Once upon a time, you may recall, women were denied the right to vote, couldn’t own property, were prevented from having careers of their own. Well, it turns out that all of these pesky “restrictions” weren’t really restrictions at all! They were protections that men provided women out of the goodness of their hearts. Men protected women from the terrible burdens of voting and property-owning and so forth, because they just cared about women so much.
Or at least that’s what a lot of Men’s Rights Activists seem to think, judging from this highly edifying discussion in the Men’s Rights subreddit.
![rogersmith25 325 points 1 day ago As I read /r/mensrights[1] more and more, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the primary female privilege is empathy. If a woman or girl is hurt, people care. If women are kidnapped, there is international media attention. If women are killed, their deaths are highlighted. If there is a conflict between a man and a woman, then people will jump in to defend the woman. If women are under-represented in an area, people want to take action to make things "equal". If a man is hurt, it's funny. If men are kidnapped, we hear silence. If men are killed, their deaths are glossed over. If there is a conflict between a man and a woman, people will attack the man. If men are under-represented in an area, the president will call it a "victory" (as he did regarding the female majority in colleges). Basically, people are programmed to have more empathy for women than men. 200 years ago, that empathy manifested itself in keeping women safe from harm by having them stay home to raise the family rather than die on battlefields or toil in mines. It was empathy not misogyny that kept women from having careers. Present-day, work is safe in offices, so today we have campaigns for women to earn more money and yet have more "balanced" lives where they can both raise a family and earn an "equal" career and, in other words, "have it all". permalink save report give gold reply [–]sierranevadamike 82 points 23 hours ago wow... as a history major, I never looked at the "repression" of women throughout history as empathy rather than misogyny. I NEVER considered this option.. blew my mind.. thank you](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/empathy1.png?resize=567%2C594&ssl=1)
It wasn’t just sierranevadamike who was “blown away” by rogersmith25’s comment: the Men’s Rights mods were so impressed that they reposted it and pinned it as the top post in their subreddit.
Apparently every day is “Opposite Day” on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
EDIT: Here, courtesy of Cloudiah, some more pictures of girls and women protected from that big nasty world out there.
IB22:
Umm, why yes, I would much rather have the protection of an abstract system, that I can opt in or out if at will, that my own tax dollars have paid for and representatives I have voted for and whose laws and programs I can protest against than being under the thumb of a domestic dictator, who, if I’m lucky, will be of the “benevolent” type who only prevents me from pursuing a career or education or voting rather than beating or raping me with impunity. Why yes, I would much rather be a full-blown adult citizen than a child-like sub-human object who needs “protection” and to be told what to do because, of course, I as a woman do not have the capacity to do that for myself.
Again, why yes, when one individual attempts to control another individual against the second individual’s will, even if its under the guise if protection, that is fucking abusive. Why do you think that controlling another individual against their will is not abusive? Why do you think that that is an ok thing to do?
And this is why I hate it when people idealize the poor and working class as somehow a purer, more wholesome, idealized, salt-of-the-earth, undifferentiated mass rather than diverse, individual people facing diverse, individual circumstances. One, it puts poor and working class people in a pedestal (and we all know what happens when you put a group or class of people on a pedestal) and two, these are often the same people who are opposed to safety nets and programs benefitting the poor as being somehow degrading to the poor. Because, y’know, the poor and working class are supposed to be those wholesome, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth folks who pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or something.
I’m just laughing at the fact that she attempted to frame the government making it possible for citizens to eat or get medical care as a form of abuse.
I’ll take my chances with the government, it won’t kill me if I try to leave it.
Talk about focusing on the elite while ignoring the issues of the poor…
Reformatting previous comment:
I don’t believe in the inherent benevolence of the state. In any case, men and the state are not the same.
Of course the government is rooted in coercion, but being supplied with necessities and having one’s own person controlled by a man under the guise of “protection” ARE NOT THE FUCKING SAME.
I like to think of unemployment insurance, medicaid, food stamps and the like as an insurance policy I hope I will never have to use – and medicare and social security as benefits I am paying into as I go and hope to use someday.
While we are working, we all pay our taxes for the various services our government does, and we hope we don’t need those services, just like I have car, flood and homeowners’ insurance and pay into my employer’s health insurance, and I hope I never have to use any of those: I don’t want to crash my car, deal with a flood or other disaster in my home or have surgery. However, I cannot predict that those things won’t happen, so I give a portion of my salary as a hedge in case they do.
I’m not upset because someone’s home had a fire and now they are using “my money” (because we have policies with the same insurance company) to repair the damage.
Even if children are the ones receiving govt. benefits, they have parents and grandparents who have paid into the system. Most recipients of food stamps are the working poor who pay payroll taxes. Unless you are a fraudster, you can’t get UI unless you’ve worked.
As for the elderly receiving medicare and social security, these are people who paid into the system themselves and should be able to retire in dignity.
Things like medicare and food stamps are there if people need them, but nobody has to use them if they don’t need to or don’t want to. They’re options. The fact that they exist doesn’t stop women who want to get married and submit to their husbands from doing so.
Again, insanitybytes, why don’t you want women to have options just because you wouldn’t choose those options for yourself?
