Categories
antifeminism apex fallacy citation needed entitled babies gender swap grandiosity homophobia imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression kitties mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy patronizing as heck pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles pig ignorance playing the victim reddit that's completely wrong TyphonBlue

In MRA-land, women have never been oppressed, but men have been "disenfranchised" by having power over them

Somehow, we doubt that MRAs would appreciate this kind of "protection" for themselves.
Somehow, we doubt that MRAs would appreciate this kind of “protection” for themselves and their fellow men.

One classic bad argument against feminism is the disingenuous claim that “we don’t need it any more.” In the bad old days, proponents of this argument would concede, women may have faced some pesky little obstacles, but now that they can vote, and own property, and briefly work as the executive editor of The New York Times, there’s just no need for feminism any more. Problem solved!

But these days the great minds of the Men’s Rights movement have moved beyond this bad argument to a worse one: feminism was never really necessary in the first place, because women have never been oppressed.

The other day a Redditor by the name of cefarix earned himself a couple of dozen upvotes by posting a version of this argument to the Men’s Rights Subreddit.

I often see feminists make the claim that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. What evidence is there to back up this claim?

Personally, I don’t think this could be the case. Men and women are both integral parts of human society, and the social bonds between close relatives of either gender are stronger than bonds with members of the same gender but unrelated. So it seems to me the idea that men would oppress their own close female relatives and women would just roll over and accept this oppression from their fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, etc, for thousands of years across all/most cultures across all of humanity – and not have that society disintegrate over the course of a couple generations – is ridiculous.

This is so packed with such sheer and obvious wrongness that it’s tempting to just point and laugh and move on. But I’ve seen variations on this argument presented seriously by assorted MRAs again and again so I think it’s worth dealing with in some detail.

Before we even get to the facts of the case, let’s deal with the form of his argument: He’s arguing that history cannot have happened the way feminists say it happened because he doesn’t think that could be the case.

Trouble is, you can’t simply decide what did or did not happen in history based on what makes sense to you. History is history. It’s not a thread on Reddit. You can’t downvote historical facts out of existence the way, say, Men’s Rights Redditors downvote those pointing out facts they don’t like.

Cefarix follows this with an assertion that’s become rather common amongst MRAs: men can’t have oppressed women because no man is going to oppress his wife or his daughter or his mother, and besides, they wouldn’t have put up with it and it wouldn’t have worked anyway.

It seems to me that if the core of your argument is the notion that men would never harm members of their own family then you’ve pretty much lost the argument before it’s even begun. Husbands batter wives, fathers abuse children, boyfriends rape their girlfriends, and so on and so on; all this is not only possible, but it happens quite regularly. And only quite recently, historically speaking, has any of this been regarded as a serious social problem worthy of public discussion.

And so the idea that men might “oppress their own close female relatives” is hardly beyond the pale.

Of course. history isn’t about what could have happened; it’s about what did happen. But the evidence that the oppression of women did happen — and is still happening — is everywhere. Indeed, it takes a certain willful blindness not to see it.

History, of course, is a complicated thing, and the ways in which women have been oppressed have been many and varied over the years. Nor, of course, has the oppression of women been the only form of oppression in history, which is not only, as Marx would have it, a story of “class warfare” but also of ethnic warfare, racial oppression, and many other forms of oppression, some of which are only now beginning to be fully understood.

So if cefarix is genuinely interested in evidence, let me make some suggestions for places to start.

For a history of patriarchy that looks in detail at how it developed, whose interests it served, and the various complicated ways it was intertwined with class and other oppressions, a good place to start would be Gerda Lerner’s classic The Creation of Patriarchy, and her followup volume The Creation of Feminist Consciousness. Here’s an interview in which she goes over some of the points she makes in these books.

To understand some of the hatred of women that has been baked into Western culture from the beginning, I’d suggest taking a look at Jack Holland’s highly readable Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice. Meanwhile, David D. Gilmore’s Misogyny: The Male Malady offers an anthropological take on the same subject.

Alas, after going through his commenting history, I’m not sure that cefarix will be open to changing his mind on any of this, given how wedded he seems to be to a number of other rather appalling opinions — like his contention that homosexuality is a “disease” and his belief that “the whole age of consent thing is a modern Western aberration from what is considered normal for our species.”

Of course, if you look at the discussion inspired by cefarix’ post on Reddit, you’ll see that most of the Men’s Rights Redditors posting there don’t seem much interested in looking at facts that challenge their beliefs either. Most of those dissenters who pointed out the various ways women have been oppressed throughout history found their comments downvoted and dismissed.

Consider this amazing exchange — and notice which of the two comments is the one with net downvotes.

