Berit Brogaard has an article in Psychology Today that Observing Libertarian discussed here. It lists 12 different behaviors that identify a man as misogynist. It’s a big ball of idiocy but there is some value to it. The main value I see is what it tells us if we flip the genders. If we flip the genders and apply its standards, we can identify misandrist women, and more than that, we can identify misandrist cultural norms. We will see that a lot of these misandrist behaviors enjoy the full sanction of society.
But first let’s look at how Brogaard frames the issue, because it’s telling when we flip the genders:
“In most cases, misogynists do not even know that they hate women. Misogyny is typically an unconscious hatred that men form early in life, often as a result of a trauma involving a female figure they trusted”
In most cases misandrists do not even know they hate men. They expect men to comfort them when they are hurt and that men will just “suck it up” when they themselves get hurt. They see nothing wrong with living in an economic system where men do the overwhelming majority of the dirty, dangerous, difficult work it takes to keep that system going and then turning around and crying about a “pay gap.” They see nothing wrong in insisting that rape never happens to men, or if it does it never harms men as much as it harms women, or in any case, all those rapes are just men raping men… (so what about the rapes of women where it’s just men raping women…?)
Misandry is typically an unconscious hatred that women form early in life, often as a result of a trauma such teasing, or boys failing to venerate the girls inherent superiority sufficiently, or just having to sit with icky boys in school, but more often as a result of socialization. They may not have been raped, or treated like second-class citizens, or in fact have been harmed by any man, but they were raised with a fear of men, as part of their gender identity, that hardens to hatred. This fear takes the form of stories and comments that cast men as an enduring threat. The formal name for this is a threat narrative. It is not only a macho trope of rampant, invincible man-brutishness, but it also is at the root of damseling.
Brogaard offers a checklist:
The following traits are typical of the misogynist:
1.He will zero in on a woman and choose her as his target. Her natural defenses may be down because he’s flirtatious, exciting, fun, and charismatic at first.
2.As time goes on, he begins to reveal a Jekyll & Hyde personality. He may change quickly from irresistible to rude, and from rude back to irresistible.
3.He will make promises to women and often fail to keep them. With men, on the other hand, he will almost always keep his word.
4.He will be late for appointments and dates with women, but be quite punctual with men.
5.His behavior toward women in general is grandiose, cocky, controlling, and self-centered.
6.He is extremely competitive, especially with women. If a woman does better than him socially or professionally, he feels terrible. If a man does better, he may have mixed feelings about it but he is able to look at the situation objectively.
7.He will unknowingly treat women differently from men in workplace and social settings, allowing men various liberties for which he will criticize female colleagues or friends.
8.He will be prepared (unconsciously) to use anything within his power to make women feel miserable. He may demand sex or withhold sex in his relationships, make jokes about women or put them down in public, “borrow” their ideas in professional contexts without giving them credit, or borrow money from them without paying them back.
9.On a date, he will treat a woman the opposite of how she prefers. If she is an old-style lady who prefers a “gentleman” who holds the door for her, orders for both and pays for the meal, he will treat her like one of his male buddies, order for himself, and let her pay for the whole meal if she offers (and sometimes even if she doesn’t). If she is a more independent type who prefers to order her own meal and pay for herself, he will rudely order for both and pay the check while she goes to the bathroom.
10.Sexually, he likes to control women and gives little or no attention to their sexual pleasure. Foreplay, if it occurs at all, is only a necessary means to an end. He likes oral sex but only as a recipient. His favorite positions enable him to avoid looking the woman in her eyes.
11.He will cheat on women he is dating or in a relationship with. Monogamy is the last thing he feels he owes a woman.
12.He may suddenly disappear from a relationship without ending it, but may come back three months later with an explanation designed to lure the woman back in.
12 ways to Spot a Misandrist:
2. As time goes on and the man is caught up in the relationship, the mask slips and She Who Must Be Obeyed comes forth. She uses a schedule of ever increasing demands to keep him off-center and struggling to keep up. She switches back and forth between flirtatious and coy to harshly derogatory and accusing. She will use all kinds of anti-male shaming language.
3. She will make promises to men and when she fails to keep them, she will make it look like the man’s fault for holding her to account. He is a beast, he hates women, he won’t indulge her in the way she feels entitled to.
4. She will make promises or commit to a set time to meet and then be late – repeatedly. Or she’ll set a date for something and then cancel at the very last minute. Meanwhile she is in agonies of guilt if she lets down any women in a position to judge her in any way, no matter how minor the failure may be.
5. Her behavior towards men is arrogant and condescending. If they disagree with her she will call it “mansplaining”, or she will say she feels “unsafe” or “afraid.” She will feel entitled to special consideration she would never grant a man, and when confronted on this, will insist that’s “different.”
6. She is competitive with other women, asking if some other woman looks better than her and very possessive of every moment of her man’s time. She feels entitled to check his cellphone or email accounts for correspondence with other women of for contact information. She is not only competitive with other women; in fact she is eager to point out how some woman did something better than men can and will opine that if women ran the world, we’d all be much better off.
7. She will unknowingly treat men differently from women at work. She may assign heavier physical tasks to men, she may exclude men from private conversations where business decisions are made, she may foster an atmosphere where men are expected to walk on eggshells around women, for instance establishing HR policies that enable women to claim harassment for small acts but nearly impossible for men to claim anything is harassment. She may even punish men’s claims of harassment as a form of harassment. In social settings she will confide in other women and freeze men out, or she will use men as fashion accessories to impress other women.
8. She will feel entitled to use anything in her power against her man, justifying this by saying “All’s fair in love and war.” or that she is just making up for millennia of patriarchal oppression. She may demand sex and back her demands up with scathing shaming language if her man isn’t interested, or she may withhold sex as a punishment or a bargaining tool for some service or material things he wants. If he displeases her in some way, she will banish him from their bed to go sleep on the couch. She will make condescending remarks about the failures of men in general or make cruel jokes about some man’s misfortune or injury. She may borrow money from her man and then call it a gift and refuse to repay it. In a work setting she may use information developed by a man and then wonder aloud what men are good for.
9. On a date, she will react in whatever way is contrary to the way the man is acting. If he makes some special effort to please her, she will pout and be dissatisfied. If he wants to chat, she will be distant or moody. If he pulls finally back, she will plead and play up to him. If he tries to pay for the date she may scold him for being old-fashioned and sexist and if he doesn’t she will scold him for being cheap.
10. Sexually she demands total control. Aside from dictating when and under what conditions sex will take place, she has no interest in his sexual pleasure at all, except to sneer at it occasionally and call him a pig. She may demand oral sex and call him a misogynist is he is uninterested but nearly accuse him of rape at worst and male-dominant misogyny at best if he expects her to give oral sex. She believes she has a right to control even his fantasy life and will call him a pervert or sex addict if he looks at porn, or even if he just masturbates. She has an inviolate right to all his orgasms.
11. She sees nothing wrong with casual affairs and if one turns serious, that’s her right too. And if she becomes pregnant pursuant to one of these affairs, she will demand that her man accept and raise the child as his own, or else he’s “’irresponsible” and “selfish” and “How can you do that to a child!!!??” and just not a Real Man.
12. She may disappear from a relationship, leave the country even, and then when she finally comes back, she will expect to be received like nothing ever happened and she can expect to be celebrated for this.
Brogaard continues:
“Women haters (unconsciously) get off on treating women badly. Every time they can put down a woman or hurt her feelings, they unconsciously feel good because deep down in their hidden brain, their bad behavior is rewarded with a dose of the pleasure chemical dopamine—which makes them want to repeat the behavior again and again.”
Man haters enjoy treating men badly. Every time they shame a man for showing his feelings of expecting to be treated like an equal instead of a work horse or fashion accessory, they feel good because of the power they experience and because of the way it confirms their gender identity as a Princess, or “lady of the house”. The approval their friends and peers demonstrate is a source of pleasure too. Success in this behavior makes them want to repeat it over and over again to enjoy the rewards it brings.
Misogynists and misandrists really exist; misogyny and misandry are real. The difference is that misogynists are decried as losers and cads and brutes while misandrists are celebrated as Strong Women striking a blow for the Sisterhood and universal justice. It’s just the same old chivalry and gynocentrism tarted up as somehow progressive.
The misandrists may just be a few bad apples but they couldn’t get away with half of it if they didn’t have cover. Their various man-hating stabs and jibes and insults and expectations are part of the culture, our cultural norms protect and celebrate this kind behavior as “independent” or “sassy” or just their due as the special, wonderful creatures they are. These are lone wolves acting outside of cultural norms; they embody those norms. The norms they embody are so normal that when you call them out, you’re the one that gets looked at like you’re abnormal.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
You’ve been spammed guys
That asshole keeps popping up on a lot of posts here. This one has been removed and maybe there is a filter or something in place.
The important cycle in this ever-spinning wheel is that previous “you go grrl” shitty behaviour becomes a justification for further shitty behaviour which must be placated with more concessions. That is, equality can’t be achieved by the very process of treating people differently by dint of “we were treated differently before!” and using it as continuous fodder to bully others.
The victim mentality and threat narratives that spawn around it are the rotten core of the norms we point out and struggle against, and they are thrown into high relief as the one point at which we are better than any other people, past and present.
The smug, self-adoring bankruptcy of it all makes you want to puke sometimes.
“The important cycle in this ever-spinning wheel is that previous “you go grrl” shitty behaviour becomes a justification for further shitty behaviour which must be placated with more concessions. ”
This is the essence of the gynocentrism the princess culture celebrates and enables.
The smug, self-adoring bankruptcy of it all makes you want to puke sometimes.”
When a “victim” is as smug as these people are, that’s hardly real victimhood, that’s privilege.
“in any case, all those rapes are just men raping men… (so what about the rapes of women where it’s just men raping women…?)”
Pretty sure that this whole “it’s by other men anyway” is a tri-fold combination of hyper-agency (attributing an imaginary intention that when male attackers attack women, it’s because they are women), a denial of the lack of in-group bias men have (same reason why some feminists say Hillary should play the gender card and be proud, because they assume the only reason presidents have always been male is because male voters are in cahoots to only vote for other men), and lastly, assuming that male attackers are treating their male victims like women. All strong ideological filters.
Also, I don’t want to go to the point of assuming things or stereotyping, but I have recently noticed that every female feminist I’ve known or come across, has in fact had a bad history with some man in her life.
“(same reason why some feminists say Hillary should play the gender card and be proud, because they assume the only reason presidents have always been male is because male voters are in cahoots to only vote for other men),’
For these people it’s still high school, for the rest of their lives – or in this particular case, the fourth grade, with all the boys on one side of the playground and all the girls on the other.
God, I am so tired of people’s pubertatianism and arrested development! It goes to a whole bunch of other things – id-driven “argumentation”, sex-negative attitudes that center sex as Teh Great Awful, a whole range of dysfunctions.
but I have recently noticed that every female feminist I’ve known or come across, has in fact had a bad history with some man in her life.”
