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.
@diana
I’m sorry, I read this thread and I thought I got through all the comments, but I somehow missed the one where you explained where the hell you got off telling people about how their beliefs are incorrect. Can someone post a link orrrr…? Because I’m super curious about where Ms. Omniscient here got her status as Sole Arbiter of Correct Belief Systems.
Let me rephrase that as Sole Arbiter of Correctly Applied Belief Systems
Yeah and I also said ages ago that this is the equivalent of created almost an entirely new faith.
As for misogyny in the bible yeah it’s a pretty central motif.
1) if you ignore bits you’re creating a new religion
2) you can be Christian and feminist by ignoring certain parts
Um…no? Since you’d no longer be Christian if you ignored parts then you can’t be Christian and a feminist.
Yeah and I also said ages ago that this is the equivalent of created almost an entirely new faith.
So Fucking What? You think Judaism never evolved? You think Islam’s a monolith? You think Christianity wasn’t a whole new religion itself? You think the various denominations don’t exist?
You’re living down to every damn AsshatAtheist cliche here. This sort of shit’s the reason a lot of atheists want nothing to do with movement atheism – not just the rampant misogyny but the other bigotries.
Seconding Molly Moon:
So are you seriously saying that misogyny is so inherent in religion that the only way for a religious person to not be a misogynist is to create their own religion? And that there’s no way to be both Christian and feminist, or Muim and feminist, or Jewish and feminist?
If they are still alive today then they are not former, that was my reply to you about past religions. I’m certainly not keen to erase anyone not of Abrahamic faiths.
“Muim” should be “Muslim.”
Where did the “s” and “l” run away to?
So does this mean
1) all the manboobzers who are members of Abrahamic religions are No True Feminists
or
2) those manboobzers are feminists, but aren’t really Christian/Jewish/Muslim, they’ve made up their own religions?
Either way, head, arse, implanted.
I like Muim. It’s sort of like a kitty sound. Maybe Ceiling Cat’s devotees are Muims?
Yes, I’m pretty serious that those religions have a misogyny problem. As for the existence of those combinations I already answered, an individual person could chose to ignore most of what’s written and create their own version of it, but the original texts don’t change nor they lose any divine legitimacy, at least not yet.
We are now starting to go in circles repeating ourselves.
Wow, you learn something new every day. Apparently I have never read the Bible because if I did I’d be unable to believe and yet not be a misogynist. Thanks, random commenter, for showing me the light because gee whiz I sure never bothered to learn anything about my faith before!
Seriously, Diana, your ignorance is showing. Might want to see to that.
You do realize that not every Christian denomination believes that every word of the Bible was divinely inspired, right? “Inspired by God, interpreted by man,” is a pretty common belief. Men, including those who wrote and interpreted the Bible, are fallible.
Just saw that today is Trayvon Martin’s birthday too… man this boxing match is ratings sickness at its worst.
Diana: The problem is, you’re working backwards.
Every Christian is a ‘cafeteria Christian’–this was originally a point made by atheists about fundamentalists who wanted to use the term as a slur against liberal Christians. We point out, accurately I think, that consistent belief in all of the Bible’s teachings and passages is, in fact, impossible. Everyone who goes by the title Christian has picked and chosen (or accepted the teachings of a church that has done so for them).
So then turning around and trying to use it, ourselves, against those same liberal Christians, is just… dumb. It makes no sense.
Now, if someone is claiming to be the sole arbiter of which bits are literal truth, which bits are allegory, which are social mores and which bits are pure myth, THEN you get to pounce on them, asking for the Secret Decoder Ring. (Ken Ham practically did exactly this in his recent debate with Bill Nye, and Nye fed it back to him.) But often liberal Christians say that they use the Bible the way they use, say, the writings of C.S. Lewis, with special attention paid to the bits actually attributed to J.C. (I’ve heard such individuals called “red text Christians” because they pay the most attention to the direct quotes of Christ in the Gospels, which are printed in red in some editions.)–that is, as a guide book and source of inspiration and thought, but not necessarily divinely inspired by the direct hand of God. In which case, your position is absurd and insulting, never an attractive combo.
I have another little gem:
“Religion without mystery equals extremism.”
You do not have to believe, accept, or even know everything, to be part of a faith. Religion is about community, faith, helping others, mystery, the unknown and the unknowable. At least to me it is.
Jayzuz H. Schrodinger, you aren’t reading a single fucking thing we’ve written, are you, Diana Adams? How many excavators have you brought on this mining operation? You’ll be hitting magma soon.
::waves:: Hey, AK! How ya been? 🙂
@Diana Adams, for a supposedly clearheaded and intellectually clever person, you are lacking in both reading comprehension and the understanding of the assumptions you are making.
No shit, sherlock! And if you had actually read anyone else’s comments and condescended to take in what they had written, you’d have seen that most of us agreed that the religions you were talking about had a “misogyny problem”.
The original texts don’t change? Really? In the thousands of years and multiple languages, they don’t chage? CITATION needed ‘cos I think they fucking well do!
And disagreeing with any single part of a (long, complicated and historical) txt means that the orignal texts lose ANY divine legitimacy? Citation needed.
Not “we”. You’re the one repeating yourself endlessly in disregard of everyone else.
Beautiful, Nitram. Putting everything in hard-and-fast boxes … it’s not attractive whoever’s doing it, fundamentalists or asshat anti-theists.
::snrk:: Because no scholars have ever pointed out that things like the “women are to STFU in church” bits in Paul are later insertions (aka forgeries). Nope, never happened ever.
Hi, Kittehs! (and everyone else!) Been all kinds of busy but in a good way. 🙂 How’s life with you?
Good! I’m visiting the States in May and getting new glasses in a week. In other words, skint but happy! 😛
Diana, we’re going in circles because you keep contradicting yourself:
Right here, you’re doing it all in one sentence. “An individual person could choose to ignore most of what’s written and create their own version of it” but this is “…the equivalent of created almost an entirely new faith.” So, essentially you’re saying that it is impossible to be Jewish, Muslim or Christian and also be feminist. Because, in order to avoid/get rid of the misogyny, this requires ignoring or reinterpreting certain parts of the text. And when you do that, you’re essentially making up a new religion. “…the original texts don’t change.” Nor, it seems, can they be read as anything other than literally.
And I’m still not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here.
Who actually teaches that the bible is entirely divinely created anyways? Revelations, f’ex, is dude’s dream and almost certainly an allegory for the roman republic. And the Old Testament doesn’t necessarily even apply to Christians, Christ creating a new covent and all that. And plenty of the New Testament is made up of letters written to a specific community, or *gasp* people retelling things Jesus did from their perspective!
*is not discussing the Quran because ze is unfamiliar with the details*
Diana Adams is doing what gets me grinding my teeth so often – taking the worst USian fundamentalist attitudes and literalism and talking as if it’s that or atheism, because there’s no other legitimate way to be Christian. It’s woefully ignorant and panders to those very extremists, privileging their view while decrying it. Never mind that they’re a freaking recent phenomenon, never mind that this bullshit ignores all the nuance and variation just in Protestantism, never mind Christianity as a whole, never mind the Abrahamic religions as a whole, never mind all the other faiths that don’t matter because
Diana Adams knows jack shit about themthey’re not significant … fuck this is textbook stuff.