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.
OT but my bf just toid me some amusing news. A shick jock here in Australia was fired today after gender policing and misogyning in an interview with the PM.
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/australian-shock-jock-fired-gillard-gay-questioning-5464240
Apparantly to him being candid = being an arsehat.
Why is it that people who hold really repugnant viewpoints always want to try to point to historical figures that had been associated with their opponents “team?” We are not arguing against MRAs from the past and their viewpoints (if there were indeed MRAs in long lost history?). We are arguing with ideas and points that your people make right now, so why do you want to waste time and effort arguing with feminists of the past? I am interested in what people seem to believe in right now, people who are actually alive and can have an effect on my life.
Help us fight to create a social safety net that ensures that no child is hungry, no child has to live on the streets, every child can afford warm coats and boots and everything else they need to live and I will be so down with you opting out of parenthood, snore.* I’ll even throw you a little “Congratulations! You will neither meet nor financially support your biological offspring!” party.
*Bonus: women who access this safety net for their children, particularly women of colour, are not shamed for it the way that they are shamed for using the woefully inadequate welfare systems in the States and here.
Re: Decora —
Oh Japan, keep telling your young women they’re just not cute enough. In the annals of misogyny, it’s certainly … unique.
Is it also entangled in the right wing view that money is more important than people? So raising a child is less strenuous than writing a cheque. Pregnancy and childbirth and abortion are equivalent to signing a bit of paper saying you don’t really fancy having a child. I just can’t get my head around it. It’s disingenuous at best.
@daintydougal:
I think it depends who is writing cheques or raising children? It would probably be a lot harder for men to go through pregnancy and childbirth and child-rearing than it would be to sign a piece of paper, but women? Having babies and then raising them is, like, what we exist for. (This is sarcasm, if that wasn’t obvious.)
I think this is all connected to a perception of motherhood as obligatory and fatherhood as optional. Requiring men to do anything to support their children, even something as minimal as supporting them financially, is looked at as unfair because it should be a choice for them. And if they make choices that make life impossible for the mother, then… who cares? It is her responsibility to make do. And if they make choices that make life impossible for the children, well, that’s probably a failure of motherhood too, since it’s her job to take care of her kids.
I just cannot fathom how anyone can genuinely suggest that the lifelong implications of childbirth/abortion are in anyway comparable to losing a fraction of your income for 18 years – to support something you helped create in the first place!
Traditionally only women were punished for having sex. We desperately need to get back to those glorious times.
Yeah, the paper abortions thing is primarily–shocker!–about power.
More power to men, specifically.
Yeah, if we had a society where supporting children was a societal obligation, not an individual obligation, that would be fine. But what a paper abortion would do is absolutely gut the existing child support system in this country. GUT IT.
And it barely works as it is!
So, no.
Also, Amanda’s article is going to be a complete shitstorm all weekend. I don’t even dare get into the comments. She’s basically done a ‘well, okay, let’s give it to them, then.’ To demonstrate that they’re not arguing in good faith.
And, boy, the comments…
@daintydougal Someone forgot to tell Professor Singh about paternal age effect, decline in male fertility starting at about 30, and the fact that impotence is a serious issue for men over 50 (ask the manufacturers of Viagra, they sell that shit like little blue hotcakes)…
When I first heard that there was a “men’s rights movement” (years ago, now), I thought to myself, “Huh… oh I get it, there’s a group of men who are pushing for reliable male birth control, destigmatization of male rape/abuse victims, and who are anti-war and anti-draft. Good on ’em!”
Then I googled “men’s rights” and landed on the Roissy blog and…
@anadiomene122
No one care about your pseudo-science. Women go through menopause for having the audacity to age and therefore displease certain boners, That is one of the highest crimes imaginable. Men stay fertile forever because of science. FACT.
Thats whats so insidious about the ‘mens rights’ movement, that there are of course many issues that specifically affect men, but the mrm are interested in none of them!
Once we finish our history textbook, I think we need to write a science textbook.
Hi manboobz people 😀 Finally back from taking a break. So…hello! 😀 *goes back to read comments*
*Waves to Marie* missed ya.
@Viscaria
*Waves back* 😀
@Cloudiah
XD holy shit so glad I wasn’t drinking anything XD … I wonder if this would’ve made more sense if I hadn’t been skimming.
::will be back, gonna to go hang out w/ family::
BUT I WILL BE BACK MUCH SOONER THIS TIME, I PROMISES!!!!ELEVEN
Menopause caused by mens completely unalterable attraction to sixteen year olds…sounds legit!/end snark.
Um…50 years of age is the average onset of menopause and well, imma guess that 50 was a good long life for huge segments of the human population for a significant time period. And why is it that baby making is the pre eminent problem to aging? How many people suffer physical impairments or discomfort after years of hard work, stress or whatever? Shouldn’t we really focus on making what is now middle age one where people aren’t suffering damaged backs, arthritis or heart problems?
Nope, definately a womans baby making capacity and her wrinkles and sagginess is what’s really the problem.
@pillowinhell
O_o something tells me I missed a really weird troll.
Marie, as near as I can tell, mens predillection for young mates is a dog whistle for “get a girl just as she hits puberty”. I’m being generous by citing sixteen as the age.
Marcotte really hit the ball out of the park with that one. She’s absolutely right, those “paper abortion” douchebags want the benefits of parenthood without the responsibilities. Otherwise, they should gladly agree to stay away from the mother and child after getting the paper abortion. Instead, they want to disappear when the children are small and need money and care, but then reappear when they grow up. I’ve seen that happen so many times, and it’s so sad.
And you’re right, the comment section is a shitstorm. The pandagon regulars are making good comments, while some whiny MRA’s are there to say how unfair her plan is. Waaaaaahh, child support is slavery! Waaaah, the term deadbeat dad is sexist!
And there is no way in hell those guys would be on board for building a stronger safety net for single mothers and children. They whine “I don’t want my tax money paying for some sluts’ mistakes!” So which option is it, MRA’s? Do you want deadbeat dads to contribute financially for their own children, or do you want to pay higher taxes to ensure that children can have a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs? Because telling children to go without the basic necessities is not an option.
Those “paper abortion” guys make me want to throw up. It does make me realize how lucky I am to have such a great father, though. He always put my brother and my needs first, unlike those selfish pieces of dog poo.
Yeah, the whole ”younger the better’ creep-fest is… well, shades of Tom Martin, Owly, every damn MRA who comes in the door….
(and, Marie! Welcome back!)
And other deep reflections on the universe, by anadiomene.
@chie
>:( Which state? (if you don’t mind saying.)
@pillowinhell
🙁 gah. Clearly been skimming the trolls too much, cuz I missed most of the ickiness.
@Howard Bannister
😀 Glad to be back.
@bionicmommy
Land and resources that could be used to make bonbons and scented candles, if we could only coerce men into getting them for us.
@Ostara
I think this argument stems from the claim that women voters “cancel out” men’s votes and/or women are the ones voting for [candidate/party we don’t like]. Which still doesn’t explain how women made Lincoln conscript all those soldiers in the Civil War, but I’m sure Mary made him do it.
@Joe
I actually don’t disagree with any of this. But then you veer back into attacking your own straw version of feminism, and I feel a little dirty for having agreed with you about anything.
@BritterSweet I know you were doing an MRA voice for your Little Bighorn bit, but using slurs ironically is still using slurs (or so I’ve heard from the PoC who’ve talked to me about it). Would you mind not using that “I” word in the future?
@Joe again
We do it here, all the time. It’s like you don’t even go here.
Thanks for posting this, David.
Well, to be fair, he doesn’t come here to read.