This contrasts with what brings most people to the MRM, men and women – which is usually a run-in of some kind with a gynocentric system of law and custom.
I remember fourth grade… Most of the playground was paved over at that point, but there was still play equipment like teatherball and a basketball hoop, and there was an as yet unpaved hillside with bushes that were cool because you could go up there and avoid interacting… I’m getting off topic.
For the most part there were girls on one side of the playground, and boys just went wherever. They sometimes formed groups in order to get a game on, and sometimes the girls even came over and played too. But the only reason the boys weren’t on that one side of the playground(the one near the schoolbuilding, where there was an overhang and shade to sit around and talk comfortably) was because the girls drove them away.
My fourth grade year I was at an all-girls school in India. There was a boys’ school next door, but there wasn’t any fraternizing as far as I know. Oh but one of my memories from then is an assignment where we had to write a paper about whether we’d rather be a boy or a girl, and my entire class of about 60 all said being a girl was better.
“God, I am so tired of people’s pubertatianism and arrested development! It goes to a whole bunch of other things – id-driven “argumentation”, sex-negative attitudes that center sex as Teh Great Awful, a whole range of dysfunctions.”
I’m sure you’ve heard about the Duggar scandal by now. I’m in the position of actually finding myself agreeing more often than not with feminists on analyzing this sort of thing, but I have noticed considerably less feminist baggage being brought into the discussions this time.
I think it’s pretty clear from their celebrity status that the men in this family are just as pressured into keeping ‘purity’ as women, and the women do hold quite some power (for example, I recall reading that the Duggar men had to ask the older girls for the passwords in order to use the computer).
“I’m in the position of actually finding myself agreeing more often than not with feminists on analyzing this sort of thing,”
Me too, actually.
but I have noticed considerably less feminist baggage being brought into the discussions this time.”
This is an interesting development. That’s interesting.
By the way, your name really suits you. I find myself looking forwards to getting comments from you.
I’ve had a number of thoughts over all this, but one is that I’m tired of the feminist claims that they’re likely victim-blaming the girls. I haven’t seen any evidence for such, and even for them I think there’s a pretty big gap between saying if you dress sexy and someone looks, that’s on you (though I have to note that their “modest dress” doesn’t stop people online from fantasizing, anyway) vs saying the girls deserved it because of not being modest enough. Which is why I wasn’t that surprised, unlike feminists, that Michael Seewald said it’s never the victim’s fault no matter what the abuser says.
I’ve been following the shitstorm intently, especially on one forum, where there’s posts like these: http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26130&start=700#p951711
And even when I expect to find myself in a muck of feminist baggage, not really: http://kbotkin.com/2015/05/25/consent-theonomists-and-josh-duggar/
I’ve also wondered what the reaction would be if it was one of the older girls being the molester. I also find it noteworthy that Jim Bob holds the same view as quite a few feminists on rapists being executed, if you look at this screenshot going around from his old website where he says incest is a capital crime.
“By the way, your name really suits you.”
Hm, I’m curious, but how so? I mean, I’m a rather random commenter here as far as I know.
“I find m yself looking forwards to getting comments from you.”
Oooh, well thank you. That’s rather encouraging. The last year I’ve been rather into gender and other social justice issues, though I’m limiting myself so as not to fall into the patterns I’ve been in. I’ve spent a decade shifting my focus every few years from atheism/religion, then politics, and now gender issues, and this time I’m careful not to get too sucked into it since I’ll end up being bored in a while, though my views will remain largely the same.
“By the way, your name really suits you.”
Hm, I’m curious, but how so? I mean, I’m a rather random commenter here as far as I know.
7I’m just going of the name “Noor” I’m familiar with, that means “light” in Arabic. You bring light to the discussion.
“I find m yself looking forwards to getting comments from you.”
Oooh, well thank you. That’s rather encouraging.”
Well, good! I want to encourage commenters here.
It’s simple and Easy with honeybadgerbrigade < I didn't believe …that…my brother woz like truly making money part time at their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this 4 only seventeen months and resantly paid the dept on there apartment and bourt themselves a Lotus Elise .
see this her FOR MORE INFO
It’s official I’m not a misogynist.
Feminists have decided that feminists declare who is a misogynist and who is not…
And in true feminist fashion, the kafkatrap is fully implemented, and denying that you’re a misogynist only proves that you are one.
Why don’t you talk about it at the next Expo, oh wait………………………………………….
Go away child.
Who the hell reads Psychology Today?
I suppose some idiots do since I see it on magazine racks.
I agree with you assessment of its quality, but the problem is its influence. There are lots of magazine rack Rangers.
Those people are usually so troubled and weak they likely accept any supposed facts and explanations the magazine prints, which are usually intended to keep them in those conditions while making them even more thirsty for answers. It’s scarey.
“It’s scarey.”
It’s been a winning formula for journalism forever – identify yoyur readers’ prejudices and pander to them. it works for Fox News, it works for the Guardian and it has always worked for the NYT.
people pay for what they want to hear. If they want to hear the truth, they’ll get that; if they want reassurances, then that’s the crap they will get.
Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the first paragraph of the last section has a typo:
“threating” is supposed to be “treating”.
My first fill in the blank instantly jumped to “threatening” but that made no sense in the context used.
Thanks; will fix.
it’s very Easy with honeybadgerbrigade … CONTINUE READING
Thank you for this post. Getting back into the dating world after 18+ year marriage blew up in my face. Turns out the Ex was a Misandrist and I never understood her control games. I just got tired of it and agreed to her request for divorce, for which she convinced everyone it was my fault. I hope the guy she was dating at the time and then married knows how to obey.
Now I have another dilemma. As a person of Faith I am expected to compromise my beliefs in order to conform to modern dating rituals. However, when I compromise I am labelled a hypocrite, and when I do not compromise I am labelled a bigot and misogynist.
“Misandry is Not a Real Word you can look up in Websters Dictionary”
= Direct Testimony by ‘The Most Moral Womyn Attorney in Idaho’ – Deputy Attorney General Susan (Formerly K Manweiller, until Hyr Bitter Divorce) Christensen, given in Hyr official capacity as Chief Moral Characer analyist for the Idaho Bar.
BTW = the Idaho Bar HQ where Susan Christensen Testified to the Lie – has a copy of Websters in its public lobby, and Misandry is easily found by looking under M.
But then checking the Facts before denouncing Men would not be Politically Correct – let alone ‘Moral’ in a Misandrist Legal System
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/misandrist
Frisco / Sodom by the Sea is City that Celebrates Extermination of Men as an example of ‘tolerance’ = Banning Men from the Public Street during a takeover without Permits / Notice 2 Public of Payment of Costs.
Claiming such rand raw Misandry is about ‘rights’ is absurd as claiming that Abusing Steroids would turn a Female (XX) Dyke Marcher in to a Male – who would not be banned because Shye was Actively Denigrating what the University of California refers to as “Pigs”
SEE: Men told not to rain on parade Unity key to Dyke March / 50,000 expected at S.F. Dyke March 50,000 expected — MEN NOT ADVISED http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Men- told-not-to-rain-on-parade-Unity-key-to-Dyke-2746314.php
&
Women rule the world, if only for a little while. By Ryan Kim.
For a few hours Saturday night, Vicki Noble got a fleeting glimpse of a world devoid of men…
“This is what the world would look like if women ruled the world, which we intend to do,” said Noble…
The 2015 Dyke March Website Says:
“We continue to hold the Dyke March as dyke-only space.
We invite our male allies to enjoy our Dolores Park rally with us, and to please support us from the sidelines during our march to Castro.
My old home town of Frisco (better known as “Sodom by the Sea”) is a City that Celebrates Extermination of Men as an example of ‘tolerance’, like Banning Men from the Public Street without Permits / Public Notice or Payment of cleanup & security costs.
Calling this Anti Male Hate Riot ‘tolerant’ as absurd as claiming that Abusing Steroids would turn a Female (XX) Dyke Marcher in to a Male – who would not be banned because She was Actively Denigrating what the University of California refers to as “Pigs”
SEE: Men told not to rain on parade Unity key to Dyke March / 50,000 expected at S.F. Dyke March 50,000 expected — MEN NOT ADVISED
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Men-told-not-to-rain-on-parade-Unity-key-to-Dyke-2746314.php
&
Women rule the world, if only for a little while.
By Ryan Kim.
For a few hours Saturday night, Vicki Noble got a fleeting glimpse of a world devoid of men…
“This is what the world would look like if women ruled the world, which we intend to do,” said Noble…
The 2015 Dyke March Website Says:
“We continue to hold the Dyke March as dyke-only space.
We invite our male allies to enjoy our Dolores Park rally with us, and to please support us from the sidelines during our march to Castro.
Is there a reason why some contributors to the “discussion” just repeat what others post ?
Okay, before you get heated up about my question, just try to understand I am finally at the age where I begin to lose track of things. So when I read the comments and move along to the next and read the same words I feel I have had an “adult” moment and lost my place on the page.
Then after realizing that indeed some commenters are posting word for word the same comments as the contributor before them, it is oddly a relief and annoying at the same time.
My 2 cents about the article is that women will always wave their “victim” flag because they can and they will always make rules that are obviously one sided and abusive. Again, because they can as long as men are foolish enough to put so much value on getting laid. That is their major source of power… men’s major weakness, the power of the pussy.
Finally like the old lie about David and Goliath, women tell the story about always being victimized by men. The truth is, women are the aggressors who will go out of their way to make themselves as alluring and available as possible then claim that “men have only one thing on their minds” which is not surprising when you have only “one thing” to offer us. Why else would anyone put up with so much shit from another person!
The lie about David and “BIG G’ “… David was a little prick that wanted to be respected and powerful, so he stalked one of the “ancients” [ in many Christian texts Goliath was a “breeder” or hermaphrodite ] who basically spent very solitary lives, were quite gentle and of course had serious depth perception issues.
So having some little, quick footed pain in the ass run around taking pot shots at your one and only eye, might cause you to try to terminate the prick, thus you now are accused for being the aggressor because you are the “bigger one”.
See, just like the little bitches do to men, then claim we are dangerous and must be controlled after having been taking serious crap from them over a protracted period and finally losing our capacity to cope.
The football player Ray Rice who was crucified on the news for having KO’d his violent and abusive bitch, who clearly swung at him violently just before they arrived at elevator door, was portrayed as the problem just because he was “bigger” than her. “David and Goliath !
If you are up for a rousing mental fencing exercise every day for the rest of your life and an occasional blissful entanglement with a warm body with a hot wet hole in it, then put up with the monsters. How many other choices does a traditional heterosexual male have!
Many ‘misandrists’ I have investigated have been candid with me about the reason why they are not drawn to women for life partners. They told me they could never do that because “women are nuts” !