Little_maroon_alien -2 points 1 day ago* (1|3)  Women weren't allowed to own property or request divorces in most countries until the last 80 years. That is pretty oppressive. China didn't allow divorce or land ownership until the 1950s. Women in the U.S. only got to start owning property in the mid to late 1800s if their husband was temporarily unavailable (they couldn't "control it" though). Women coulldn't request a divorce in Great Britain until 1857, two years before women were allowed to teach in Denmark (wayy before Austria allowed it) or attend college in Russia (but not Sweden, Japan, Brazil, France, the Netherlands, etc) and 10 years before New Zealand women could own property in their name.  In 1865 Italy allowed married women to become the legal guardian of her children and their property if abandoned by her husband. How progressive!  How is this not both oppressive and possible? It was very widespread for a very long time.      permalink     save     parent     give gold  [–]tactsweater 1 point 1 day ago (2|1)  Are cats oppressed? They can't own property, or decide who they get to live with.  None of what you're describing is oppression. Sorry.  Throughout most of human history, we had a couple of hard truths that needed to be faced. The strength of a society is largely based on its population, and women can increase that population, while men can't. This meant that if a society needs to lose one or the other, they're going to send the man off to die nearly every time.  Another hard truth throughout most of human history is that overt power makes you a target. Leadership meant assassination attempts. Property ownership meant you had something to lose. Since the cost to society was greater if a woman died, men were forced into taking those roles just as much as women were forced out of them.  Maximum protection comes with a cost of freedom, and that doesn't at all imply oppression.

That last bit, about men being “forced” into having power, is quite something. But I’m still stuck on the whole cat thing. I mean, I like cats and all, but cats are not people, and it really wouldn’t be appropriate for me to lock a woman in my apartment, feed her on the floor out of a can, and make her poop in a box, even though my cats seem quite content with this arrangement for themselves.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of the comments that won upvotes.

Someone named goodfoobar suggesting that men have always been the slaves of women, because women live longer:

goodfoobar 3 points 1 day ago (3|0)  A woman made the claim of thousands of years of slavery to me a few months ago. Did not have a good response at the time. I have a response today.  Slave masters have a better quality of life than slaves. Life expectancy is a good measure for quality of life. Over most of history the average female life expectancy is longer (historical exception during child bearing years) than the average male life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Gender_differences[1]

And our old friend TyphonBlue. who turns not only history but logic itself on its head by arguing that men are “disenfranchised” by … having power over women.

typhonblue 5 points 1 day ago (5|0)  When you expect a group of people to be in a position of power because of human psychology (look up moral typecasting) you remove their ability to command compassion from others.  The expectation that men assume leadership positions was, in itself, disenfranchisement of men.  When we put a crown on a man's head we no longer care as much if his head gets cut off.

Yep. The most badly oppressed creatures in history are the ones wearing crowns on their heads.

I’m really not quite sure how Typhon manages to avoid injuring herself with all of her twists of logic.

289 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michelle C Young
10 years ago

Ouch. I think I sprained my poor lady brain reading that stuff.

Logic – they’re doing it wrong.

I can’t wrap my head around the idea of stalking hookers and murdering them, therefore Jack the Ripper could not have existed, because it just wouldn’t work. Besides, if someone attacked me in an alleyway, I’d fight back. And, as we all know, fighting back NATURALLY means you win. Because no one ever loses a fight, if they’re the one being attacked. Only attackers lose fights, when their “victims” decide to actually fight back.

Once upon a time, in England, men were actually taught that they OUGHT to beat their wives once a month. With a stick. The circumference of the man’s thumb. Don’t marry the blacksmith, ladies! He’ll have a bigger stick!

Oh, but that’s not oppression. Because women are cats.

Argh. I’m off. I just can’t do this tonight.

katz
10 years ago

Speaking of books, I’m on a bit of a historical fiction kick at the moment. Does anyone have any recommendations?

Do you like reading drafts? ¬.¬

Just kidding, here is a real book.

http://www.amazon.com/Code-Talker-Novel-Navajo-Marines/dp/0142405965/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400294608&sr=8-1

katz
10 years ago

Once upon a time, in England, men were actually taught that they OUGHT to beat their wives once a month. With a stick. The circumference of the man’s thumb. Don’t marry the blacksmith, ladies! He’ll have a bigger stick!

Happily, that’s an urban legend.

cloudiah
10 years ago

Oh Flannery O’Connor is awesome.

Also I just wanted to share this:

cloudiah
10 years ago

@katz, Do you need (untrained/unqualified) readers? I’m as untrained/unqualified as they come!

kittehserf
10 years ago

Charcoal and his bucket are awesome. Take that, cone of shame!

cloudiah
10 years ago

What about baby owls?

(As an unrelated aside, I can smell the smoke of all the S California wildfires, even though I’m not particularly near any of them. And my eyes definitely feel their effect. I fear that the next few decades are not going to be kind to my geographic area. Perhaps I should make like hellkell and move to Seattle!)

