A comment by MrStonedOne over on a r/MensRights thread caught my eye. It goes beyond the usual privilege lists by parodying them. Enjoy
Check Your Privilege!
A Guide To Male Privilege
•The privilege of paying child support at age 14 to the 30-year-old woman who raped him.
•The privilege of being laughed at or jailed when his girlfriend or wife batters him.
•The privilege of having his “privileged status” be used to discount any issues he may face.
•The privilege of being assumed a potential rapist, child molester, or batterer based only on his gender.
•The privilege of being shamed for being a virgin, then shamed for being sexually active (pig shaming).
•The privilege of being assumed guilty in most cases of crime against females.
•The privilege of all the potential joys of having his genitals mutilated as an infant, and then growing up to hear women freely opine on their preference for mutilated men.
•The privilege of being 80% of youth suicides. cite
•The privilege of being 8 times more likely to be doped up with Ritalin in school so they can tolerate the school environment. (not succeed in it, just tolerate it, because nearly twice as many girls as boys can read proficiently by the time they exit highschool.)
•The privilege of accounting for 20 times the workplace deaths.
•The privilege of accounting for 10 times the risk of homelessness. cite
•The privilege of accounting for 20 times the risk of being incarcerated.
•The privilege of getting longer sentences for the exact same crime.
•The privilege of a 3 to 4 times greater risk of being a victim of violent crime.
•The privilege of an exactly equal risk of being a victim of DV (along with the privilege of a roughly 0% chance of being offered a bed in a shelter).
•The privilege of an exactly equal risk of being forced into sexual intercourse (Along with the privilege of having it not be considered rape in 80% of those cases simply because the perpetrator was female). article by Genderratic detailing the source for this claim
•The privilege of being congratulated for being raped because the perpetrator was ‘hot’.
•The privilege of twice the risk of having a spouse initiate a divorce.
•The privilege of 20 times the risk of losing custody of his children upon divorce.
•The privilege of having his compassion for his step children used to justify a permanent financial obligation to them because he “assumed a fatherly role”.
•The privilege of a higher death rate with respect to 14 of the 15 leading causes of death.
•The privilege of a lower life expectancy. cite
•The privilege of having roughly 8 times as much public money spent on the health of the opposite sex.
•The privilege of being charged with rape if the other party regrets intercourse. (Even when he and the other party never had intercourse.)
•The privilege of having zero reproductive autonomy.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
She’s right that people probably won’t assume you’re a “quota” hire (assuming you’re white of course) however, if the job is high status enough, people will attribute it to the “old boyz club”
The fact that it could be a quota hire, or a cleavage hire, are female privileges to begin with. All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder, no matter what that ladder may be.
The fact that it could be a quota hire, or a cleavage hire, are female privileges to begin with. All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder. From the tiniest acts of chivalry to being able to skip hazardous duty (military and otherwise) that other workers cannot, people notice. Men and women aren’t any different in noticing it, either. Men also notice it outside of work – when they earn the same money for the same work, but still expect to be treated with chivalrous deference outside of work. When you’re both working at mid-level jobs but your coworker pulls up in a Range Rover because she got to marry a doctor and you’re a man, then fuck her and the equality she rode in on.
I’m not having a good commenting night…
“All else being equal, even a similarly competent women will be resented by coworkers if she gets a job without having to climb a similar ladder. ”
And that’s where I theorized long before that a sizeable chunk of homophobia directed towards men from men comes from.
A sort of “I paid my due, toughed it out, sucked it up, and didn’t do ANY girly thing. And you didn’t do that (maybe you didn’t suck it up, or like dress up or w/e), why should I respect you?”. Some are so threatened by it that they beat the person.
or they are angry that another person is existing, living, perhaps even has the nerve to be happy, while not subjecting themselves to the pressure and stress of trying to conform to the “man-code”. These people who end up beating up gay guys might be angry at themselves for making themselves live the way they do, and they take it out on the people who chose not to restrict themselves the same way, who didn’t believe the lies.
“I’m not having a good commenting night…”
When you drop a line like this one:
“then fuck her and the equality she rode in on.”
