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.
That he’s collecting samples from all over is awesome. Did you see you can send him samples? I could really get into that.
I hope you enjoy both the new glasses and the trip, Kittehs. 🙂
Did you guys see this lovely bit of misandry: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/shy-male-sues-womens-studies-teacher-for-failing-him-after-he-refused-to-attend-class/
Yes, but there are also those who disagree with this.
Ok, he defintiely needs more UK sand samples.
Oy, that Sam Harris shit is a piece of work. I tried to read his torture piece, and had to give up; facile doesn’t begin to describe it. So I tried to read his “defense” of the controversy. Dishonest doesn’t begin to describe it.
He pulled the same shit the MRM types do; misrepresenting data (and repeating it in a way which makes it look as if he has more than one, “refutational” data point), describing he debate with Bruce Schneier as tedious (Bruce is a lot of things, but I would never call him tedious) and is surprised that people who think the arguments against torture are better than his arguments for it would think he ought to have been convinced.
Since his entire argument hinges on several imponderables, and several non-truths, that he has dug his heels in makes me suspect he doesn’t apply critical thinking to other things he finds emotionally pleasing.
No, I take you at your word and point out the errors. If you don’t mean what you are saying, that’s your problem, not mine.
As neither theist or atheist, I just wanted to share what I’m getting from this ‘debate’.
The major religions: most popular books have lots of misogyny, written by people who were misogynists. Currently have women fighting for their rights as humans.
Atheism: most popular books have smaller amounts of misogyny, written by people who were misogynists. Currently has women fighting for their rights as humans.
But DianaAdams knows all! Only zie gets to say what context is! Only zie can define other people’s beliefs and what’s allowed and what isn’t!
Hey, asshat. You derailed a conversation about movement atheism’s problems with misogyny with all this old, old bullshit about religions you obviously don’t know much about. You’re as blinkered as they come, you’re shifting around from “all religion” to “Abrahamic religion” and showing your arse. Don’t fucking complain to us about context. We’re going from what you wrote. You’re a bigot, simple as that.
@Fibinachi: One of my friends decided he didn’t like 4E sight unseen because he couldn’t make a wizard who was guaranteed to be way more powerful than a fighter at higher levels.
And you know what, I get that you want atheism to be all clean and new and shiny and free from bigotry, unlike the tired, grubby belief systems with their historical problems. But people are still people and they bring their bigotries with them, muddying the water as they go. Deal with it.
That about sums it up, moldybrehd!
titianblue – exactly. People can’t lose their cultural background like that ::snaps fingers::. Indeed the problem with some of the dudebros in the atheist movement is that they don’t want to, or haven’t given it a thought. Religion is bad!!!!1!!!eleventy! But white dudes running everything and being free to sexually assault women at conferences and all the rest of it? That’s nature, man, nothing to do with society or culture, what are you whining about?
Sometimes I wonder if the only argument some of these guys have with religion is that they aren’t getting power or wealth from its institutions. They ignore how it massively reinforces their power and privilege as cis white men, vis a vis everyone who isn’t.
@diana
Damn, misogyny is a central motif in the bible I thought it was about God guess I’ve been doing this whole ‘christian’ thing wrong gotta inform my dad.
Hahahhahaah
hahahhahahahhahahaha
hahahhaahhahahahahahahahah
Seriously? Cuz you’ve done exactly that.
@Auggz
Oh, yeah, I saw that thing earlier :/ Ick.
@diana
Dude, there is a difference between there being a ‘misogyny problem’ in those religions, and them being inheritly misogynistic.
@AK
Yeah. I’ve never read the whole bible (I’ve read a decent amount) but my dad has, and he’s been a subdeacon (formerly) and also isn’t really misogynistic so…somehow I think Diana is full of shit.
Seconding.
@titanblue
Wow, somehow missed the gem on them not changing.
blah. Posting before word press gets hungry and eats my comment.
@kittehs
Inserted by Paul? Or someone else? Sorry, I just don’t understand…
@AK
Omg. ::dies laughing::
::pats Marie on back, hands her glass of water::
Careful! Laughing that hard’ll set off a coughing fit! ::speaks from experience::
😉
Sums it up, really.
Hey, Diana Adams? You were erasing people of the past. You were saying their lives were only of “historical interest”. Apart from anything else, how the fuck do you know their lives aren’t influencing yours? You reckon you’re not shaped by your ancestors? But more to the point, they were PEOPLE. You may think they don’t exist now, but they did and they mattered, and you were trivialising them. So fuck your dismissive shit.
Marie – sorry, yeah, inserted by someone else. Apparently they’re not in the earliest surviving manuscripts.
I meant what I said but in a context.
If that was addressed to me I’m not really such a great advocate of atheism, let alone the atheistic community. The whole argument started when I pointed out that atheism as an idea (a very short and simple one actually) does not contain in itself misogyny, someone pointed out that it does not contain anti-misogyny either wich is also true, but the point is that the misogyny there is caused by the people themselves. Change the people and you change the outcome for example if more women join this community. While in the case of religion to get rid of misogyny that will require a system change.
@kittehs
Huh. I’ve got to study history of the bible some time. Didn’t know that.
…I still am suspicious of Paul.
Oh yeah, me too. I was just interested to read that that particularly nasty bit was some other dude.
Diana, “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”.
– Basically women used to (and still often do if they are able) take a few days rest during that time. This natural behavior later got turned into something else with negative connotations. So religious Feminists just take back and reclaim it as something women can do for themselves if they so choose and if they are able. As far as “unclean” again this is where original text languages and their various interpretations come in. Its to be noted however that men also had their “unclean” situations in which they also were forbidden from doing certain ritualistic activities.
Regarding the ‘shy’ man who decided not to attend the class – I remember at university, when taking the required Ethnic Studies class, I picked Asian American Studies. I was the only non-Asian in the class. Gosh, imagine that! How DID I get through it? Funny bit – during one session, we were asked to share stories our parents had told us about their childhoods. I recounted one of my dad’s stories about helping his parents in the laundry they ran.
Also, I took a yoga class once, and it wound up being forty nine women in leotards and me. I joked to the instructor that it made it easy for me to concentrate on the asanas, as there were no distractions.
LOL good point!
Thanks, kittehs!
steampunked: You can add Hildegarde of Bingen to your list.
As to “moderates” being easy targets, I think the opposite is true. Moderates are a bigger threat to the anti-religious, because they show that caricatures/reactionaries, aren’t the only way to be religious.
Since a well-versed moderate can (and will) defend the non-asshole theology they believe they are able to make being absolutely intolerant to religious people, ipso facto so they must be torn down.
markb: Sort of like attacking everything by Shakespeare because of “Taming of the Shrew”
And I’d say that’s a perfect case of how cultural change has made the parent text less understandable. The opening scene, which frames the main play, shows it to be the dream of a drunk. Taken in context of the rest of Shakespeare’s work it’s hard to argue he was positing that story as any sort of ideal/factual representation of male/female interaction.