So now knowing the truth you have to decide what will be your pleasure / pain… a “rock” with a vagina … a “dead fish” with a vagina… a “cactus” with a vagina… or “Satan’s sister” !
GOOD LUCK
This sounds much more like Narcissistic Personality Disorder than misandry, and I have misandry, and am male. If a woman has misandry, she probably won’t engage in relationships with men in the first place. It’s like getting a pet cat when you have a phobia of them. Plus, there are far more male misandrists than you may think, and many, like mine, stem from negative male-related mental conditioning. I hate men who are sports-focused and overly “manly” than I do more feminine or neutral men, so maybe you could say I hate masculinity rather than men. Either way, it’s extremely difficult living in paranoia and hatred of half of the world’s population, and wish I didn’t. One very common theme is people pretending that mysoginists have a choice in their hatred. Do I hate mysoginistic men more than others? Of course. But I recognize that it’s not a lifestyle, it’s an illness. I also have philogyny, but dear god, that would take forever to explain. Just think mania and philia combined.
Yes, I was going to say that. I think you have to have NPD or at least be very narcissistic to be either a misogynist or misandrist (consciously). I think there are people who don’t realize they are behaving that way but when called on it, they will address this as an issue they have to work on. A full-fledged narcissist has zero accountability on the other hand and will never admit to being wrong or guilty about anything.
“Yes, I was going to say that. I think you have to have NPD or at least be very narcissistic to be either a misogynist or misandrist (consciously). ”
A person can exhibit narcissistic behaviors without being a narcissist simply because they have had to adapt to those norms. Our general culture is so individualistic that it borders on narcissistic as it is, but those norms around gender really bring this out. Treating men like things to be used or expended is the kind of behavior that the Glenn close character exhibited in Fatal Attractions, and she was lionized for that role back then.
By the way, this works both ways. I am sure we are aware of cultures where men are expected to treat women like this and it’s enforced as a norm.
This is a wonderful eye opener for me. I had a female business partner for 10 years and what began as a great relationship turned into a man-hating nightmare. She just turned on me. She never showed up on time for anything we had scheduled but never missed a meeting with a female. She bad-mouthed me in front of employees and accused me of sleeping with virtually every woman, even women 40 years younger than me. She would correct my language in a feminist way repeatedly. She accused me of abusing her which was far from the case. In the end I was able to sell out to her at a premium price and she proceeded to destroy the company. In a way I got the last laugh. Her father just walked away from the family when she was 11 and that left her livid towards him for years. She literally destroyed two husbands and her brother. I could never figure out why she turned on me over the years. It was totally irrational. Now just finding this way of describing her hatred has helped me better understand.
Exactly.
Great to know I am not a misandrist. Not one of those applies to me, and yet I am a feminist who believes in equality and fairness for both sides.
Well, do you believe men oppressed women historically or anywhere today?
Yes, I do, historically for sure and still today, all over the globe. I also think a lot of men do it unconsciously. At the same time, I see a very conscious effort by some men to want to understand. Those are men who make an ongoing effort to do the right thing by women, and I love them so much for that. It takes balls, an open mind, a right-sized ego,and and a caring heart. My son is like that. His dad was like that. Kudos to all of them.
Hm. Why do you think men oppressed women, when men in power have always been far more likely to screw over other men than women? (See: prison and sentencing gaps, war deaths, circumcision, male rape erasure, empathy gap, lack of services and support for male victims, etc.) Do you think this is because men in power cannot be sexist towards other men?
I believe that men have oppressed everyone, and when I talk about justice and equality, i want that for all. I am as against genital mutilation for both sexes, although it is people brainwashed by religion to do that. I am against people dismissing male rape as well as dismissing female rape. I think the services and support should be there for both men and women, In some parts of the world, men are seen as less a man for having been raped, and that is heart-wrenching. as is the way women are treated in the rape culture that still exists today. Men should not be expected to suck it up, not cry, etc. I don’t believe in alimony. The list goes on and on. I understand a lot of the confusion on this subject, and I understand the anger/defensiveness. I feel it is so important for people to talk about this issue and listen to one another. It is dismissive if a woman wants to talk about what is happening to women and is silenced by counter arguments, just as it would be dismissive if a man initiated a dialogue about what men have gone through and was silenced by counter argument. We need to listen to one another, not deflect.
Fair enough, for the most part. I’d say you’d have to oppose feminism as a movement as it’s been a huge hindrance to a lot of what you’ve said above, and there’s plenty of proof feminism doesn’t even care about women.
Genital mutilation against boys in the US is largely not people being brainwashed by religion – Jews and Muslims are a minority – but rather based in misinformation and the empathy gap.
But also: do you believe women are just as responsible for enforcing traditional gender rules? Most feminists, especially powerful ones, downplay their agency, preferring to blame traditional men only – such as how abortion is always portrayed as men controlling women’s bodies, completely ignoring that half of women are pro-life as well.
I think there is feminism and extreme feminism, just like there are religious people and religious extremists. I am really more of a humanist, but feminist began as a term for people who simply want equality between the sexes. I don’t even believe that we have to destroy masculinity or femininity to achieve that. As far as I am concerned, too, being a feminist means to respect the choices that women make for themselves with regard to men, childbirth, career. If they choose to be submissive and stay at home, that is their choice. Same for men! I agree that extreme feminism has its own agenda, true. As an example, I went to a march that was supposed to be against rape, and it was more like an event that was anti-men and very unwelcoming to my husband. I don’t believe that we can understand or help each other that way. I think we all have to unite, not be divided.
As for genital mutilation, yes I agree. I tend to think of religious people as being misinformed anyway, but that’s another story.
When you say women are just as responsible for enforcing traditional gender rules, I am not sure what you mean specifically. I don’t care what they choose for themselves as long as it doesn’t trample on the rights of others. I have mixed feelings myself about abortion. I wouldn’t have one, but I don’t feel right in denying another person that right. I sympathize that fathers often don’t get a say in that and are called sperm donors. All that is very troubling. I don’t object to any woman being pro-life. I don’t think they should be able to dictate what is right for the rest of us, especially based on religious beliefs. That goes for men and women. What does offend me is when women join in the chorus of saying that there are circumstances when a woman deserves to be raped. I believe there are no circumstances where anyone deserves to be raped, and that includes prison.
>> “Merriam-Webster’s definition of feminism is: “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” and “organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests,” also explained as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” It doesn’t even say anything about having to destroy masculinity or femininity to achieve that.”
You know what, I actually don’t think the dictionary definition of feminism is that inaccurate. Most mention women’s rights, with equality as the justification.
But there’s a radical feminism premise implied – that advocacy of women’s rights is *all* that is needed to achieve equality. Which is only true if you believe that there are no men’s issues – which comes straight out of radfem patriarchy theory, which is that men benefit other men at the expense of women, and therefore there cannot be any men’s issues, only sometimes “privilege backfiring”. And radfem *does* uphold masculinity and patriarchy as the root of women’s issues, and therefore they must be destroyed.
>> “I think there is feminism and extreme feminism, just like there are religious people and religious extremists.
As far as I am concerned, too, being a feminist means to respect the choices that women make for themselves with regard to men, childbirth, career. If they choose to be submissive and stay at home, that is their choice. Same for men! I agree that extreme feminism has its own agenda, true.”
Extreme feminism, radfem, is *consistent* feminism. (I also think religious fundamentalists are often more consistent than pick-and-choose moderates.) Most radfem denounces femininity, because if we live under a patriarchy that teaches women to be feminine, there is no way to tell if a woman is truly consenting to be feminine or if she’s merely brainwashed. If there is an element of force involved, it cannot be true consent.
A radfem would argue that if you support a woman’s choice to be submissive, you are supporting patriarchy because you are supporting a man’s right to control her. They believe that liberal feminism is nonsense because *a feminist cannot support a woman’s choice to uphold patriarchy*. They rightfully recognize the contradiction between libfem supporting female sex workers and opposing ‘objectification’ from men.
The same goes for TERFs being consistent to feminist premises. It’s why you’ve got libfems wearing vagina hats at the women’s march, while other libfems argue that it’s transphobic to connect women and vaginas. Or the “women’s spaces” and trans bathroom issue. Libfem ends up being interpreted with perfectly logical steps in either way, because its premises are contradictory.
>> “As an example, I went to a march that was supposed to be against rape, and it was more like an event that was anti-men and very unwelcoming to my husband. I don’t believe that we can understand or help each other that way. I think we all have to unite, not be divided.”
Well, duh. Anytime feminism touches the topic of rape, it’s going to be anti-men. If your theory (both libfem and radfem) is based upon the idea that rape is primarily something men do to terrorize women (“What’s that? Oh of course, men can be raped too…by other men”) it’s going to be anti-male.
>> “When you say women are just as responsible for enforcing traditional gender rules, I am not sure what you mean specifically. I don’t care what they choose for themselves as long as it doesn’t trample on the rights of others. I have mixed feelings myself about abortion. I wouldn’t have one, but I don’t feel right in denying another person that right. I sympathize that fathers often don’t get a say in that and are called sperm donors. All that is very troubling. I don’t object to any woman being pro-life. I don’t think they should be able to dictate what is right for the rest of us, especially based on religious beliefs. That goes for men and women. What does offend me is when women join in the chorus of saying that there are circumstances when a woman deserves to be raped. I believe there are no circumstances where anyone deserves to be raped, and that includes prison.”
Again, fair enough, but the reason I was asking and used the abortion example, is that women have been equally, if not more, responsible for enforcing traditional roles, but feminism only focuses on men in power and not women in power. You seem to be in this camp as well, with your statement that you believe men – only men – have oppressed everyone.
Do you deny that powerful men were often acting in the favor of women, when they did their oppressing (of pretty much exclusively other men)? Do you deny that women have used social and softer forms of power, such as the power to easily employ men’s agency, to influence society? (“The man is the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants.”)
Traditional roles gave both advantages and disadvantages to both men and women. Feminists convinced the world that men oppressed women and therefore fixing women’s issues were all that’s needed for equality. And you don’t see how this premise has resulted in the anti-men imbalance we have today?
Maybe my problem is this. I’ve never seen anything as black or white. I see many shades of gray. It seems that more and more so, in our political climate, you can’t state any opinion without it being offensive to someone. For those of us who simply want fairness, dignity, and justice for all, it’s very frustrating. I guess what you’re saying is, I am cherry picking on the issue of feminism.
The thing is I don’t fault your logic at all, so maybe it is the labels that are troublesome because people interpret them differently.
The fact that MW gives more than one definition of feminism tells me that I can be a feminist if I simply believe them men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
I would never deny that men have issues, and when men come to me with things that trouble them, whether about women or anything else, I am capable of feeling empathy just like when women present the issues that concern them. I have a couple of male friends who suffered abuse, and I have helped them in every way I could. The thing I can’t help noticing is, almost ever single woman friend of mine has been raped or abused.The stats do seem to put males in the position of being the culprit most of the time, so yeah, it comes across as a huge imbalance. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem or concern for the men who have been raped or abused. I know that one problem is men are ashamed to talk about it or report it, as are many women, so we can never really have accurate stats, but I’ll admit it does seem as if women are the ones always in danger. It seems, too, that men can walk around shirtless, and no one thinks it’s asking for trouble, but women wearing revealing outfits are accused of asking for catcalls and worse.
