I don’t often write about Alison Tieman – the eccentric FeMRA videoblogger known better as Typhon Blue – in large part because, well, have you ever watched one of her videos? Her arguments and assertions bear so little relation to what the rest of us know as reality it’s as if she lives in some weird inverted world of her own making.
It’s rather difficult to address the arguments of someone when virtually everything she says is wrong – logically, historically, morally – in some fundamental way.
But I’m going to have a go at her latest video anyway, because, well, it’s only 4 minutes long, which will make unpacking its fractal wrongness a little less of a daunting task. Also, there’s a kitty in it.
In the video, Tieman, in the guise of “Professor Hamster,” makes the startling claim that Women’s Suffrage was “Feminism’s first act of female supremacy.”
How, you might wonder, does equality at the ballot box count as “female supremacy?”
Well, according to Tieman – one of A Voice for Men’s self-proclaimed Honey Badgers – it’s because women (at least in the US) don’t have to register for the draft.
This is an old argument of hers, based on the strange belief that voting rights for men in the United States are contingent on them signing up for selective service, something that’s not, you know, true. She seems to be confusing the United States with the fictional universe of Starship Troopers, in which “Service Guarantees Citizenship.”
In any case, because suffragettes didn’t demand to be drafted when they demanded the vote their demand, Tieman concludes that they weren’t seeking equality but supremacy.
Never mind that at the time the notion of women being drafted would have struck the general public as absurd.
Never mind that when draft registration was being considered for reinstatement in 1981, the National Organization for Women sued to have registration expanded to women as well, because not requiring women to register would relegate them “to second-class citizenship by exclusion from a fundamental obligation of citizenship,” as the New York Times summarized their position.
Ultimately, over NOW’s objections, the Supreme Court ruled that registration could be restricted to men only. The all-male Supreme Court; the court didn’t get its first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, until later that year.
For all of the hullabaloo, the requirement that men register for the draft is an essentially meaningless “obligation.” The draft is a dead issue in the US, about as likely to be revived as Jarts.
Tieman goes on to note that “female suffrage enabled women to vote for wars that only men had to fight in.” In fact, as anyone who’s paid any attention to real world politics knows well, women are consistently less likely than men to support war.
Tieman’s arguments about women’s suffrage are just bizarre. It’s when she starts talking about the civil rights movement that she moves beyond bizarre to offensive.
Throughout the video, she contrasts what she sees as the good and humble civil rights movement with the “privileged” and “entitled” suffragettes; it’s a strange and backwards argument, at odds with historical reality, and one that insults not only the suffragettes but our greatest civil rights heroes as well. “During the civil rights movement,” she proclaims,
black moderates believed that black people needed to EARN their civil rights. Extremists at the time believed that blacks people should receive their rights by virtue of being human beings. …
Minorities felt they had to earn their rights and often had to make enormous sacrifices in war prior to even having their requests for rights considered reasonable. Women felt they were simply owed. …
Minorities approached suffrage from the usual mentality of people who are actually oppressed: We have to earn everything, including citizenship rights. Whereas women approached the issue of suffrage from a mentality of privilege and entitlement: We are owed our rights.
Where even to start with this jumble of wrongness?
Let’s start with her most basic misapprehension, that human rights are something that have to be earned. In fact, the basic premise of human rights is that we have certain rights because we are human beings. This isn’t entitlement or extremism; it is the fundamental basis of democracy.
You would think that someone who calls herself a Men’s Human Rights Activist would have a better understanding of the rudiments of human rights.
In the Declaration of Independence, you may recall, Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed “that all men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” He didn’t say they had to earn these rights; he said that they were born with them.
Granted, it took quite some time before this sentiment applied not only to white men but also to women and African-Americans, but this had nothing to do with anyone “earning” rights; it had to do with the fact that some human beings were seen as more human than others.
When Martin Luther King made his case for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s, he harked back explicitly to Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence. In his most famous speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington in 1963, he declared
In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. …
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
This was not the first time he had made this argument. In a 1957 speech also delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he declared that
The denial of this sacred right [to vote] is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic traditions and its is democracy turned upside down.
So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.
It’s our humanity, not a signature on a selective service registration form, that entitles all of us to the right to vote.
If the Men’s Rights Movement wants to campaign to end selective service registration, go for it. Just don’t pretend that this has anything to do with the right to vote. Or that demanding basic human rights is a sign of “entitlement,” much less “female supremacy.”
