So I get periodic visits here from hostile and uninformed visitors demanding to know just what I have against those Men’s Rights activist-adjacent fellows who have declared themselves to be Men Going Their Own Way. Surely, they sniff, I can’t be really opposed to men living the lives they choose to live, independent of women? Don’t feminists encourage women to be similarly independent? You go, girls, and all that?
As a fellow calling himself Praetorian wrote:
Why are women so bitter towards men going their own way, without them
“John,” meanwhile, thought he detected some hypocrisy:
So, if a woman says she does not need a man in her life, she is seen as a strong independent woman. If a man says he does not need a woman in his life, he is seen as someone who has a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of women.
How convenient and how logical…………….
Happpily, the commenters here always put these misguided souls straight: we don’t object , in principle, to men “going their own way,” if that’s what they want to do.
But in practice, the men who classify themselves as Men Going Their Own Way don’t go anywhere; they stick around and stink the place up with their raging misogyny.
If you go to MGTOWforums or any other popular MGTOW hangout, you’ll discover that the regulars there don’t spend much time talking about the fabulous lives they’re leading on their own — the things they’re learning, the hobbies they’re pursuing, the experiences they’re having.
Nope. They spend virtually all their time and energy taking about women, and how awful they are. The typical MGTOWer spends more time thinking about women on any given day than the president of Planned Parenthood does. And what they think about women is awful. Just go through my MGTOW posts here for example after example.
You want to see some men who are really going their own way? Watch the video at the top of this post. These are guys enjoying themselves and not giving a shit what anyone thinks. They are AWESOME.
That’s what Men Going Their Own Way should look like. And I’m not even joking.
NOTE: I think I’ve posted this video before. I don’t care. Some people might not have seen it. EVERYONE MUST SEE IT.
“She was stating that all religions were misogynistic in their core texts / princinples, and if you accept those, you also accept that misogyny is then divinely ordained.”
Change that to:
She was stating that CERTAIN religions were misogynistic in their core texts / princinples, and if you accept those, you also accept that misogyny is then divinely ordained.
And I’ll buy that.
Honestly, I can understand the correlation between religion and misogyny that Diana is trying to assert, but the direction of the correlation is wrong.
My guess would be that it’s not that some certain religions make people misogynistic, but that some certain people use their religion to justify the misogyny they already have; typically by cherry picking out the parts they can cram into their narrow world view. Diana, people take exception I think because it sounds like you are favoring the first scenario.
Are lots of religious people total asshats? Yes. But not all are (I’d wager most aren’t), and some non-religious people are also asshats. (But hopefully most aren’t!)
As for being able to customize your religion, I’m Wiccan, and the idea of not being able to pick and choose is weird to me. No two people in my coven believe exactly the same thing and that makes it… better. We don’t fight over interpretation or altar arrangement, or even when the Sabbats should be held (we typically do weekends, sometimes weeks off of the actual day). Who gives a frack!?
I’d like to see Diana’s answer to Sparky before continuing.
To say that our three main Monotheisms are inherently misogynistic is wrong. And it betrays an ignorance of those traditions. Within all three of those traditions especially when you enter the mystic strains of those tradition there is a deep discussion and respect for the Divine Feminine. And these mystical tradition are not something new to these religions but something that was there from the beginning.
It is only when we enter into the fundamentalist strains that we do see blatant misogyny. Both Islamic and Christian mysticism recognize that Sophia i.e Wisdom is an aspect of divinity and in Judaism the Divine Presence is considered to be feminine. So to just blanket state that these traditions are misogynistic for the get-go means you have not looked deeply into them.
@diana
Hate to burst your bubble, but you didn’t answer this. You waited around while other people tried to guess what you meant. and the abrahamic religions and hindusim probably differ pretty fucking greatly.
@freemage
Ditto.
When I was a teenager she told me that I should come talk to her when I wanted to become sexually active, so she could arrange an appointment with the gynecologist. This way, I could learn how birth control pills work (I’ve never had a boyfriend, so it’s been a non-issue up to this point). She also thinks that LGBT people should be able to get married. She also told me that usually late-term abortions are performed in cases of medical emergency.