Regardless of what “radfems” believe, I think women can only empower each other by supporting one another’s choices, again if those choices don’t infringe on the rights of another. I really don’t see it is a problem because it is consensual.
On the issue of abortion, we have a lot of men who do in fact, take a stand only to control women and their bodies. I say that because they don’t seem very pro-life once the child is born. We also have women, yes, who are inflicting their religious beliefs on others and whatever else. Then there are the many people who legitimately believe by having an abortion, you are taking a life. So I don’t think it’s a simple thing to conclude that it’s not about control or it is. People take stands for different reasons.
Now you asked me initially if I believed men oppressed women, and I said yes. You didn’t ask what I believed about men oppressing men at first or women oppressing women. When you did bring up men oppressing men, I agreed with you. I also agree that women can be the oppressor in certain situations, but that’s not what I was asked.
I don’t think fixing women’s issues is all that is needed for equality. I think there has to be a mutual effort where both sides show empathy and support.
I really appreciate your explaining your position. I learned a lot from it, and it’s rare to have controversial discussions on social media without someone becoming abusive, so thanks!
>> “I’ve never seen anything as black or white. I see many shades of gray.”
They’re not necessarily incompatible views. Shades of gray can still be distinguished into black and white pixels if you look closely enough. A gray issue can be divided into possibilities of individual situations where there is a clear black/white answer for each possible scenario.
>> “It seems that more and more so, in our political climate, you can’t state any opinion without it being offensive to someone. For those of us who simply want fairness, dignity, and justice for all, it’s very frustrating. I guess what you’re saying is, I am cherry picking on the issue of feminism.”
Definitely. I don’t know if we’re coping well with the kind of information overload that happens with social media, and everyone’s staying in their echo chambers, where some form of extremism flourishes upon a general nihilism.
You’re cherry-picking on feminism, yes, and sooner or later you’re going to have to come to terms with the contradictions.
>> “The thing is I don’t fault your logic at all, so maybe it is the labels that are troublesome because people interpret them differently.
The fact that MW gives more than one definition of feminism tells me that I can be a feminist if I simply believe them men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.”
You still have a few premises of radical feminist theory in your thinking, and I’ve pointed out one below.
The same goes for most “anti-feminists” today – most are opposed to only clickbait ‘manspreading’ western feminism but agree with historical oppression of women, which is still straight out of radfem theory.
>> “I would never deny that men have issues, and when men come to me with things that trouble them, whether about women or anything else, I am capable of feeling empathy just like when women present the issues that concern them. I have a couple of male friends who suffered abuse, and I have helped them in every way I could. The thing I can’t help noticing is, almost ever single woman friend of mine has been raped or abused.The stats d o seem to put males in the position of being the culprit most of the time, so yeah, it comes across as a huge imbalance.”
No they don’t. They seem that way because all too often what happens to men is not classified in the same category.
With rape, the rates of men who were made-to-penetrate is about equal with the rape rates of women (one stat: https://68.media.tumblr.com/5961eaa6b1e9c648a38df73d283f0646/tumblr_mezr4bi1Xy1rluoaco1_1280.jpg ) But thanks to a long history of feminist involvement with the CDC (as well as the traditional notion of rape as being uniquely something men do to women), most statistics only count men as being rape victims if they were penetrated, if at all. Which is often going to be a much smaller number than the majority of cases where women rape men. Hell, these days a woman can rape a man and *he’ll* go to jail for it.
The same goes for domestic violence. There is mountains of evidence of feminists deliberately obscuring the gender-neutral reality of domestic violence in order to push the patriarchy model, for decades.
>> “But that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem or concern for the men who have been raped or abused. I know that one problem is men are ashamed to talk about it or report it, as are many women, so we can never really have accurate stats, but I’ll admit it does seem as if women are the ones always in danger.”
Women are considerably less likely to be the victims of most crimes, including murder. Rape and other sexual violence is largely equal. Society cares more when a woman is in danger than a man, and thus hypes it up. There’s the missing white women syndrome, because they get disproportionately more coverage than other missing people. Another example that a lot of MRAs brought up was that there was a giant worldwide campaign when Boko Haram kidnapped 200 girls but nothing when they’d been murdering tens of thousands of boys before.
You could see the cautions women get to keep themselves safe as treating them as inherently valuable, while men’s lives are seen as less important. (There’s an outdated reason for this, and it’s that women are the limiting factor in reproduction. Any society that sent off women to war wouldn’t last long.)
In the end, if women in general cannot accept that they are less likely to be harmed than a man, well I can see why conservative cultures don’t allow women out without a male bodyguard (that will hopefully take the hit instead of her as well).
>> “It seems, too, that men can walk around shirtless, and no one thinks it’s asking for trouble, but women wearing revealing outfits are accused of asking for catcalls and worse.”
Well, firstly, men get victim-blamed far more than women, for any crime. I don’t see how you can deny that male victims of sexual crimes are told they should’ve enjoyed it, far far more than female victims.
You also seem to assume that no woman ever dresses sexy and feels good about herself when someone flirts with her on the street. “Choice feminism” like yours tries to reconcile the radfem premise that no woman enjoys being cat-called, with the general liberal premise of supporting freedom of sexual expression for both sexes.
The contradiction is thus: You accept that women can choose to be feminine or sexual, but manage to ignore that plenty of women choose to dress revealingly, appreciate being cat-called, seeing it as an affirmation they’re attractive.
Either you recognize that some women do choose to dress for male attention, or you do not.
This contradiction has manifested in a kind of Schrodinger’s creep, where a man who expresses sexual interest in a woman is a creep or not, depending on whether she finds him attractive or not. Men aren’t psychic though and have no way to know if a woman is going to respond positively or not to his initiating interest. (This is why patriarchies often had/have strict rules on how men may interact with women, such as keeping their eyes down while walking past – a rule that male feminist PZ Myers basically came up with as well.)
As far as asking for worse, it’s anecdotal but I have literally never seen anyone ever justify rape with “well she was asking for it with her clothing”, at all, in my life. I’ve heard from some that it used to be more common decades ago, and maybe that was the case. I still don’t see it as justifying rape (not anymore than “you should have locked your car” is justifying theft), even if it was a shitty attitude – and gender-neutral, if not worse for men.
You could also view it as an example of how the human brain will instantly try and think of *anything* that *could* possibly have prevented a tragedy. Whenever tragedy strikes, you’ll always have people talking about the minute things that someone did that could have changed the course of their life.
>> “Regardless of what “radfems” believe, I think women can only empower each other by supporting one another’s choices, again if those choices don’t infringe on the rights of another. I really don’t see it is a problem because it is consensual.”
Except that you yourself hold premises straight from radfem – that no woman dresses for attention, ever, or feels better about herself when a man on the street whistles at her.
>> “On the issue of abortion, we have a lot of men who do in fact, take a stand only to control women and their bodies. I say that because they don’t seem very pro-life once the child is born. We also have women, yes, who are inflicting their religious beliefs on others and whatever else. Then there are the many people who legitimately believe by having an abortion, you are taking a life. So I don’t think it’s a simple thing to conclude that it’s not about control or it is. People take stands for different reasons.”
I can accept there are *some* men who do it for control. What I deny is that they are the majority or even close. If there are as many pro-life women as men – many of whom also aren’t very pro-life once the baby is born – it’s not a far jump to say that maybe gender doesn’t factor much into one’s stance. But feminists have consistently for decades been painting it as nothing more than men controlling women’s bodies, which demonizes men and conveniently ignores pro-life women.
I’m curious as to what you mean by “they don’t seem very pro-life once the child is born” also.
>> “Now you asked me initially if I believed men oppressed women, and I said yes. You didn’t ask what I believed about men oppressing men at first or women oppressing women. When you did bring up men oppressing men, I agreed with you. I also agree that women can be the oppressor in certain situations, but that’s not what I was asked.”
Okay. I’ll rephrase: do you believe the existence of gender roles was created and maintained by primarily men in order to subjugate and oppress women?
>> “I don’t think fixing women’s issues is all that is needed for equality. I think there has to be a mutual effort where both sides show empathy and support.
“I really appreciate your explaining your position. I learned a lot from i t, and it’s rare to have controversial discussions on social media without someone becoming abusive, so thanks!”
Thanks, and likewise. You seem to have a genuine empathy for men, even if you’re a bit misinformed. I’m usually harsh on the kind of feminists who come in smugly talking all about how they’re the only ones that care about men, and therefore MRAs should shut up about men’s issues and focus entirely on women’s instead. Or something. But you aren’t like that at all, so thanks as well.
You bring up good points about danger for men seeming less important. I was just watching Vietnam in HD on the History Channel, and I can’t believe what those men endured. Throughout history, it was always expected of them to fight for everyone. I find that to be heartbreaking. I was in tears reading about the three men who defended the Muslim women in Oregon, too, and got stabbed for it. It made me think of this discussion we’ve been having, and also how men have that natural instinct to protect and defend, giving their lives in the process.
You are right about some people thinking men cannot be harassed or abused sexually because they would enjoy it. That’s crazy. I see women say and do things they shouldn’t with co-workers and such, but it’s not considered harassment, and it most definitely would be if the situation were reversed.
I do not assume, or even believe, that no woman dresses sexy and feels good about herself when someone flirts with her on the street. There are women who love that; I am well aware. As for myself, to this very day, I am uncomfortable approaching any group of men whether on the street or in the office, especially if there is no choice but to come in close contact, or if it is a confined space. When I was very young, it terrified me. Getting used to it just makes it a little less terrifying. It is very confusing when you are young especially because you want to be pretty, but you are embarrassed being the center of attention, and you are also scared of what someone may say or do. As you get older, you realize it’s not a compliment to be catcalled because these guys are not trying to date you. A male friend of mine told me, if a woman they were howling at happened to come to a stop, they would not have any idea what to do. They’re just being guys. I think some do it just to humiliate women because they have to know that for many of us, it is humiliating. They could at least tell by the reaction or lack of any response, her walking faster, shielding her eyes, etc. That part of it isn’t rocket science. Some of the things they say are pretty explicit.
I’ve come to realize that the time to be flattered is when a guy just smiles at you or says hello, and he is alone, but he takes his cue from you. They tend to do that when there is serious interest and, if the situation were reversed, and I thought a man was attractive and I smiled at him, I would take my cues from him. Maybe that’s the answer right there, taking your cues from the other person if you are the one wanting to initiate something rather than assuming all men and women are alike and want the same thing. So. there is no contradiction with me. I don’t care if other women are okay with catcalling. I personally don’t like it. I also sympathize with guys feeling confused because I know women are confused on this as well. And right, men are not psychic.