Also, maybe lose the stupid hat?
Below, a song that kept popping into my head as I tried to make sense of Tieman’s most peculiar views. Well, the chorus anyway; the rest of the lyrics don’t really fit.
You know when someone believes this idea that one has to earn the right to decent treatment and respect, that tells me they have very little self worth. I used to be baffled by the idea that I “deserved better.” Why did I deserve better? What did I do to deserve respect? I learned through lots of work on myself that I deserve respect because I am a person and all people deserve respect.
And how come men never had to earn the right to vote? Oh I guess it’s because they hunted the mammoth and invented everything and science /sarcasm.
That cat is trippy. Is she purposely trying to hypnotize people with it so they will believe her?
Actually, the original women against suffrage had a slightly more intelligent argument for why this would lead to female supremacy. They called it “petticoat rule”. Somehow, they felt that women would sooner or later be the reason most people got voted into office (as if their numbers would swell, and there would be more women than men, hence more votes…I admit I don’t get the logic there either). This would lead to the end of the USA because other countries would have no respect for our country anymore (they let their women vote over there, let’s attack them – no kidding). Indeed, women would only vote people into office who were not only against war, but would not defend the country if attacked. Hence, the end of the American Way of Life.
Illogical and false, yes. Yet, an argument that was thought out with far more effort than this dear old hamster lady put into her own argument.
And it shows how the anti-feminist movement has changed over the years into something even more negative. Now, women are hungry for war, eager to send men overseas to get killed. Or at best, they just don’t care about anyone but themselves.
There is no argument today’s antifems ever make against feminism that does not point to women being morally reprehensible. Wonder how they can stand to call themselves women. I feel it’s kind of a stretch myself, actually.
Nothing she says is based in reality. She really appears to think that men weren’t smart to elevate women to the point of supremacists by allowing them to vote and by the same token men aren’t smart enough to fix their own problems either. I think she is just seeking male attention. I guess when you aren’t blessed with looks or intelligence, you just have to resort to pandering.
Let’s start with her most basic misapprehension, that human rights are something that have to be earned Your article is so wrongheaded, so full of intentional misconstruals, rhetorical falsehoods, and wanton nonsense that I fired a spitball at my monitor and sure enough hit the quoted bit of nonsense (and weak attempt at character assassination). Alison of course is merely describing history, and for the sake of the video makes no claim regarding the how rights are achieved.
.
I’ll grant that in this particular case you seem not to know better, but really. Show a little intellectual integrity next time. Oh, and your foolish pretense that Alison doesn’t know exactly what she’s doing when she toys with your ilk as “Professor Hamster”? Just stop with the cheap rhetorical stunts, David. It’s no better than for the sake of smearing them you pretended a comedian’s imitation of Nixon was a schizophrenic break. It’ll take some work, but do aim to get your integrity back. It’s not impossible. Cheers.
Is there a school you guys go to to learn how to write sneering, content-free drivel? How many boxtops do you have to send in to earn your “degree?”
Jack’s post gave me a headache.
“Alison of course is merely describing history…”
Umm, what? Books will prove you wrong.
Also, you’re on a first name basis with the no-nothing in the OP? Or are you, in fact — Alison! Da da duuuuummm!
Well hello, blockquote mammoth, it’s been awhile.
…. Why would you spit at your own monitor?
@Jack Strawb
Not so fast, bucko.
She’s holding women up against how she thinks “real” oppressed people should behave, which is – wait for it – a value judgement. It’s also a claim – that the suffragette movement worked in a different way from the Civil Rights movement, a claim that can be easily shown false.
Reading the comments, I was surprised by the complete lack of respect being given to this woman based on the ‘what we all know is right’ argument. In science, it is often those that think differently without the same educational indoctrination that make the biggest steps forward. So cries for her credentials that entitle her to an opinion are ridiculous unless you only want to hear the opinion you already hold. I was also introduced to the word, ‘manosphere’ along with complaints that women are treated poorly by this alleged system. The simple truth is far harsher: humans are barely out of their primate phase and treat each other awfully in general. Power and holding it over others is our primary concern as a species — and the comments support this more often than not if you think about it. I don’t understand what feminism has to do with being female or why this entire argument seems to focus on genitals (as fascinating as they are <3 ). But consider this: around 30-40% of people bother to vote…perhaps in part due to not having had to do anything to earn it. Maybe if contribution was tied to citizenship it would be good a thing instead of a self-centred, entitled society where everyone looks out only for themselves and their immediate peer group.