My mom is also a Catholic. To her, faith gives her comfort and moral guidance. Everyone in my family is pretty well aware that there’s a lot of ugly stuff in The Old Testament. She understands them as being allegorical. After all, evolution makes a lot more sense.
The way I’ve come to understand it is that all religions have similar core themes. Even if you’re an atheist, I’m sure you follow these guidelines too (although Hitchens and Dawkins, being not so nice people, lost it somewhere). That’s what both my parents believe. The purpose of religion in today’s society, is mainly to give people comfort, I think.
It’s okay to go after fundamentalism, especially when it attempts to integrate itself with the government. That’s destructive. However, people like my mom pose society no harm by believing in God. Sometimes I wonder what happened to the atheists that were content to make fun of crazy stuff like the Creation Museum and leave liberal and moderate religious folk alone…
@diana
Kind of avoiding answering it there.
Also, if you keep saying ‘most’ I’m going to have to ask for a fucking citation, because while there is definelty some shit in the bible, it’s not like 90% of it is ‘women suck’ or whatever. There is other shit expressed there.
And the derail of a feminist discussion about sexism within the online atheist community is now complete! Please step off the train in an orderly fashion, nothing to see here.
“Diana, do you think it’s impossible for a Christian or a Muslim to be a feminist? Seeing as those religions are “misogynistic and male-centric?”
” I think it’s possible if those people simply ignore most of what’s written in the holy books.”
“No, actually you could be an atheist and anti-feminist one is not a prerequisite for the other, but those religions… they are misogynistic and male-centric, sorry what do you expect me to say, just reading those texts could make your hair rise.”
– What religious Feminists often do is re-interpret “scripture” from a Feminist perspective. This is often done by going to the original text languages – like Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek, etc and looking at various possible meanings and definitions of words and choosing the definitions/meanings that best fit with a Feminist perspective.
I also think that some of what eventually got interpretted as anti-feminist, or anti-female, such as separation during menstrual period, was originally very female-centric and pro-woman. So religious Feminists point that kind of thing out. They toss out the misinterpretation of these things and “reclaim” them as female centered rituals and sources of empowerment.
In a way its kind of like what the sex-positive feminists are attempting with porn and sex-work.
O RLY?
“Problem is there aren’t just some parts you can ignore or interpret in some other way, because male-centrism and misogyny are everywhere, from start to end, they are not a minor thing, they are central. The best way to ignore the bad parts is to ignore the whole thing altogether.”
“And I also have the right to point out the obvious, that most of the major religions are filled with misogyny as a core part of their philosophy and that to try to ignore this in them is equivalent to construct an entirely new faith.”
How’s that mesh with…
“@Fibinachi, yeah that’s pretty much what I meant. And also you are talking about people changing by simply ignoring what’s written there and creating their own version of it, that’s cool, but the texts themselves aren’t changing.”
And
“‘Diana, do you think it’s impossible for a Christian or a Muslim to be a feminist? Seeing as those religions are “misogynistic and male-centric?”’ I think it’s possible if those people simply ignore most of what’s written in the holy books.”
“In a way its kind of like what the sex-positive feminists are attempting with porn and sex-work.”
…you realize many of those people are sex workers right?
“Here’s Fat Forney’s review of the book”
Emilygoddess: “Can you please not use “fat” as an insult? There’s nothing inherently shameful about being fat (the MRM’s obsession with David’s weight notwithstanding).”
– The reason I call him Fat Forney instead of Matt Forney is because he launched an online “Fat Shaming Week” back in October. Moreover, on his old anonymous blog “In Malafide” he harped on like mad about fat and “unattractive” women. The way he wrote and judged others you would’ve thunk he was some Perfect 10 Hot Stud. Then something happened where a photo of his got exposed on the internet and he was this incredibly, I mean INCREDIBLY unattractive dude. That’s when he kind of/sort of ate some humble pie and came out with this real name and identity. But the damage had already been done and cries of “ugly hypocrite” echoed forth throughout the blogosphere. Now he’s back to “fat shaming” other fat people, while remaining fat himself!
Somethings gotta give.
He fat shames so I should be able to fat shame him =/= a valid argument. Please try again.