Funny that you mention never hearing anyone justify rape with, “well she was asking for it with her clothing.” I have heard women say this on at least two occasions! I’ve seen men type it on social media quite a few times. It is just stupid really. I think a lot of the time a woman may have someone in mind that she wants to impress, even if it is just herself or her friends, but it doesn’t mean she’s generally open for business to all. And yes, sometimes we just want to impress everybody because we’re convinced that we’re supposed to, and we don’t really know what to do with the response. I tend to think it can be resolved on both ends with an appropriate degree of respect.
On this issue of pro-life, I think a lot of conservative men do it for control (and the conservative women who agree with positions they take on most issues). I say this because to be pro-life, you have to care what happens to these children once they are born. You wouldn’t be against gun control or head start programs, help for poor families which includes single parents that are often disabled or have disabled children. You wouldn’t be trying to take things away from these people so that rich people could be richer. Pro-life people would be people who are for human rights, justice, dignity for all and so on.
Do I believe the existence of gender roles was created and maintained by primarily men? Well I believe men wrote the holy texts, yes, and I think the plan was to keep everyone under control and yes to keep the patriarchy because they probably felt they were best to be in charge and then there was that procreation thing. However, women have traditionally complied, and I believe that people generally believe they are doing what is best. Personally, I think they are all afraid to end up in this fictitious hell they keep talking about, but what do I know?
Yes, I do have empathy for men. I have empathy for everyone. I just always thought that was how it was supposed to be.
Part of the problem, as I see it, as that men and women generally are obsessed with each other. Obsession distorts perception and impairs judgment. For this reason, we don’t always see what is. We place each other on a pedestal. We overvalue then we devalue. I always say that everything is about balance. We should be able to find that balance and with it the clarity to see things as they truly are. We also don’t really empathize in the state of obsession because we are thinking more of ourselves, what we want, what we need. So, I think (and hope) it can all be resolved one day with compassion for each other.
Here’s the thing. I hated getting any sort of attention on the street as well, but if I accept there are women who like it, then how are men to know which women like it or not? Signaling by dress or flirty behavior was one way. Then feminists declared that completely invalid, so what now? If all men completely stopped cat-calling, there’ll be plenty of women complaining that they no longer feel sexy anymore or that they can’t get men to stop for her.
(Even professional feminists aren’t immune. Jessica Valenti once wrote that she actually missed being catcalled, and she hated that we live in a society that made her feel this way. The fascinating part for me is how it goes right over her head that it’s *normal* for humans to want to feel sexy and attractive. Instead she attributes her biologically normal reaction to her being conditioned by society.)
As far as the more annoying and explicit cat-calling goes, here’s how I see it. It’s some slot-mentality – that is, even if 1 in 20 women respond positively that’s good enough, and that too there’s no loss for each try – but I also think a lot has to do with men feeling ignored and unwanted, and wanting *any* attention or acknowledgment from a woman – even if it turns out to be a negative “fuck off”. That’s why it’s basically an issue of low-status men – construction workers, prison laborers, men in third-world countries in general – doing it to high-status women. So I suspect it’s actually more like “ironic misogyny”.
There’s also women that would consider even a smile to be creepy if it came from an unattractive man, or ‘stare rape’. (This is why I say rules of extreme patriarchies could very well be the *consequence* of feminist demands.)
As far as reading cues go, that would be ideal, but not all men are good at reading signals (neither are all women, but the burden of initiating interest is still largely on men). When signals are misread, it would be one thing for it to the interaction to be simply awkward, but with feminist teaching and influencing law, men can get charged with sexual harassment for not being psychic, and then when men en masse give up and decide not to bother anymore, we get all manner of whiny op-eds.
Conservatives generally are rule-and-law oriented, and a lot do fear sexuality, so it’s possible it’s that. But I think their argument would be that a woman chooses to have sex (not a necessity), and thus a ‘murder’ is a direct consequence of what she does for fun, and that’s qualitatively different from a disabled child that happens to die from lack of care (that they don’t have any responsibility towards). I won’t comment on the rest. I’m a pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-welfare state, pro-charity, free-market left-libertarian/libertarian socialist (and atheist), but I’ll point that these apparent inconsistencies exist elsewhere as well – I’m sure lots of conservatives are baffled as to how liberal vegans put more value on any harm that may happen to a cow for milk, than a human fetus.
Another question: do you think men in power primarily benefit other men at the expense of women?
I think it’s much more accurate to restate it as: men in power benefit women at the expense of other men – the “other men” being the bottom 99% of men. Feminists look at the fact that men fill most official power positions and assumes those men constantly go “Ooh, that person has a penis like me, I’ll give him free stuff”. Even though men can watch on TV other men getting their balls punched, and not flinch. Men don’t identify with other men the way women do (and even there, it’s complicated, because there is plenty of Mean Girls-like competition too).
There is a huge difference between catcalling and simple smiles and giggles in, say, the office (flirtation). Catcalling is shouting or commenting things that are sexually inappropriate. The worst scenario is when you are alone, and there are several men shouting these things at you. Just the other day, I had a stranger smile at me and say, “Good morning, beautiful.” He was alone. I smiled back and said, “Good morning.” It wasn’t offensive, and no he wasn’t attractive, but there was no reason for me to feel threatened in any way. So, yes, big difference.
You say that men aren’t always good at reading body language, but I don’t believe it’s difficult to differentiate between a positive and a negative response or non-response. I give men a lot more credit than that. If there are women who do respond positively, there really would be no reason for continuing to harass the ones who don’t unless they are trying to humiliate as a response to rejection. That is very dangerous territory, since we have had men kill for feeling rejected, feeling justified, and we’ve seen that there are men who can relate to that and sympathize.
I had a friend who was murdered at 19, and people assumed she had rejected the man. My boss at the time told me he could understand how the guy might get to that point! So, imagine having to listen to that when your friend was just murdered instead of “I’m sorry,” or “that’s awful.” There were also people asking (men and women), “What was she doing out at 2 a.m.?” She was with a friend, though, sitting right in front of her house, waiting for her dad who was coming down with the dog who needed a walk.
Personally, I was sexually assaulted right on the street on three different occasions. One of those times the man kept following me saying disgusting things to me, so there is more than even just humiliation with catcalling, although humiliation is surely enough.
And what if I hadn’t said, “Good morning” back to the man who said it to me recently? That would have been okay, too, since I didn’t know him. There should be no obligation there to respond in a way that makes him feel good.
That wasn’t what i’d call catcalling, though, and I would never catcall a man and just expect him to respond favorably. I wouldn’t do it at all.
The thing women who like catcalling don’t realize is, it’s not a compliment to them. They can just be responding to how tight her skirt is, her red shoes, her high heels, her big boobs, the fact that she looks very young, that she’s blonde or a redhead, whatever. It doesn’t necessarily even mean she is attractive. They may decide she is looking for attention or not, but it seems to be that when a woman is not necessarily putting out those vibes, they want to humiliate her. I remember summers where I didn’t want to go out to lunch without a jacket when it was freaking 90 degrees because I was afraid of what men would be shouting at me.
The time to feel flattered is when someone who knows you or is a position to interact with you in a normal setting seems to like you and find you attractive, consistently, and no matter what you are wearing. In that type of scenario, if both people enjoy the flirting, that’s great.
Most men do seem to understand all this, so I’m not sure why some don’t get it, and yes, it sadly leads me to conclude they don’t want to get it.
Also, when you say, there are women who like it, that reminds me of manhandling and cat and mouse games, the “yes means no” school of thought, resist and surrender. It’s the stuff some great love stories are often made of. Many women want this and are thrilled to see it or read about it in books. It is classic. So, is that wrong? How is a man to know who likes that and who doesn’t? Very simple, you don’t do that with women you don’t know. You don’t do that with women who don’t seem to like it. That is where I will say, it can be a blurred line, but if two people know each other well enough to know that’s the way they like to play, that’s all good and fine. I empathize here, but people have to be careful on both ends because there are scenarios where some fun, rough stuff and simple manhandling has led to domestic violence and even death.
As for what conservatives believe, I rarely follow their logic, so it doesn’t make a difference to me. I feel a responsibility toward children and others that are not mine. Others do, too. Many conservatives now subscribe to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of every man for himself; they don’t owe anyone anything, etc. While I would agree that no one is owed anything, I am wary of this level of apathy. People have sex for fun, yeah, but they have a chemical predisposition for that and are mere slaves to their hormones. What people mostly don’t agree on is when is it a human life. For me, the embryo is not a human being, but the fetus is, and for that reason, I don’t generally support late term abortion. At the same time, I’ll always defend pro-choice positions because it’s about where we draw that line and how people in power want to move that line, i.e., let’s punish women for having a miscarriage. Might as well punish men for all the jizz balls that didn’t make it, but they would never do that. And when I hear about little girls being forced to have their rapist’s child or a rapist having parental rights, it makes me nuts enough to remain pro-choice.
You ask, do I think men in power primarily benefit other men at the expense of women?
Here is what I see in the workplace. The law firm I worked at for eight years is notorious for passing over their female associates who deserve to be made partner, but then they will promote male associates who are not bringing in the required amount of business and meeting the required criteria that the women meet. In that same law firm, female partners make a lot less, and female associates are often doing paralegal work they’d never give to a male associate. In one of our locations, they have a male partner who sexually harasses women, but if the woman complains, they get threats. This is just an example, but that’s the stuff I care about when I talk about equality—that and the rape culture we’ve discussed which includes male victims.
>> “There is a huge difference between catcalling and simple smiles and giggles in, say, the office (flirtation). Catcalling is shouting or commenting things that are sexually inappropriate. The worst scenario is when you are alone, and there are several men shouting these things at you. Just the other day, I had a stranger smile at me and say, “Good morning, beautiful.” He was alone. I smiled back and said, “Good morning.” It wasn’t offensive, and no he wasn’t attractive, but there was no reason for me to feel threatened in any way. So, yes, big difference.”
Simply saying “good morning” IS considered harassment by lots of feminists – for one example see the original 10 Hours video.
You didn’t feel threatened. That doesn’t mean there aren’t women who do.
>> “You say that men aren’t always good at reading body language, but I don’t believe it’s difficult to differentiate between a positive and a negative response or non-response. I give men a lot more credit than that. If there are women who do respond positively, there really would be no reason for continuing to harass the ones who don’t unless they are trying to humiliate as a response to rejection.”
“Continuing” is the keyword. There’s that (and I would agree it’s harassment if he persists despite clear rejections*), and there’s the first attempt, which can be harassment or not depending on the woman’s reaction. According to modern definitions of harassment, all that’s needed is that the woman didn’t respond positively the first time, even if the man walks away and never speaks to her again.