Then again, the whole purpose of this website seems to be to mock others for their opinions –so perhaps I am expecting far too much from its populace.
thebeam2008: Are you seriously arguing that Tieman has a point, that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and that minorities and women need to “earn” their basic human rights? Couple of questions: Who, exactly, “grants” minorities and women the basic human rights that they have to “earn?” Cis, het, white men? Why are cis, het, white men the only people who automatically get basic human rights and don’t have to “earn” them?
Of course. Because the biggest contributions to any given field are always made by people who have absolutely no education or background in that field. Yes, this happens all the time. That’s why, whenever I need surgery, I make sure to find someone who isn’t a surgeon and has no medical background to perform the procedure; and whenever my car needs repaired I hire someone who can’t tell an automobile engine from a nuclear reactor. Yes, that is how the world works.
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
o_O. I’m beginning to suspect you’re not very bright.
Of course, @thebeam2008 would think TB’s gibberish perfectly reasonable. As a white male, he gets the right to vote and his human rights automatically. Why should he give a damn about all those “others” ?*
*because that’s the minimum for being a decent human being.
Seems to be? Did trolly not read the subheading of the page title?
The whole purpose of this site doesn’t ‘seem’ to mock misogyny. It actively does mock misogyny. Sheesh.
I give this troll a 1/10 for trolly-ness.
LOL! That might be my favorite line since directly on the beach.
I don’t understand what feminism has to do with being female, and yet I am also appalled by the fact that people aren’t assuming this woman’s opinions are valuable just because she’s a woman.
My name is Baseball Cap Wearing Dude and I am very confused.
@thebeam2008
Oh yeah, standard misogynistic bullshit is just soooo edgy and revolutionary! None of us have ever heard any that before, truly saying that women shouldn’t have the right to vote blows our puny minds! Verily, it is the pinnacle of progressive thought!
Seriously though, how can you even think there’s a debate to be had here? Are you really of the opinion that the question of whether or not women should have the right to vote while not extending that same question to men’s right to vote is a defensible position in any sense of the phrase?
“So here we have feminists, who believe women to be people who should have the same rights as men. There we have MRAs, who think women should be treated like subhumans. Let’s hear both sides of the argument!”
Do you just not read what you write, or aren’t you using your basic humanity at all?
Power and the privilege tied to it is definitely a problem in society. I don’t see how a blog devoted to laughing at people blinded by their social privilege and/or stupidity has to do with any of that. Being laughed at for saying awful things is not the same as being systematically denied rights for belonging to a particular group.
Both stupid and utterly oblivious to trans issues. Figures.
Like white cishet men have had to do nothing to earn the right to vote?
Like white cishet men who look out for the privileges of white cishet men and damn all the others?
Pray tell me how you justify your view of people having to “earn” the right to have a say in societal and communal matters with your belief that, and I quote, “power and holding it over others is our primary concern as a species?”
Or am I just reading “concern” wrong here (sorry, not a native speaker)? Are you saying that power and holding it over others is a question of might making right? Who, in your opinion, gets to decide who has the right to take part in building our society, and what gives them that authority? These are pretty basic ethical questions, buddy. Not all of us are interested in power, ruling others and other such juvenile piddling contests. I’d think a lot of us are rather in favor of cooperation and building a better, more equal society for everyone.
Those who concern themselves with power and status over matters of equality and human rights are definitely the bad guys.
And yes, for the record, I am a white cishet man.
Nobody is criticizing her lack of “credentials”, unless by “credentials”, you mean an actual argument that makes sense, and doesn’t come from a place of bigotry and horseshit.
Speaking of which, you might want to try that yourself.
First off, I want to say, wow. I didn’t expect my opinions to be disregarded and then repeatedly attacked because I am a white heterosexual male (not true, but these qualities are hardly important). Isn’t pointing out one’s race, gender and sexual orientation… *straightens my tie and refuses to stoop to the level of Anarchronist (whom i assume is well meaning)*
I believe that all human beings are born equal and should be free to express their opinions without distinctions about race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, color, language, material wealth, age or status. My suggestions from considering Alison Tieman’s statement is a reflection of my belief that she is, as a human being, endowed with reason and conscience — and we should treat everyone in a spirit of brother/sisterhood.
