biotruthiness, would get that.
The creation of an effective, safe, affordable birth control treatment for men would actually give men another way to help avoid contributing to unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And combined with improved access to other types of contraception, comprehensive sex education, campaigns to encourage condom use, etc., fewer guys would find themselves in a position of being expected to support a child they didn’t want. But since raising awareness and support for the above involves things besides hanging out on Reddit all day and spamming comments sections of news articles, mra’s don’t seem all that enthusiastic about it.
I also came across this counter-point to the NY Times article earlier:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/there_is_no_forced_fatherhood_crisis/
Damn cathode is getting fat on the expanse of poor beta anode. Proxy violence.
Amanda Marcotte takes down that NYT article in Pandagon. She summed the whole “paper abortions” thing up perfectly:
“My main problem with floating the argument that men should be able to get what “men’s rights” activists (scare quotes because it’s a phrase akin to “white pride” in its purpose and paranoia) call a “paper abortion” is that it’s actually a stalking horse for what they really want, which is to be able to terminate child support but maintain their rights as a father to have a role in their children’s lives. Focusing on “paper abortions” is a way to soften up an audience to the demands of men who want to foist all the responsibilities of child-rearing onto their exes while still getting to float in periodically to be the big hero who takes the kids to Disneyland once in awhile. If you actually go to “father’s rights” forums and websites, you’ll find lots of paranoia about sperm-stealing, but the men who are on the forum almost all are divorced and are bitter about writing child support checks while not getting the sexual and house-cleaning benefits of having a wife.”
MRAs don’t like that women can vote.
In other news, the sky is blue, grass is green, water is wet, and denying half the human race of the right to vote is a central tenet of the Anti Gynocracy Liberation Front
The whole ‘men* shouldn’t have to be responsible for their actions if women* are allowed to have abortions’ thing is so absurd and infuriating. I can’t believe anyone has the gall to suggest it has anything to do with equality and not just punishing women and rewarding men.
Time for some mra history facts! Todays lesson – Irish potato famine:
For many years, Ireland was doing fine, but then they gave bitches the vote which caused the crops to fail. During the famine (and because of bitches refusing to have sex with nice guys) approximately 1 million people died and a million more bitches and alpha dudes emigrated from Ireland, causing the island’s population to fall by between 20% and 25%, leaving only manginas and fat chicks.The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight caused by feminists trying to control the government. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland—where one-third of the population was entirely nice-guys—was exacerbated by a host of political, ethnic, religious, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate…say the feminists.Those of us who have taken the red pill know it was much simpler than all that noise.
Here we are learning about tru-factz history when there’s real live biology going on under our noses! Did man’s yearning for young women create the menopause?