Yeah, but not
http://manboobz.com/2013/04/27/big-manosphere-reveal-matt-forney-was-ferdinand-bardamu/
our willingness to not use fat and thin and tall and short and other body types as insults because
http://manboobz.com/2013/10/11/oops-roosh-vs-fatshamingweek-rallies-fat-acceptance-activists-makes-fat-shamers-look-like-the-dicks-they-are/
we agree that it isn’t an insult, it’s a body type. It has no bearing on their abhorent views or sad personalities.
http://manboobz.com/2012/10/18/matt-forney-when-we-call-women-fat-sluts-its-because-we-care/
Which remain sad and abhorent, not because of their physical forms, but exactly because they’re terrible ideas expoused by evidently awful people, and whether or whether not they’re fat has no bloody bearing on the monstrous parts of their ranting, angry words.
Also – archieves. Using things already covered and chronicled as a reason for not changing your behaviour when asked to isn’t, you know, nice.
Matt Forney is kind of an annoying guy, totally agree. He might be fat. Don’t care. I know lots of fat people who happen not to be Matt Forney.
@old reader
…That doesn’t make fat-shaming him okay.
I’m waiting for Old Reader to leap out,, waving his cape and twirling his moustache and say “Ahah, it was me, Mr-Al, all along! Bwahahaha!” Tell me I shan’t be disappointed …
There is no difference between a 20 year-old male model and Matt Forney fat shaming humanity on the internet. Their level of personal hypocrisy doesn’t effect the feelings of those insulted and the shitty overall effect on society.
If I found out that Roosh didn’t exist and that Leonardo Dicaprio ran RofK while romancing models on the French Riviera my view that pathetic click-bait cesspool wouldn’t change one bit.
A couple quotes of wisdom for the religion conversation:
“You know you’ve created God in your image when he hates everyone you hate.”
And
“If everyone in church agrees, that’s a bad thing.”
Enjoy!
Sincerely,
A prochoice catholic. 🙂
So let me get this straight, @Diana Adams, you are claiming that:
If I am a christian, I must accept every verse of the Bible as divinely-ordained truth. I cannot remain a christian while applying my analytical brain to the Bible and understanding it as a product of its time & place. I cannot remain a christian and yet understand that the Bible as we know it (and in particular the New Testament) has been assembled by a group of men, hundreds of years ago, deciding what tracts should and should not be included. I cannot be a christian and yet believe that any essential god-given truth has come through the faulty prism of the person writing it down. All true christians must never study and analyse the text – immediately they apply their brains, they cease to be christians.
Nope, apparently, if I do not unquestioningly accept every single word in there as god-given truth, I am not a christian but a believer in some derived and different religion.
By the way, Diana, which version of the bible is it that I have to accept utterly to be a christian? King James? New International? Revised Standard? The Good News?
/headdesk
@Marie, to quote all the misogynistic and male-centric things from the bible alone I’d have to fill in pages.
@Old Reader, interpreting separation during menstruation as female empowerment reminds me of interpreting women restricted to their homes mostly as women’s priviledge. I also wonder have they come up with a new translation of “unclean”.
@argenti, those two things don’t contradict each other.
@Diana
My point was you can’t just say you have to ignore most of what’s in [jnsert religous text] to be a feminist and not back your shit up. You are so fucking tiring. And try actually responding to what people say.
You and me both.
If you want to be a Christian (who are ALL THE RELIGIONS) you can only do it the way Diana Adams says, and then you’re a bad/delusional/weak/iggerant type who has to be corrected and converted to the true truthiness of AtheistFeminism, ©Diana Adams.
Also, Diana Adams, fuck your “only of historical interest” bullshit about people’s beliefs in former times. They were (and still are, being alive in my belief system) real people whose beliefs mattered, and were significant to them. You seem keen to erase anyone not of the Abrahamic faiths.
“And if you decide to follow those writings you will have to accept misogyny as not only your philosophy, but as something divinely legitimized, there is no other way around it”
So, there is no way for say, a Christian to not be a misogynist because the Bible some misogyny in it? Because its nothing but misogyny, from start to end?
But you’re also claiming its possible for people to change or ignore parts of sacred texts that are misogynistic.
First rule of holes is really relevant here.