*And even then, there are women who would not perceive repeated calls to be harassment, preferring for men to keep chasing her. Playing hard-to-get, testing the man’s willingness to put up with her shit, or simply stringing him along and getting free stuff on the way. (Of course, my advice to men is to run upon the first negative signal, which they are en masse. Then we get women whining that men are giving up too easily upon first rejections, but oh well.)
You also seem to have glossed over my thoughts on the more explicit forms of cat-calling being low-status men wanting any sort of attention or validation from a higher-status woman, even if it’s negative. I’m not exactly justifying it, but rather pointing out that there’s no easy solution, much less the feminist approach which starts off with completely-backwards premises.
>> “That is very dangerous territory, since we have had men kill for feeling rejected, feeling justified, and we’ve seen that there are men who can relate to that and
sympathize.”
This is where you come off as misandrist, because in order to paint a ladder of male murderers with male catcallers as simply a lower rung, you ignore there are just as many women who murder men for rejection as well: http://hominishostilis.tumblr.com/post/102429612048/playstation2chainz-shocking-ahem-from-this
Psychopaths of both genders don’t take rejection well, though women are seen as less threatening, are less likely to be arrested and convicted when they do murder.
There are also women who don’t take female psychopaths seriously. The difference is that Sharon Osbourne still has a job after she and her cohosts laughed about a woman cutting off her husband’s penis and putting it in a garbage disposal. Jezebel is still around in spite of their bragging about domestic violence against male partners.
You’ll say you’re disgusted by these women as well, but the difference is that I see you painting a narrative where male cat-callers are a lower rung on the ladder with violent men on top. You don’t see women like Osbourne or her cohosts as venturing into ‘dangerous’ territory, with them being at risk themselves of committing violence against their male partners.
Or look at how sitcoms not only play up domestic violence (and sometimes rape) of women against men, for laughs, but also that no one ever thinks of linking this to women who actually do commit violence against male partners. No one watches such sitcom scenes and goes “this is very dangerous, there are women who DO this stuff in real life”.
>> “I had a friend who was murdered at 19, and people assumed she had rejected the man. My boss at the time told me he could understand how the guy might get to that point! So, imagine having to listen to that when your friend was just murdered instead of “I’m sorry,” or “that’s awful.” There were also people asking (men and women), “What was she doing out at 2 a.m.?” She was with a friend, though, sitting right in front of her house, waiting for her dad who was coming down with the dog who needed a walk.”
That’s awful indeed. I don’t know the whole context, but I find it interesting that people would assume the worst of a man only, that he was that much of a psychopath to have murdered for rejection. When a woman murders a man, the question is what *he* did that made her do so.
“What was she doing out at 2 am?” seems more simple curiosity as to how it took place, building up a mental scene of the crime. I’d be wondering about that too as the default for people is to be asleep at 2 am, so there must be a reason for someone to get out, potentially having something to do with the crime itself. If it was found that someone had distracted her, it could implicate more guilty parties. None of this is victim-blaming, but rather wondering what tiny, minuscule shift in events changed the timeline so drastically.
>> “The thing women who like catcalling don’t realize is, it’s not a compliment to them. They can just be responding to how tight her skirt is, her red shoes, her high heels, her big boobs, the fact that she looks very young, that she’s blonde or a redhead, whatever. It doesn’t necessarily even mean she is attractive.”
Okay, so no woman, no matter her sexual openness, should feel complimented by a stranger finding her hot and wanting to bone her right away. This isn’t radfem thinking how? To say flat-out that no woman should feel good if a stranger finds her butt sexually attractive?
This is also the very stuff sex-fearing conservatives are made of: the absolute horror that some people feel good about being sexually attractive to a stranger, who doesn’t know them at all. The horror that some women feel good about themselves when they have cleavage showing and men are attracted to that.
>> “They may decide she is looking for attention or not, but it seems to be that when a woman is not necessarily putting out those vibes, they want to humiliate her.”
Yeah, I think some of it is for humiliation, but not stemming from privilege. Rather it’s trying to bring down a higher-status woman to the status of an invisible, low-class street laborer.
>> “I remember summers where I didn’t want to go out to lunch without a jacket when it was freaking 90 degrees because I was afraid of what men would be shouting at me.”
I did the same as well, though it wasn’t entirely annoyance at cat-calling, but I just didn’t want anyone approaching me with even promotion flyers and tourist questions, etc.
Interestingly, during one of my depressions (from other causes) I felt humiliated by even compliments on my face. I still felt horribly ‘objectified’ from being a ‘pretty face’, and I wouldn’t have felt any better about a “hey beautiful” than a “nice rack”.
Everyone’s standards are different, and the sooner you realize that some women feel humiliated by even “good morning beautiful” and some women feel complimented by “nice ass”, the better. You keep trying to impose your comfortability standards on all women.
>> “Also, when you say, there are women who like it, that reminds me of manhandling and cat and mouse games, the “yes means no” school of thought, resist and surrender. It’s the stuff some great love stories are often made of. Many women want this and are thrilled to see it or read about it in books. It is classic. So, is that wrong? How is a man to know who likes that and who doesn’t? Very simple, you don’t do that with women you don’t know. You don’t do that with women who don’t seem to like it. That is where I will say, it can be a blurred line, but if two people know each other well enough to know that’s the way they like to play, that’s all good and fine. I empathize here, but people have to be careful on both ends because there are scenarios where some fun, rough stuff and simple manhandling has led to domestic violence and even death.”
I would agree that it’s far better and safer for men to do it with women they know (if they even decide to do anything sexual with women, given all the “affirmative consent” laws going around), but as long as there are a good number of women that expect men to do all the initial contact, there will be situations where a man will make a mistake, such as kissing her after lots of flirting and it turns out she wasn’t ready for that, and instead of it being an awkward situation, it’s now sexual assault.
How well do you have to know a woman anyway? It’s a blurred line as well. There’s meeting a stranger girl at a bar, hitting it off, flirting, kissing, then feeling each other up. You move your hands under her shirt, she says she doesn’t want to go that far, you withdraw instantly, but it’s too late. You touched her without her consent.
>> “People have sex for fun, yeah, but they have a chemical predisposition (not to mention procreation brainwash) and are mere slaves to their hormones.”
This is…an interesting way to put it – startlingly close to justifying assault there, I might say, if people are merely slaves to their hormones.
Procreation brainwashing applies to only a minority of extreme conservatives. The vast majority of conservatives these days are fine with some birth control and premarital sex, which is basically for fun.
>> “Might as well punish men for all the jizz balls that didn’t make it, but they would never do that.”
They have. Religions have consistently attempted to ban men from masturbating. Onan was slain by God for “spilling his seed”. The obsession with preventing male masturbation has gone on for millennia, and one reason for cutting boys’ dicks was to prevent exactly that. Religious conservatives hate the idea of men’s jizz going anywhere but up a vagina for baby-making.
You know all this, but ignore it to make it sound like it’s only women’s reproductive freedom being opposed by religious conservatives. This is why feminism results in man hating. You tell blatant lies that men have it better and then wonder why it often results in resentment.
Also, I’m vehemently pro-choice and always have been, but I’m tired of this comparison. No, sperm alone is not equivalent to an embryo or fetus. A fetus is qualitatively different from sperm, has its own DNA, conception being one of the clearest physical points of a new human being. Even the most rabid pro-lifer doesn’t care about women’s eggs being dumped out with periods all the time – and that too, eggs are much rarer than sperm.
>> “And when I hear about little girls being forced to have their rapist’s child or a rapist having parental rights, it makes me nuts enough to remain pro-choice. ”
Yep. That doesn’t happen in western countries, but in places where all types of horrifying things happen. Places where, yes, cultural and religious bullshit are the norm, but also where abortion isn’t entirely a matter of an ethical debate, but also a matter of lack of medical facilities.
You know what does happen in western countries though, without much outrage? Little boys being raped, then sued for back child support by their rapist when grown up. Not to mention that the rapist actually has had full parental rights over the child for 18 years.
>> “Here is what I see in the workplace. The law firm I worked at for eight years is notorious for passing over their female associates who deserve to be made partner, but then they will promote male associates who are not bringing in the required amount of business and meeting the required criteria that the women meet. In that same law firm, female partners make a lot less, and female associates are often doing paralegal work they’d never give to a male associate.”
Here’s the thing: it’s anecdotal, so it’s possible that like the “wage gap” myth, the difference is due to differing degrees or plans for future. These men could very well have specifically asked for more work to help support their families. Men are more likely to ask for a raise than women as well.
But if what you’ve observed is due to gender discrimination, I agree it’s unfair, but I don’t really see negative attitudes against women in the workplace as stemming from a hatred of women, but rather out of traditional roles which both advantage and disadvantage women. It’s sexist, but sexism is not always oppressive towards women.
If anything, women being discouraged from work, is more of privilege backfiring. The way I see it, having someone bound to provide for all your needs, is the privilege, and anything negative resulting from that is it backfiring. Instead of working long hours to feed your family and take care of their needs and wants, traditional conservatives go, women should be doing the much safer (and often easier) household work, while her husband toils outdoors for long hours to bring in the money that goes into a joint account. (I’m generally baffled as to how feminists managed to convince the anti-capitalist left that working for wages is now a privilege – also the anti-war left that dying in war is male privilege.)
There’s also one important factor that also means women are, by and large, less likely to invest wholly in the workplace, and men must take on extra work to make up: children. I’m creeped the fuck out by the idea of pregnancy, but I realize that most women go all gaga over babies.
I remember one story from a woman who watched a lot of her female friends date and marry men who were at an ‘equal’ level career-wise, and they were fine with both of them working. But then when children came along, these women would suddenly expect their non-career-minded husbands to focus more on their career, take on more work, to allow her to stay at home. In the end, she said outright that women should marry upwards – but she doesn’t seem to have figured that this means: you can either discourage women from rising high in their careers, or let ‘career women’ be lonely from a shortage of men ranking at or above her level.
Here’s another story. Over a year ago I wanted a therapist (and most fields are dominated by women). I had some needs that narrowed things down, but I was still able to locate several suitable ones. Over the course of a few weeks, it turned out that almost everyone I could get a hold of was unable to see me as they were on maternity leave or going on leave soon. It was so frustrating at one point that I found myself wishing there were more male therapists. Perhaps such a wish was sexist, but I hardly think it was oppressive to women.
I’ve also heard of women being hired, trained for months, then they’ll get pregnant and leave for a year or two (if they even ever return), putting all the training to waste. The only way out is to only hire sterilized women, or make any fertile female employees sign a contract mandating an instant abortion if she gets pregnant so as to guarantee the company won’t lose out on training and rehire costs. Somehow I don’t see that going down too well.
It’s not at all comparable to a man getting in an accident and missing work. Even if the pregnancy itself was an accident (or resulting from rape), the woman still chooses to carry it to term and also raise the baby, taking months to years off her career, and her male partner will have to take on more workload for her.