I’d say you’re doing fine.
“She’s right that people probably won’t assume you’re a “quota” hire (assuming you’re white of course) however, if the job is high status enough, people will attribute it to the “old boyz club”
“Male privilege”? Hello….!
@powers that be, thanks for fixing that comment.
@Schala, I don’t know why that made you think of homophobia. I’m not aware of any special privilege that gay men have which lets them get ahead of straight men in the workplace. Or am I missing something? Even if there’s jealousy involved in someone’s homophobia, it doesn’t mean that having a sense of fair play in is wrong in any way.
Fair play is the reason why workers set up collective bargaining with their employers, why they strive for objective standards for evaluating work and compensation, why they want safe working conditions, and why nepotism, kickbacks, bribes, etc. are all frowned upon. That’s why people usually care deeply about and are very suspicious of people who can get ahead in the workplace without going through the same process that has been determined to be equitable. It’s one thing to change that process for everyone, to make it more egalitarian and to fix an existing unfairness, but that has to be done in a way that doesn’t violate everyone else’s sense of fair play. It’s another thing entirely to offer a shortcut to just a few select people based characteristics that have nothing to do with the job. People struggle to put food on the table for their family and they simply won’t like it any more than seeing a CEO promote his incompetent son ahead of a senior worker. It’s not driven by sexism or privilege but by fair play. Same thing happens when social engineers arrive on the scene and start tweaking the social contract for one person to give her the right to enter the workplace under a different set of conditions than those that everyone else has been and continues to be obligated to abide by.
“@Schala, I don’t know why that made you think of homophobia. I’m not aware of any special privilege that gay men have which lets them get ahead of straight men in the workplace. Or am I missing something? Even if there’s jealousy involved in someone’s homophobia, it doesn’t mean that having a sense of fair play in is wrong in any way.”
1) I’m no talking about workplace
2) I’m not talking about gay men, but about feminity in men.
Homophobia is very very often directed towards this. Towards “not performing enough” male (meaning sucking it up, manning up, shutting up about it, no whining ever), or doing anything feminine (ie anything that could be perceived as vanity for most men, but as normal for most women, like taking extra care of hair).
So in short, straight masculine men are beating up perceived-to-be-gay-because-feminine men (regardless of them being gay), because those men don’t feel as constrained as them (say, they think they should have the right to wear more than monochrome clothing in 2 varieties, or something), so they must pay for it, and/or fall in line with others (eat shit for dinner, like everyone else).
Because if they don’t fall in line, they’re “getting away with doing less” to get the same “manly” respect as others.
The same reasoning of why cliquish women bitch and slut-shame other women. To make them conform.
“@Schala, I don’t know why that made you think of homophobia. I’m not aware of any special privilege that gay men have which lets them get ahead of straight men in the workplace. Or am I missing something? ”
Probably, dungone. There are workplaces and workplaces. Can’t remember who it was, but someone who would know said that when it comes to political reporting and commentary in DC, it definitely helps to be a gay man because of the gay old boy network. This guy said he was given tips and opportunities he would not otherwise hav had simnply because he was gay. Ironically these netwoprks arose for mutual protection in very hostile environments, and now they disadvantage straight men, and women. For years the one on LA was called the Velvet Underground, and one of the things it did was to keep the police from getting too zealous when it came to harrassing gay men.
Then of course there are gay dominated industries like travel, hospitality and theater. It doesn’t hurt at all to be gay in the superrmarket industry either, not at all.
Again, I’m not sure why you bring this up. It seems that you’re starting with the concept of fair play and suggesting that this is the reason why femininity in men is frowned upon. I think that’s a huge and very questionable leap – various other factors along the way are the real reason behind gender role enforcement and it’s got nothing to do with fair play. It’s the obligation that men perform dangerous work which leads to the shaming of men who opt out. If it was about fairness, then women would be just as stigmatized for expressing femininity.
Sounds like that has to do with the fact that being gay can be hazardous to one’s health. Gay men are just as obligated to work as straight men are with the additional risks imposed by being gay. Not what I would call an advantage, especially since it might limit gay men to professions that already have these fraternities in place. I admit, though, my original interpretation was of the military and I had to wonder how in the hell being effeminate would get someone a promotion or something like that – it’s certainly not the reason why tradcons fought so hard to keep gays out.