@Sparky who asked, “Are you seriously arguing that Tieman has a point, that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and that minorities and women need to “earn” their basic human rights?”
–No. I was suggesting that Tieman made a point that all citizens should have to earn the right to vote through some form of service to the community. If the right to vote was earned in some way, then perhaps the vote would mean more to people and only selfless people who were serious about contributing to society would have the right to guide it. Should men just ‘get’ the right to vote…no. Only those who contribute to society…just like everybody else.
@Blna who said, Nobody is criticizing her lack of “credentials”. Perhaps I misinterpreted Cloudiah who said, ‘ How many boxtops do you have to send in to earn your “degree?” and anonny said, ‘Where’s her bio, showing her education’ — were these statements coming from a place of respect?
@Sparky who said about my comment that feminism has naught to do with being female, ‘you’re not very bright’ …I did a quick search as I figured I could find a woman who said it better so that you might understand my point. I found:
“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
–Gloria Steinem
(I simply do not see the correlation between recognizing equality and the focus on external sex organs.)
My apologies to all as apparently I don’t know the proper etiquette for contributing to this blog on…feminists vs. MRA?? (I am not really sure what MRA is all about either, to be honest.) I have only heard the one video above but i guess I wasn’t supposed to consider any portion of it but simply reject it in its entirety. Not really my style…so forgive?
Shorter dude – Damn, I love hearing myself talk. Surely it must be as fascinating for everyone else as it is for me.
Did anyone suggest Alison Tieman should be prevented from expressing her views? No. It’s just that she’s incredibly wrong and those views are mockworthy. So we mock them. We have the right to our opinions too.
Why should I be nice and accommodating to someone who thinks I don’t deserve full citizenship rights?
While that Steinem quote is true, that doesn’t mean feminism should focus on men and women equally. Men are the privileged class. Therefore they don’t need a social justice movement. Egalitarianism ignores this dynamic and only works in a society that’s already equal and just.
Also, nobody here is focusing on sex organs. Trans women are women and experience misogyny too. What a weird claim to make.
Just pointing out the racist dogwhistle referring to the completely-unconstitutional race-based poll tax known as voter IDs here.
*Completely unconstitutional. Why did I put a hyphen there.
I dunno, baseball hat. You posted:
“In science, it is often those that think differently without the same educational indoctrination that make the biggest steps forward.”
Are you in science? Define those who have not experienced “educational indoctrination.” What does that mean?
“I was also introduced to the word, ‘manosphere’ along with complaints that women are treated poorly by this alleged system.”
No need to use the word “alleged.” If you already googled the word you know it’s an actual thing.
“…humans are barely out of their primate phase and treat each other awfully in general.”
According to who? Citation? Why is everyone so sure our primitive ancestors were assholes concerned with eugenics and killing anyone who so much as flinched at them? Darwin never said this. Cooperation and teamwork kept a lot of people alive.
“Power and holding it over others is our primary concern as a species — and the comments support this more often than not if you think about it.”
Speak for yourself, OK?
“I don’t understand what feminism has to do with being female or why this entire argument seems to focus on genitals (as fascinating as they are <3 )."
Duder, I think you might need a cup of coffee.
"But consider this: around 30-40% of people bother to vote…perhaps in part due to not having had to do anything to earn it."
Yes, let's hold a Hunger Games to see who should earn the right to vote!
" Maybe if contribution was tied to citizenship it would be good a thing instead of a self-centred, entitled society where everyone looks out only for themselves and their immediate peer group."
Yeah, white men have been doing it for so long — but what a drag if other demos what things for themselves. How selfish!
"Then again, the whole purpose of this website seems to be to mock others for their opinions –so perhaps I am expecting far too much from its populace."
Oh bubba, stop, your smug mansplain makes me itch. Go to feminism 101, read everything, then come back when you might understand a little more.
Primates isn’t a bloody phase, it’s an order. Look here, at the classification table on the right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Read the next bit in David Attenborough’s voice:
And here we see the MRA outside of its natural environment. One would normally expect a creature to be shy, reserved perhaps, when removed from its traditional habitat. However, the MRA likes to announce its presence loudly while defecating everywhere.