One solution to this imbalance might be required paternity leave, but even then women are still taking longer off for maternity leave. You’re also not likely to find paternity leave being a thing in anything other than the most developed countries, and even there you find that in spite of incentives, men are giving up their parental leave days to their wives.
To sum up, I don’t see traditionalist discouraging-women-from-the-workplace attitudes as stemming out of a simple want to oppress them. It’s a lot more complicated than that, when such traditional roles benefited women as well.
>> “In one of our locations, they have a male partner who sexually harasses women, but if the woman complains, they get threats.”
What’s stopping them all from recording the evidence and bringing it to HR’s attention? Or filing a complaint with the EEoC (for the US)? There are also laws against an employer retaliating by threats such as firing, if you record the threats.
Okay, let me clear some of this up before things get hectic here again.
There are many assumptions made. I’ll get those out of the way first.
First, I don’t find any type of violence amusing or entertaining. Domestic abuse and rape are appalling no matter who the victim is. I am extremely outraged and devastated by children being raped, girls or boys. I have serious issues with religious leaders protecting pedophiles, and I’m very outspoken about this on social media.
I don’t see female psychopaths as less threatening than male psychopaths. You refer to Sharon Osbourne and her cohosts like I am privy to all their discussions, but this is the first time I’ve heard about this, and I would not find a conversation like this to be less dangerous than equivalent conversations about women.
I also do not want to impose my comfortability standards on all women. I realize all women don’t feel the same way about catcalling, playing hard to get, rough handling, etc. Wasn’t that the point? I am not creating laws here; I speak for myself, because I am allowed to set my own standards. Other women can set theirs, draw the lines where they see fit, and react however they want. I’m not looking to please radfems or men advocates or anyone for that matter.
I did not say or mean to imply there was an easy solution to the abovementioned. What I did say was that mutual respect and empathy would help in all these situations. Or course, where empathy and respect are pretty much nonexistent, culprits won’t be concerned about body language or acting accordingly with the response. There are many situations where men are seriously trying to catch a woman’s interest, with the proper modicum of respect, and I don’t take issue with that.
I also did not say or mean to imply that women should never feel complimented by a stranger finding her attractive! I don’t even think that! What I said was men catcalling a woman doesn’t necessarily mean they find her attractive. In my experience, it’s not a compliment, and it’s not the same as flirtation. Still I would never tell another woman how to feel.
I was being facetious about the jizz balls, so no I don’t think sperm is the equivalent of an embryo or fetus. But seriously, I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and I can tell you that girls are equally shamed for masturbation and having thoughts about sex.
As for the conservative position regarding women, I clearly disagree that the general platform seeks to punish and control women. I’m not going to comment on what the vast majority of conservatives think or want because I get nauseous every time I read things about their voting to make it an employer’s right to refuse birth control and to defund Planned Parenthood. It’s not one guy deciding these things but a whole bunch. That’s pretty clear to me. Most of the conservatives I know (yes, men and women) seem to go along not to break with party platform, and for fear of going to hell.
As for trying to “paint” catcallers as murders, that is a bit of a stretch. I’m saying you can’t ignore that there have been situations where rejected males have resorted to violence, yes, including murder, many of them, and there have been sympathizers. I don’t see why that can’t be acknowledged as yet another reason women are frightened of catcalling. You don’t have to point out that there have been murderous rampages of rejected women psychos; I know this. Women are not the typical culprits for this type of explicit and humiliating catcalling, so why bring them up just to dismisses the concern. It’s a concern, period.
My friend’s murder came with a lot of victim blaming, yes, or I wouldn’t have mentioned it. The people who said those things made it clear that she should not have been outside at 2 a.m. even though they’d already heard she went to a club with her friend and just returned. They were coming up with various scenarios to try to somehow justify it. I would agree that it’s wrong to assume a man murdered for rejection, and though I was not the one who assumed that, it later turned out that that was exactly the reason.
Let me also address the slaves to our hormones comment, as I wasn’t clear. After a full hysterectomy, I had no estrogen replacement because I am a cancer survivor. That resulted in 0 interest in sex. So, when you said the conservatives figure women are just doing It for fun, I responded with that, because I don’t think people have that much of a choice when it comes to desiring sex. The desires and responses will happen whether they want it to or not, but it doesn’t mean they should or would attack people against their will. We are civilized human beings after all.
When you were talking about the status of the catcalling culprits, I didn’t have much to say because, to be honest, I don’t think of people in those terms—high status or low status. It was interesting to consider. I never gave any thought to how much money the men make or their level of self-esteem. Yes, I noticed that construction workers were often the ones. butI have seen men do this who work in offices. When I worked in Manhattan, they sat around at lunch time doing their catcalling outside the building, and I wouldn’t look at them long enough to see what kind of people they were. Men who yell out of car windows can be anything. I know a lawyer who does it. I have worked with doctors who catcall. I doubt all the men hooting from the boardwalk at the beach are construction workers or ex-cons. I see us all as equal and equally responsible. I also see this point as irrelevant in terms of how to deal with it. You said it was not an attempt to justify it, so I’m not sure how it matters.
Finally, yes, there is gender discrimination in the place where I’ve worked. The deserving women have asked for raises, and they have worked hard. The discrimination there is common knowledge. Men have said it, too. With the sexual harassment, not all law firms have HR departments. We have office managers who have no power over the managing partners. I believe the women didn’t file complaints because they are afraid of not being hired by other firms. It’s all about reputation here, and they don’t like to hire troublemakers. They don’t have to say what the real reason is. Anyway, this is what I’ve been told. I don’t work in that particular office, but I will say some of the women are lawyers themselves, so they should know what they can do. I agree it should not be tolerated.
I will say though, reading this last post, I did start to feel that the goal of this conversation was to finally be able to stick a label of misandrist on me. I hope that’s not the case. It would be disappointing because I thought we were learning from each other and enjoying a good discussion.
That said, I also realized it doesn’t matter how someone else wishes to label me. I have no control over that. and that’s fine with me.
>> “First, I don’t find any type of violence amusing or entertaining. Domestic abuse and rape are appalling no matter who the victim is. I am extremely outraged and devastated by children being raped, girls or boys. I have serious issues with religious leaders protecting pedophiles, and I’m very outspoken about this on social media. I don’t see female psychopaths as less threatening than male psychopaths. You refer to Sharon Osbourne and her cohosts like I am privy to all their discussions, but this is the first time I’ve heard about this, and I would not find a conversation like this to be less dangerous than equiva lent conversations about women.”
I didn’t say you found it amusing. I did say that it sounds like you are still more prone to view men as more threatening than women.
So what if some men humiliate, lash out at a woman for being rejected, perhaps to simply let off steam and get over her? Why do you call that “dangerous territory”, when 80% of homicide victims are men? Does it have to go down to 0% female murder victims for women to stop feeling threatened?
>> “I also do not want to impose my comfortability standards on all women. I realize all women don’t feel the same way about catcalling, playing hard to get, rough handling, etc. Wasn’t that the point? I am not creating laws here; I speak for myself, because I am allowed to set my own standards. Other women can set theirs, draw the lines where they see fit, and react however they want. I’m not looking to please radfems or men advocates or anyone else for that matter.”
>> “I also did not say or mean to imply that women should never feel complimented by a stranger finding her attractive! I don’t even think that! What I said was men catcalling a woman doesn’t necessarily mean they find her attractive. In my experience, it’s not a compliment, and it’s not the same as flirtation. Still I would never tell another woman how to feel.”
And yet here you said that women who like catcalling should not like it, if the comments are about her body: “The thing women who like catcalling don’t realize is, it’s not a compliment to them. They can just be responding to how tight her skirt is, her red shoes, her high heels, her big boobs, the fact that she looks very young, that she’s blonde or a redhead, whatever.”
If what you meant was that *some* women might mistake “hey baby!” for “hey, beautiful” when it really was “nice ass”, fair enough, but that still leaves a good deal of women that do like “nice ass”.
Again, you cannot support female sexual liberation, women’s right to be seen as sexual objects, without also supporting men’s right to sexually objectify women. Radfems realize this, and are thus opposed to both. Conservatives also realize this, and try to control both of them. Libfem tries to support the former but not the latter, which is only possible if men are psychic.
Attraction includes sexual attraction. If you recognize some women like getting attention on the street, you can’t blame men for mistaking you for one of them (again, judging by flirty dress and behavior was a rough attempt to deal with this).
>> “I was being facetious about the jizz balls, so no I don’t think sperm is the equivalent of an embryo or fetus. But seriously, I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and I can tell you that girls are equally shamed for masturbation and having thoughts about sex.”
Sometimes, yes, in which case these are gender-neutral issues. I’d say conservatives are often far less concerned about female masturbation, usually because they don’t believe it exists, than male. It’s the same way as how lesbians are not affected by the vast, vast, majority of anti-gay laws in history and around the world.
However, you phrased it as, “let’s punish women for having a miscarriage. Might as well punish men for all the jizz balls that didn’t make it, but they would never do that.”
The latter line was sarcasm, with the assumption that men are not punished for failed jizz balls. I pointed out that, um, they are, therefore your sarcastic line fails, so you try to backtrack and repaint your quote, trying to now make it sound like you didn’t really mean to imply that men aren’t punished.
Why would you want to put it like this, as if women are punished for a failed reproduction and men are not, if not trying to put forth a specific narrative that people in power favor men and punish women? Men are just free to shoot their loads all over, anytime, anywhere, while the poor suffering women are punished by people that just want to hate on women, right?
>> “As for the conservative position regarding women, I clearly disagree that the general platform doesn’t seek to punish and control women. I’m not going to comment on what the vast majority of conservatives think or want because I get nauseous every time I read things about their voting to make it an employer’s right to refuse covering birth control and the decision to defund Planned Parenthood, the inclusion of RAPE and pregnancy as “preexisting conditions” but not erectile dysfunction. It’s not one guy deciding these things but a whole bunch. That’s pretty clear to me. Most of the conservatives I know (yes, men and women) seem to go along not to break with party platform or for fear of going to hell.”
I’m no conservative, and I don’t really keep track of these, but I don’t see why birth control should be covered if it’s not explicitly for health issues. I have no issue with defunding PP either, but that’s because I’d rather it be an issue of the market, not because I’m pro-life.
But I definitely take issue with this: “I clearly disagree that the general platform doesn’t seek to punish and control women.” Conservatives want to control both men and women, and if anything, their policies affect men far more than women.
Conservatives are pro-war and for the draft, and who are they going to send off to war to die? Men, and only men. They would never force women into war, such as when a bill proposing Selective Service be applied to women: https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/02/17/the-primary-victim-of-equality-is-not-your-daughter/
They literally value women’s lives and freedom more than men’s lives and freedom here, but you ignore this.
Conservatives advocate for tougher penalties for crime, and who are the primary victims of those? Men.