Tracy
Tracy
10 years ago

Historical fiction! (not the kind that MRA Redditors engage in – the good kind)

Really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl

Loved loved loved Pillars of the Earth

I get so many good book recommendations here, My GoodReads cup is overflowing. Especially appreciate the fantasy recs, since it isn’t a genre I’m familiar with but one I want to explore (and have no clue where to start).

@Kittehserf – ever read Dewey? True story about a library cat. Very good. Side effects include tears. My aunt just lent me Homer’s Odyssey – I do lurv me a good kitty story. Haven’t started it yet.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
10 years ago

Just don’t move to the other side of the Cascades. I’ve been living in Eastern Washington most of the last five years, and in the summer we get smoke from Idaho fires. My workplace seems to concentrate it, which destroys my throat. I never had that trouble in the Portland area.

cloudiah
10 years ago

@wordsp1nner, My father hailed from the Idaho panhandle–the area covered in The Big Burn. Perhaps I am fated to live in lands where fire reigns supreme.

katz
10 years ago

@katz, Do you need (untrained/unqualified) readers? I’m as untrained/unqualified as they come!

If you are interested. I’m almost done with the self-indulgent fourth draft.

weirwoodtreehugger
10 years ago

For historical fiction I liked The Virgin Blue by Tracy Chevalier

Claudia,
You should come up to Minnesota. We don’t get many fires (just in the northern forests occasionally) and there’s lots of fresh water. It is unfortunately a bit cold, but hey, water.

kamilla1960
kamilla1960
10 years ago

Jack Holland’s little book is excellent.

Zolnier
Zolnier
10 years ago

I’ve actually read the story today’s post’s image comes from. As you may expect the guy in the short shorts does enter the Space Academy, proves himself superior with his rugged self control or whatever and all the women in the world quit their jobs. Seriously, all of them. Because one guy did his job well.

As punishment the writer was reincarnated as a Gargarean.

kittehserf
10 years ago

@Tracy – ooh yes, I have Dewey on my shelf!

Definitely a side-effects-include-tears book.

Did you ever read The Cat Who Came for Christmas or The Cat Who Went to Paris? (They’re not connected – different cats, different authors.) Not teary books, the kitties involved were both alive when they were written.

parodoxy
10 years ago

This is all fantastic, but the icing on the cake for me is the cat thing. Surely, it doesn’t take more than a few brain cells to realise that any time you compare a human being to another fucking species, that’s basically the definition of dehumanisation. I cannot even brain how stupid this is.

kittehserf
10 years ago

If dudebro was acknowledging that cats rule the world through their sekrit Furrinati powers, I could understand it … but as it is, nope, nope, nope all the way.

katz
10 years ago

I had a similar conversation about Doctor Who once.

Them: I’m not sexist just because I don’t want a woman to play the Doctor! I don’t want a dog to play the Doctor either, does that mean I hate dogs?

Me: …Dude, if you want to prove you’re not sexist, comparing women to dogs may not be the way to go.

Them: ARGLEBARGLE IT’S AN ANALOGY

mildlymagnificent
10 years ago

One recommendation for historical fiction. Martin Cruz Smith. The Indians Won

Not because it’s especially well written or researched, I’m not all that struck with the writing. But it’s fabulous food for thought. The way the lands are divided and the treaties and negotiations are conducted keep you thinking – weeell, perhaps they could have done it this way or another or some other way entirely. But the whole concept of two modern Americas dealing with each other as equal and powerful entities is entirely absorbing.

titianblue
titianblue
10 years ago

The Bear is the black cat, by the way. If you’re on twitter, see @MySadCat.

titianblue
titianblue
10 years ago

Not been reading much historical fiction but if you like atmospheric murder mysteries with strong female characters, I recommend Ann Cleeve’s Shetland series. Although the main detective is nominally male, he is surrounded by interesting women and there is a father/daughter theme running through the books. Because the Shetlands are isolated, scientific evidence is minimal and solving the murder/murders involves understanding the people involved so much more satisfying than a basic police procedural.

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
10 years ago

Margaret Atwood’s Madd Addam trilogy (Oryx and Crake, The Year of the Flood, and Madd Addam) is some of the best sci-fi I’ve read recently. A we’re-all-fucked dystopia that’s disturbingly plausible.
I particularly liked the God’s Gardeners from the second book. I’m pretty non-religious, but I’d totally join up with a cult that bestowed sainthood on Dianne Fosse, Carl Linnaeus and Rachel Carson. They also have a feast day celebrating intestinal parasites!

katz
10 years ago

We read Oryx and Crake in my sci-fi class in college and we decided it was our favorite depiction of a mad scientist.