It’s rather telling that IB22 isn’t engaging with any of the actual responses zie’s getting.
I mean, I don’t even think the government is a good thing. I think we would be better off with a safety net that is a non-beauracratic feature of a classless society. But until or unless capitalism is abolished, I’ll be happy to benefit from my health insurance, and I’ll be applying for food stamps as well. Abusive men who want to “protect” me, on the other hand, are people I want out of my life long before the advent of communism. I’m not going to reject various forms of financial aid out of some ridiculous commitment to anti-capitalist ethics, and I’m not going to ask anyone else to do the same, either.
If anyone wants to be a demure housewife because they want to, they should go for it! I know a few of them, and they are wonderful ladies.
But… I would make a crummy housewife. Seriously. This morning I put soap instead of detergent in the dishwasher.
Mistake!!!!
Unless you want the world buried in bubbles, forcing me to be a housewife would be a very bad plan.
I’m going to keep asking her the same question if she keeps popping back in. Pretty sure she knows that attempting to answer it would only make her look worse, though.
blalistic: Very wise.
Bina: And as a Canadian, I’m happy to have helped pay for it. Likewise, thank you for helping my brother with his treatments, and me with my stupid 2nd degree grease burns. 🙂
cassandrakitty: I think the answer is going to be the old standby: “My money is worth more than your life.”
I made the dishwasher overflow with suds once too! I was about 14 and had taken it into my head that since I was eating in the middle of the night I should clean up immediately. Mom came downstairs to find me frantically running around trying to mop up all the suds with towels.
That doesn’t sound so bad… XD
Random less irritating thing – my cat finally discovered the kitchen sink yesterday. She was most alarmed by my pouring a half-finished drink down it, and has now decided that it’s the enemy.
“Mom! Lawrence Welk is invading the kitchen!”
Random, but my dishwasher is one of my bet friends.
I’d like to know why IB22 thinks that forcing someone to do something against their will isn’t abusive. Apparently this whole discussiob prompted her to write a new bl>Surprise, surprise, she has no idea what the term “benevolent sexism” refers to.
Aw, is she looking for some pats on the head from the misters? Yes she is!
Yoiks! Hit the post button too soon by mistake. that last garbled paragraph should read:
I’d like to know why IB22 thinks that forcing someone to do something against their will isn’t abusive. Apparently this whole discussion prompted her to write a new blog entry. Surprise, surprise, she has no idea what the term “benevolent sexism” refers to.
Again she ignores all the dangerous jobs women have worked, also to support families. Plus all the dangerous jobs children have worked to help support their families.
You can’t expect her to look things like that up. Google is a tool of the gynocratic matriarchal dystopia.
AllyS: I mean, I don’t even think the government is a good thing. I think we would be better off with a safety net that is a non-beauracratic feature of a classless society.
I think you’re fooling yourself. If you can come up with an organisation for delivering services that has these features, but is better than a bureaucracy, please enlighten us:
– impartial
– persistent (that is, perpetuating itself and its mission over time)
– non-individualistic (that is, not relying on any particular individual)
Yes, bureaucracy has its flaws, which we all know. But for what it does – which is a large part of what government is actually good for – its like Winston Churchill’s defence of democracy – better than any alternative.
contrapangloss,
Housewife? Yep. That’s me. Demure? Bwahahahahhaaaaa!
Nope.
If that makes someone else happy, more power to them. It will never be something I aspire to be.
BTW, demure is a gendered term. Only women are expected to be demure.
demure
adjective
(of a woman or her behavior) reserved, modest, and shy.
“a demure little wife who sits at home minding the house”
synonyms: modest, unassuming, meek, mild, reserved, retiring, quiet, shy, bashful, diffident, reticent, timid, shrinking, coy; More
Pay attention to how much this feminine ideal has to do with serving without pride or even speaking. It is a word that describes women as little more than furniture that does domestic service without expectation of reward, attention or pride of any kind. Selflessness is often presented as an ideal to the oppressed. Just as it was said earlier of the poor who are expected to be above things like rest, leisure and any sort of resentment or even pleasure, so are women and other minorities expected to toil silently with no expectation of reward. This is presented as being noble, but it is an expectation meant to keep certain people voicelessly in servitude. How often are people of color or LGBTQ people expected to overlook every slight and be charitable? someone wasn’t a ragin asshole to you? Give them all the cookies! How often are minorities admonished to be more charitable? The answer is: consonantly. Look at Ferguson. The police are murdering your kids? Well, don’t get angry about it. White men with assault rifles and over 200 rounds of ammo are pointing their weapons at you while you protest? Be grateful they aren’t pulling those triggers. Protest quietly. Don’t upset any white people or they will fucking tear gas your home and shoot you dead from a tank for daring to be angry and the majority of other white asshole will call it justice.
Fuck all of that noise.
Be loud. Be outrageous. Be proud. Expect better. Let them know they cannot make you invisible.
Sparky,
Darn it! I actually like the writing style. It’s a little Dillardesque. But the content is bah and bad logic and no citations for “Biotruths” and mrrrrrrrrrr….
Also, I really hate the vibe that “The lady must have been mentally ill or over-reacting since she didn’t have to worry about being shanghaied and getting scurvy”