Conservatives often also think in cases of accidental pregnancies, the man should be yoked to the woman for life, regardless of what *he* wants for his life and future.
Conservatives also ignore male rape and abuse victims even *more* than female rape and abuse victims.
But you aren’t saying that conservatives want to punish men, are you? You aren’t saying they want to punish men when they advocate for a male-only draft, are you?
What I’m seeing here is that your implicit bias against male victims means you’re only focusing on when conservative policies affect women, and thus you conclude they want to punish women specifically. I’d say that if you look at a conservative agenda, you’ll find that men are affected more than women. If you want to say their policies are against humanity, go right ahead.
Society, including you, cares more when women are affected, with absolutely no regard for what’s happening to men. (This applies to conservatives too. Look at how they screech about how Islamic countries oppress women, even though for every one woman executed for adultery, there are a hundred men executed for far less serious crimes.)
>> “As for trying to “paint” catcallers as murders, that is a bit of a stretch. I’m saying you can’t ignore that there have been situations where rejected males have resorted to violence, yes, including murder, many of them, and there have been sympathizers. I don’t see why that can’t be acknowledged as yet another reason women are frightened of catcalling. You don’t have to point out that there have been murderous rampages of rejected women psychos; I know this. Women are not the typical culprits for this type of explicit and humiliating catcalling, so why bring them up just to dismiss the concern? It’s a concern, period.
I said you were trying to paint a *ladder* with catcallers as a lower rung, with murderers at the top, making it seem like catcalling often escalates to murder.
Murderers are a tiny minority of the population. The vast majority of murders, overall, happen when the victim knows the offender. And within that minority within a minority, with stranger murder, men are still far more likely to be murdered than a woman.
If women feel more threatened than a man, look at the cold hard facts showing across the board that men are more likely to be murdered, and get over that feeling. Your male companion is statistically more likely to be murdered than you. (It might interest you that testosterone is correlated with a decrease in risk aversion. It’s not that men are more aggressive (though aggression results in higher testosterone), but that men are more likely to take risks, more likely to disregard threats to their lives. That and we teach them to value a stranger woman’s life more than their own.)
What I see here is you trying to rationalize away women’s irrational feelings of being threatened instead of accepting that they are largely baseless, that women are in reality a minority of victims. Anything that happens to a woman is instantly treated as worse by society because of the instinct to protect women at all costs. Even one woman dying is one too many, while we ignore the bodies of men all around.
It isn’t just that female psychos exist, it’s also that society does not treat them as it does male psychos. I mean, do you see it as *dangerous* when rejected women are hurt and angry, because a minority of them actually will go on to murder the man? No one does.
>> “My friend’s murder came with a lot of victim blaming, yes, or I wouldn’t have mentioned it. The people who said those things made it clear that she should not have been outside at 2 a.m. even though they’d already heard she went to a club with her friend and just returned. They were coming up with various scenarios to try to somehow justify it. I would agree that it’s wrong to assume a man committed murder as a response to rejection, and though I was not the one who assumed that, it later turned out that that was exactly the reason. He had been rejected by many women in his life which he stated as one of the reasons for his killing spree. What is also interesting is that people considered rejection as a way to possibly justify it and not to belittle him, but there seems to be more concern for how a murderer was perceived than how a 19 year old female victim of a crime was perceived. Even you seem to be more concerned with how he was perceived than how she was perceived.”
Again, this exact scenario would have been far, far *worse* if it was a woman murdering a man. Far more victim-blaming, far more sympathy for the murderer, and unlike with men, this sympathy and justification would carry over to the legal system, where she would get a much-reduced sentence than a male murderer. That’s my point. Women get victim-blamed less than men, and women murderers get off lightly, but instead you’re bringing it up like it’s special when it happens to women.
*People* are sometimes victim-blamed, men much more than women. If it’s clearly worse for men and the statistics all point to his maleness being the cause, then it’s not a woman’s issue. You can either treat it as a gender-neutral issue or a men’s issue that happens to *sometimes affect* women as well.
If it seems like I’m more concerned with how he was perceived than her, it’s because you specifically brought this up as a reason for women to fear rejection from men, for women to see men as threatening. I’d probably also appear the same if I was talking to someone from ’30s Alabama about a rape of a white woman by a black man.
>> “Let me also address the slaves to our hormones comment, as I wasn’t clear. After a full hysterectomy, I had no estrogen replacement because I am a cancer survivor. That resulted in 0 interest in sex. So, when you said the conservatives figure women are just doing It for fun, I responded with that, because I don’t think people have that much of a choice when it comes to desiring sex. The desires and responses will happen whether they want it to or not, but it doesn’t mean they should or would attack people against their will. We are civilized human beings after all.”
We desire sex, but actually engaging in it is entirely optional. We desire all sorts of fun things. I don’t see any internal inconsistency when conservatives argue that we need to limit acting upon our desires outside of marriage, when they might result in (what is to them) a murder.
“When you were talking about the status of the catcalling culprits, I didn’t have much to say because, to be honest, I don’t think of people in those terms—high status or low status. It was interesting to consider. I never gave any thought to how much money the men make or their level of self-esteem. Yes, I noticed that construction workers were often the ones. but I have seen men do this who work in offices. When I worked in Manhattan, they sat around at lunch time doing their catcalling outside the building, and I wouldn’t look at them long enough to see what kind of people they were. Men who yell out of car windows can be anything. I know a lawyer who does it. I have worked with doctors who catcall. I doubt all the men hooting from the boardwalk at the beach are construction workers or ex-cons. I see us all as equal and equally responsible. I also see this point as irrelevant in terms of how to deal with it. You said it was not an attempt to justify it, so I’m not sure how it matters.”
I was putting forth that catcalling was largely something people who felt invisible did, and I think both low-status people and *men* in and of themselves feel invisible and need to be acknowledged. Catcalling is highest when those two are both present in someone.
It’s also, like I said, a slot mentality – even if 1 in 20 women respond positively, that’s good enough.
My general point is that, catcalling does not come from a place of privilege, but rather the exact opposite. I actually see it to be much like how coal-miner and prison-laborer men will laugh at and humiliate a rich man dressed up all peacocky. (In fact, I’d say this is why feminine men are laughed at, not because they’re demeaning themselves, but the opposite – they are dressing *above* their station – femininity correlates almost perfectly with upper-class style and behavior: impractical and less-utilitarian clothing, high heels, long hair and manicured nails, etc.) It might be a jerky thing to do, but I still understand why they’re lashing out, and there aren’t any easy solutions.
>> “Finally, yes, there is gender discrimination in the place where I’ve worked. The deserving women have asked for raises, and they have worked hard. The discrimination there is common knowledge. Men have said it, too. With the sexual harassment, not all law firms have HR departments. We have office managers who have no power over the managing partners. I believe the women didn’t file complaints because they are afraid of not being hired by other firms. It’s all about reputation here, and they don’t like to hire troublemakers. They don’t have to say what the real reason is. Anyway, this is what I’ve been told. I don’t work in that particular office, but I will say some of the women are lawyers themselves, so they should know what they can do. And I agree it should not be tolerated.”
If all that is true (and again, statistics keep showing that overall women are less likely to prioritize work over family, while men are forced to take on extra shifts to make up, in spite of decades of attempts to push women into upper-management positions, that men are more likely than women to demand raises or take risks at the workplace), it still does not necessarily mean women are oppressed. (And men often have to put up with far more explicit sexual discrimination from women: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6dp165/im_back_in_school_to_be_a_nurse_and_was/ )
I’m also not sure how that says that sexual harassment in particular is tolerated, and not that workplaces are often shitty. I dealt with all sorts of non-sexual bullshit at one workplace. People would constantly get hired and quit in a couple weeks, but I didn’t have much of a choice but to stay and tolerate it. Men have put up with all sorts of bullshit in order to get work, without labor unions or modern laws, and I don’t think sexual harassment is worse than the shit male laborers have had to put up for thousands of years (and men also deal with sexual harassment from female bosses). The idea that sexual harassment against women is on a whole other level is based upon the conservative Victorian idea of women’s sexuality being something innately special and precious, which is out of place in the modern world.
Also, there’s a difference between discrimination and oppression. Restrooms discriminate upon sex, but are not oppressive. The discrimination can only be oppressive if the women’s restroom is objectively worse than the men’s. (Radfems see feminine roles as objectively worse than the masculine role, therefore women were oppressed. “Choice feminists” claim to see the feminine role as no worse than the masculine, but in order to hold to the premise that women were oppressed, must either hold to: feminine roles were more strictly enforced than the masculine (which is very hard to justify) or that the feminine roles are inherently inferior.)
>> “I will say though, reading this last post, I did start to feel that the goal of this conversation was to finally be able to stick a label of misandrist on me. I hope that’s not the case. It would be disappointing because I thought we were learning from each other and enjoying a good discussion.”
Not exactly. What I’m trying to do is point out where I think you have some radfem baggage, that comes with holding to any feminist premises. What you do with that information is up to you. Like I said earlier, if you want to be consistent, you have to either become a radfem, or abandon feminism completely.
I don’t think you hate men, but you do hold some negative preconceptions about men, such as when you keep trying to rationalize away women feeling threatened by men. (If ‘misogyny’ can refer to not only the minority of explicit “I hate women” people, but also to those who hold negative views about women, then same goes for ‘misandry’.)
You also constantly bring up when women are the victims of something that clearly affects men equally or more, as if they are specifically unique to women. I’m trying to point out that these are gender-neutral or male issues, but you still seem to have an implicit bias making you focus on when women are the victims and ignoring what happens to men. You’re telling me some women are murdered. I know that. I’m saying that these are not women’s issues, when being a woman in fact *protects* you. If you see it as a problem that any women are victimized at all, that’s the implicit bias I’m talking about.
“Again, you cannot support female sexual liberation, women’s right to be seen as sexual objects, without also supporting men’s right to sexually objectify women.”
Another interesting thing here is that feminists make such a huge deal of sexual objectification of women, but won’t even consider the idea that not only does sexual objectification of men exist, but so does financial objectification of men, and the latter at least as much as women are sexually objectified.
“Merriam-Webster’s definition of feminism is: “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” and “organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests,” also explained as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”
Were you aware that definition was changed a year before you made that post? Before that, the official, more accurate definition was “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of social, political, and economic equality to men.”
Feminism got the definition changed to the version you stated not because it’s true, but because it makes them sound better. It uses obfuscating language to make it sound like feminism supports men’s rights as well, when in fact it actively opposes them.
This is awesome commentary, and a great sex flip. I’d like to see more things like this with sexes flipped. May I suggest a nice satirical article or podcast with some equivalents for the litany of sexist feminist complaints such as: manspreading, mansplaining, manterrupting, etc? Would be very entertaining.
Men are obnoxious whores only worthy of my time if they PAY for it. Otherwise I avoid them at all costs. Men bring no value to a womans personal life except a willing cock and an open wallet.