“Again, I’m not sure why you bring this up. It seems that you’re starting with the concept of fair play and suggesting that this is the reason why femininity in men is frowned upon. I think that’s a huge and very questionable leap – various other factors along the way are the real reason behind gender role enforcement and it’s got nothing to do with fair play. It’s the obligation that men perform dangerous work which leads to the shaming of men who opt out. If it was about fairness, then women would be just as stigmatized for expressing femininity.”
It doesn’t come from fair play. It comes from jealousy about others “getting it easier”, when they’re not entitled to it (ie, they’re not women, or they don’t have XX chromosomes, don’t have an uterus – the criteria varies depending on who you ask – but it’s usually very strictly, born-with-a-penis thing, where there is no escape close even for trans women. This is why radfems hate them, too, cause they are seen as “wanting to opt out” and usurping female privilege illegally).
It’s the same as someone getting pushing from a family member or long-time friend for no reason than them being a contact, not their merit. Except women have an exit clause to performing feminity and not-sacrificing themselves in today’s world.
Their feminity is not seem as lazyness or an attempt to escape their obligations. They got no obligations. Men’s feminity is seen as stealing from women, and trying to avoid their obligations, on top.
But that’s just fair play. “Getting it easier” is fundamentally unfair. I don’t think anyone is jealous of men who opt out of society, can’t find a wife, can’t earn a good income, etc. They get nothing special from society in return for being effeminate. So what advantage does it offer for anyone to be jealous of? Nothing. People shame effeminate men not out of jealousy, but because that’s part of the gender enforcement that obligates men to work and provide for women and society at large. It’s simple misandry and has nothing to do with jealousy. Women, for one thing, are a primary source of male gender enforcement. Not because they’re jealous, but because they expect chivalrous behavior.
“I admit, though, my original interpretation was of the military and I had to wonder how in the hell being effeminate would get someone a promotion or something like that …”
Being effeminate would not get you a promotion, but never underestimate the power of a good blowjob. (Cue the inter-service jokes about the Marine Corps salute. Won’t bore you with them; you have probably heard all of them.)
“Sounds like that has to do with the fact that being gay can be hazardous to one’s health. Gay men are just as obligated to work as straight men are with the additional risks imposed by being gay. Not what I would call an advantage, especially since it might limit gay men to professions that already have these fraternities in place.”
Yes. I’m just saying that where those networks exist they confer an advantage currently. And it’s probably not any huge advantage.
“They get nothing special from society in return for being effeminate.”
They’re perceived as not paying their dues. That’s “getting something”.
Consider how the rich view people on foodstamps. That’s roughly the same. The rich abhor having taxes “steal money from them” to give them to “those people” who merit nothing.
” I don’t think anyone is jealous of men who opt out of society, can’t find a wife, can’t earn a good income, etc. ”
They get very jealous of men who do succeed, but aren’t the image of manliness.
Like Justin Bieber. Or the Twilight guy.
Because if Justin Bieber “got it made” without performing maleness, why did Joe Average even try to perform maleness in the first place? He sees it as being sold a bill of goods. Being promised something utterly false. And he’ll lash out at Bieber himself rather than those who made the false promise (media, peers etc).
Never resented someone because they’re better than you at everything you like by more than a notch, above “I can compete” level? A “I lost, screw it” level of not measuring up. And it’s not measuring up against Olympic athletes, but against your neighbor, best friend, etc, someone you can’t just shrug off as not-knowing you.
People will resent people who have good consequences without putting in as much work (say, lottery winners), and will resent people who have no bad consequences even though they go against social norms blatantly enough.
If the system doesn’t punish the latter (through bullying), some will make it their mission to make their life hell. As a sort of karmic retribution for opting out of the man code. Wearing skirts, doing figure skating, or hair styling – will have be seen as threats.
They’ll be seen as usurping women’s thunder (ie being good in figure skating is stealing the spot away from women athletes), which provides an opportunity for White Knights to slay the usurper. They’ll also be seen as getting success too-easy, without putting out like “the real men” do. If they do anything feminine, it will be seen as a reason for them to not have success. Because men shouldn’t be good at feminine stuff, if they had time to be good at it, that’s time they didn’t spend learning to shoot guns, and dying on a battlefield.
Strictly speaking, the absence of a punishment is not “something,” but “nothing.” I could agree with you for the sake of argument, though, if it were not for the fact that there are women. It must be one huge and very incredibly bigoted blind spot for someone to get jealous of a man in that situation while not getting jealous of all the women who do, too. But that’s what chivalry is.
In their support of the military draft, the US Supreme Court opined,
Do you get that? The obligation to serve as cannon fodder is one of the “dues” they have to pay in exchange for citizenship and it’s considered to be a self evident truth. Women, of course, get to be citizens and vote without any such burden placed on them. Really, the treatment of men in America runs entirely counter to the Declaration of Independence which declared the Pursuit of Happiness to be a self-evident, inalienable right. It is for women, but not for men. Here’s more: http://salientsight.com/gww/?p=4
Again, you need to be able to explain why opting out of these obligations is considered unfair for men but perfectly acceptable for women. Only because men are obligated to do it in the first place, which is the only problem from start to end – not the misandric jealousy that it breeds, which is just a symptom of that original obligation. And yet again, you have to account for why women themselves shame, disparage, and otherwise punish effeminate men. It’s not like women have any obligation to pay any such “dues” for which they might get jealous of. It’s only in their selfish best interests to encourage chivalrous behavior and punish those men who don’t wish to partake.
Strictly personally and anecdotally:
Whenever I have not been very good at living up to the male gender norm and display a mannerism perceived as feminine, it has usually been women, not men, who have most ruthlessly used gay-shaming (and the social circle I have moved through has not generally been particularly homophobic). My ex-girlfriend especially was very zealous in making sure that I did not do something she perceived as “gay”.
Men (in my adult life) have generally not cared. This seems to me that there are other forces at work in gay-shaming – at least in my experiences with it – than “not paying one’s due”.
“And yet again, you have to account for why women themselves shame, disparage, and otherwise punish effeminate men. It’s not like women have any obligation to pay any such “dues” for which they might get jealous of. It’s only in their selfish best interests to encourage chivalrous behavior and punish those men who don’t wish to partake.”
Women who are afraid but call men cowards, women who are weak but call men pussies, and women who laugh at boys and men who lose a fight to a girl or women?
Not paying one’s due should be a childish, schoolyard-level maturity way of dealing with it. It’s kind of illegal to do in adulthood, since men-on-men bullying usually involves physical and sometimes aggravated assault. Children are not punished, unless someone is sent to the hospital for days, because the authorities prefer looking the other way, or blame the (male) victims for daring to be a victim.
But by then its so instilled it becomes self-policing and friendly ribbing (no homo and that kind of deal).
By adulthood the shaming doesn’t have to be overt to raise the specter of its schoolyard consequences. Regardless of the likeliness of it happening. I have social anxiety and fear everyone outside…not because of a real risk of assault, but because this paranoia was needed when I was 10, and WAS repeatedly beaten.
Oh come on, not that old canard. Saying that these sort of things are despised by men because they think it’s unfair ‘cos they’re girly-men is a fucking strawman. Yeah, there’s hypocrisy, but it lies in the sheer shallowness and objectification that entire legions of feminists are up in arms about when men do it. It’s more like Tod Akin and Bieber having the same fucking view on abortion. Another part of the damn thing is that you’ve got an exploited underage boy who gets sexually objectified by 40 year old married women in a culture that so utterly fails to deal with male rape. These phenomenon are in no way a departure for traditional gender roles for men, they just make it worse. They promote chivalry and erase men, rather than promoting an alternative that men themselves could actually embrace. That’s really the bottom line.
There’s also the huge issue of how women play these fucking codependent shell games with their sexuality which is as difficult to articulate as it is infuriating. On the one hand, women objectify themselves by putting their pussy up on a pedestal and stipulating all sorts of conditions, pointing to it like it’s the prize that men have to earn. This forces men to adopt traditionally male gender roles. Women never approach men, never initiate sex, until the one day that they’re walking through the mall with a boyfriend who went through gender-role-hell to be with her and suddenly they start oozing sexuality at the sight of a cardboard cutout. And when men invariably get livid, the women start playing the victim card, saying that it’s men’s faults for not being able to express their sexuality.
@Schala, I have to admit I don’t understand what you’re talking about in the last 3 comments. We’re just not on the same page. You seem to have a very different focus of what the “dues” that we are talking about are. I’m talking about the male gender role that obligates men to fucking go to war, come home, and go to a shit job and prowl the town looking for women to supplicate himself to and provide for. Literally, having to pay for a date is one of the central expressions of the subjugation of men in our society. It’s a ritualistic show of a man being willing to hand his own earnings to a woman for her own benefit. And women shame men who refuse to do it. Also, while we’re on this subject, check out the kozukai in Japan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19746705
That would merely make them hypocrites, and it does, but that’s just a part of it. I think you may be focusing on this whole femininity business and only seeing the part where you think men are being forced to be brutal, violent, and cutthroat. But that’s nothing more than one of the possible symptoms of what these “dues” really are – men being obligated to sacrifice themselves, ignore their own problems, and do someone else’s bidding. The ultimate end goal of the male gender role is to ensure that someone else’s lifestyle is better than his own. Therein you shall find the self-interests of women, not just the hypocrisy they engage in while carrying it out.
@RocketFrog, that’s exactly right. Gay shaming far less prevalent in men-only spaces than it is in open society. Even if there’s bigotry to be found against actual gays in those spaces, inexcusable as it is, often times it gets turned into more of an inside joke. Like Marines talking about getting fucked by the big green dick “again.” You have to consider what these men are doing together to begin with. Like communal showers and nudity in the military, sports teams, etc. Things that women feel comfortable to talk about in public, such as their medical issues, self-image, financial troubles, various doubts and fears about various things, etc., are relegated to men’s locker rooms, away from the prying ears of judgmental women.
“That would merely make them hypocrites, and it does, but that’s just a part of it. I think you may be focusing on this whole femininity business and only seeing the part where you think men are being forced to be brutal, violent, and cutthroat. But that’s nothing more than one of the possible symptoms of what these “dues” really are – men being obligated to sacrifice themselves, ignore their own problems, and do someone else’s bidding. The ultimate end goal of the male gender role is to ensure that someone else’s lifestyle is better than his own. Therein you shall find the self-interests of women, not just the hypocrisy they engage in while carrying it out.”
Thus feminity is either seen as a symptom that you have self-worth and self-interest (thus you’re not providing enough for others, you’re a loser, wether that’s playing videogames or not being perceived as masculine enough to attract women because they think you’re gay because you do something feminine).
Feminity is the sign of the Aristocrats, and only the rich…and women, can show it without being beaten up for ‘not knowing their place’.
I really don’t know where either of you are coming from with the Bieber and Twilight comparisons. First of all, how are either of them “feminine”? Bieber is a child, true, but when it comes to hi public image he (or rather his manager) has spent a lot of time trying to position him in the same way many other male pop singers have been viewed and I can’t think of anything that would mark him as “feminine” or “un-manly” besides his barely pubescent physique. You’re on even shakier ground with Edward Cullen, who’s character, what little of it there is, consists of practically nothing but traditional alpha-male traits. The only thing anyone can point to and call “feminine” is the sparkling, which really doesn’t come up very much.
My take on the hatred directed at both is that they are the very public objects of an actively expressed sexual desire on the part of large numbers women; a kind of desire that most men will never have expressed to them by even one woman. Note that the most vocal haters are young men, who would be particularly sensitive to this disparity. They often express their dislike by calling the objects of their envy feminine, un-masculine or gay both because they view these as the most damning of insults one can make against a man and because they are conditions which would often be considered to put a man out of the running as a potential mate.
It certainly doesn’t help that both are inescapable social phenomena which hold no possible interest for any person in whom they do not inspire sexual attraction.
@Schala, not really, no… not at all. I don’t know how you’re coming to this conclusion.
Not really. Women’s fashion yes, but that’s only tangentially related to gender roles. If all a guy wants out of life is to talk like a valley girl and wear a tiara, more power to him, but that doesn’t even begin to broach the reality of what the male gender role is all about.
“Not really. Women’s fashion yes, but that’s only tangentially related to gender roles. If all a guy wants out of life is to talk like a valley girl and wear a tiara, more power to him, but that doesn’t even begin to broach the reality of what the male gender role is all about.”
Showing off material possessions is considered feminine, and for financial reasons, is also the province of rich people.
At the cross we have Hollywood celebrities, especially female ones.
I disagree. Notice how it is most often men, and not usually men considered unmanly or feminine, who show off their cars and motorcycles – I used to think this was the human equivalent of male peacocks strutting their tail-feathers.
” who show off their cars and motorcycles ”
Usually the PERFORMANCE of their cars and motorcycles.
Rarely its look by itself. If a Lamborghini car looked that way but had average performance, it would lose its meaning to male customers. It’s precisely because its incredibly fast that men even care.
Goes very well with the male gender role: Performing something to prove your worth.
As opposed to the female gender role: Being female is enough, no need to perform or prove your worth, your worth is inherent to your sex.
@Schala, believe me when I tell you this, but women’s fashion was the least of my philosophical concerns when I was killing people in Iraq. It can’t possibly hope redress the issues that I have with the male gender role. I feel as if you and I just see gender roles from a different perspective.
Fashion to me is just an opportunistic industry that goes after women because they’ve got control over household budgets and goes after men because they need to buy gifts for women. I just follow the money, which tells me all I need to know about it.
Men are known for flashy spending, actually.
LOL and then there are Harleys
I think it is neither the performance nor the appearance, but the price and especially the associated social status. Some wealthy men flashily spend on cars that do not have stellar performance, but are manufactured by luxury brands. I agree that it is all about performance – but in this case, it is not the performance of the car (eg. its top speed, acceleration and other technical characteristics), but the performance of the man (eg. his income).
The Harley-Davidson is also not the best-performing motorcycle around, but having one is itself considered a demonstration of masculinity (probably because it is big, loud and noisy).
To briefly return to gay-shaming – in my experience, when adult men engage in gender-policing of other adult men, it is usually by stating or implying that whatever “unacceptable” behaviour will be disapproved of by women – eg. by stating that women will think that such-and-such is gay, or that doing so-and-so will mean that you will never get laid.
Which is why I have often said that, at least for men who are considered undesirable in their own right, opting out and giving up on the dating/attraction game is liberating, because it essentially takes the truncheon out of the hands of the gender police. Knowing and acceptng you will be disapproved of by women regardless of what you do means that you no longer have to perform all sorts of absurdities for fear of being disapproved of by women.
As far as showing off material possessions, it is neither the bailiwick of femininity or masculinity. But the types of possessions shown off is definitely split on a gender line. Men tend to show off possessions that enable them to do things, i.e. bikes, cars, loud stereos, big tv’s, etc. Women tend to show off things that allow them to be things, i.e. clothes, jewelry, houses, fake tits, etc.
I am going to use a Dr. Seuss analogy here. Let us imagine the men who conform to proscribed masculine gender roles as star-bellied sneeches, and those that do not as the non-star bellied sneeches. But let us also add a stipulation (or simply just remember that), “earning your star” is a process that is self destructive, limiting, and painful. Now imagine what the star bellied sneeches would feel when they saw happy non-star bellied sneeches, treated just like the star bellied sneeches are. I would guess they would have a little bit of “buyer’s remose” for the painful process of purchasing their “star”.
But the whole discussion relates to the “man box”, “man card” or whatever you want to call it, and the “srsly, teh patriarchy hurts teh men tooooo!” argument thrown up by feminists. Which is bullshit, because it isn’t patriarchy that is doing anything, because it doesn’t exist. Its called society. And it only works because it is internalized by men, each and every generation. I think dungone, the issues that drive you are the issues that are more to do with external factors, such as male disposability, female privilege to the protection and providence of men, etc. etc. Both are valid points of contention. Both are issues that face men.
For what it’s worth, feminists have actually been pretty good about identifying the solution to the “man card” issue. Its about each generation of fathers teaching their sons about how its total bullshit, and with each generation, it gets a little better. That doesn’t mean that they don’t perpetuate the societal pressure to earn a man card with their encouragement of pedestalization, gynonormitivity, white knighting, etc. etc. But the area where they haven’t addressed any solutions, and indeed don’t even acknowledge an issue exists, are the other areas. Male disposability, the inequality of parents’ rights, the conviction and punishment gap, and so on. It seems to me that those are the issues that you focus on the most, which I actually agree with, since the solution to the man card issue is already in our hands.
It is liberating, isn’t it? I can tell you that I am not considered a stud muffin by women, but am not what you refer to as “undesirable”. But I have, for a long, long time “outkicked my coverage”* when it came to performing behavior that was “unacceptable” to women. I don’t burp and fart in public, but I don’t pedestalize, I don’t white knight, I make it either implicit or explicit that I don’t act as a protector/provider/papa bear unless I want to, and I damn sure expect my women to actually be equal if that’s what they want. It means I had a lot less dates than I otherwise could have, but like you said, I was a free man. I knew it was unacceptable, so I didn’t expect women to knock each other over to get to me, which is fine. To put it crudely, life is too short to always be worrying about getting pussy, or what people with pussies think about your behavior. Fuck ’em if they judge me for not fitting into their box.
(meant to include this as part of the last post)
* ‘out kicking your coverage’ is a phrase that comes from american football. Its a very descriptive term if you are familiar with the game, and it rolls off your tongue, which is why I like it. It essentially means the same thing as ‘over playing your hand’ in poker, or literally, to behave as if your position was stronger than it really is. I don’t know if you watch soccer/football, but you might call it ‘throwing too many men forward’. Anyway, I know you Danes speak incredible English, but that is one phrase you might not pick up unless you come to the US. (True story, when I was living in Sweden, I met a 9 year old kid with whom I had a full and complete conversation in English. He told me he learned how to speak it from video games. To this day, I don’t speak more than a few words and phrases of Swedish).
@EquilibriumShift, maybe you’re making things too complicated. Just look at the money. The only real difference between men and women is the level of control they have over money. The products they buy are completely arbitrary and irrelevant.
Things are changing in our society, but let’s look at tradition. Men earn money, but they don’t control it – women do. Men only control it for a very brief window of time, when they’re young, and the whole purpose of spending it at the time is to buy a very conspicuous, very expensive item. Something that says, loudly and proudly, “there’s more of it where that came from!” The purpose of this spending is to attract a mate, which is exactly what it does. After that, the man’s mate dictates how all of that money gets spent for the next 40 years. If a man even attempts to gain some control over his earnings after marriage, they ridicule him as having a “midlife crisis.”
Women, on the other hand, don’t have a need to demonstrate their earning potential – that’s not their gender role. They spend very little money when they’re young, as they have none. Their goal is to gain control over money that someone else earns. To that end, they demonstrate their worth by buying the most obscenely expensive and utterly useless crap possible – with someone else’s money. Now, there are practical concerns. First, women have this control for decades, so many smaller items over a longer period of time are preferable to big ticket items. Second, it’s still someone else’s money and they have to be careful about not coming off as being too high maintenance.
Long story short, men and women face different financial constraints and therefore spend differently. That’s the tradition. Now, as a culture, these spending habits end up taking on a life of their own and continue even after the underlying causes disappear. I think we’re entering that situation now. And it’s actually pretty funny to sit back and watch as men actually start spending their own earnings on themselves the way women used to do, while women throw their entire paychecks away on Luis Vuitton purses and freak the hell out about how these things are the “tools of the oppressor.” I find it quite funny, but it’s only a transition towards a new economic reality.
The only thing feminists actually did on that front is destroy families and remove as many children from their fathers as possible. It’s a complete joke to hear them trying to lecture men about how to be a father, like a 2 year old trying to teach arithmetic to a math professor. It’s been women who have been handing out “man cards” in the first place and fathers have always tried to teach their sons that it was bullshit.
The only thing feminists actually did on that front is destroy families and remove as many children from their fathers as possible. It’s a complete joke to hear them trying to lecture men about how to be a father, like a 2 year old trying to teach arithmetic to a math professor. It’s been women who have been handing out “man cards” in the first place and fathers have always tried to teach their sons that it was bullshit.
I agree completely that it is women who hand out “man-cards”, and feminists have often participated actively (white feathers, anyone?), but I have to give credit to them for saying, if not doing anything about it. And you are correct, a women will never, ever be able to tell a man how to be a father. It just can’t happen. And its an annoying trope that women are such good parents they get to inform us dweeby men exactly how it is done. Annoying and dangerous, actually.
Damn block quote failure, what is the tag for that?
White feathers were just a small part of it. The 1950’s housewife is a direct product of the women’s rights movement. You can think of the women’s rights movement like a marriage. The Suffragists were after a dependable provider husband, the 2nd wavers were the dissatisfied housewives filing for a divorce, and modern feminists are the post-divorce single moms. That’s pretty much what the demographics looked like, too.
Remember that, for at least a century of Industrial Revolution, women participated in the workforce in large numbers. But whereas men’s movements were focused on reaping the benefits of the new economy, women’s movements were focused on control over men’s money and children. The biggest women’s rights issue for an entire century was Temperance, which targeted men, and the moral justification was that a man’s duty was to his wife and children. This sort of social engineering is literally what created 20th century gender roles. Guarantees such as lifetime alimony and child custody were some of the bargaining chips that allowed women to abandon the workforce and stay in the home as soon as men started making enough money to be worth a damn. If it weren’t for that, women would have stayed in the workforce and fought for their rights just like everyone else. Only in the 1960’s, during an era when women no longer wanted marriage, did these women start to demand equality in the workplace, claiming to be entitled to the same working conditions that men had secured through decades of brutal and deadly strikes.
Oops. I meant </blockquote>. But you knew that.
Yeah, I have been involved in the labor rights movement since I was at least 6 or 7. Dad was a teamster, what can I say? (Was there, was 13 –> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8SilDfH4as). And I find it annoying, but typical, that laborers (mostly men) were beaten, killed, starved and spit on when they earned their workplace rights. But women whined and whinged their way to ‘equality’ which is why those rights are now being taken away. Because rights given are no rights at all. 40 hour work week, anyone? Pensions, anyone? Vacation, sick leave, weekends? All products of the labor rights movement, which was closely associated with the civil rights movement, of course. But now as more and more women are entering the workforce, and it is shifting/has shifted to a service economy, that those rights are flying out of the window. Sad for the US, really.
I like your point that “2nd” wave feminism completely ignores the fact that women were a large part of the workforce during the industrial revolution. What happened to that? In a sense, a lot of those jobs are still out there. I am likely wearing clothes made by a woman (or child, and also not by choice, job uniform).
I am curious to know when it started that women became the default custodians of children according to the court. There is this tale that women have always cared for children more, and men worked, but it wasn’t always like that, as you pointed out. And I know at certain times in our history, the man was seen as the default custodian. I would not be surprised if you are correct, and that it changed with the temperance movement and world wars.
My wife comes from a culture where the man is the default legal custodian of the children, and it isn’t really any better than what we have here. But he is seen that way because of the same man as provider trope we have here. Just that there, providing is worth more than caregiving, I guess. But I’m not even sure women are seen as the primary caregivers. Anyway, pop culture from other countries surrounding my wife’s portray the children taken by a rich, cold ex-husband from the loving mother as a popular plot device. I think in my wife’s home country its not quite so bad, in terms of legal discrimination, but its still not the best.
P.S. Speaking of white feathers and marines, have you seen this guy? Crazzzzy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock
Sports references usually fly right over my head. I actually taught myself English too, although primarily by reading books – I could read and write English *before* I was able to speak it.
As regards that aforementioned liberation, in my case it was not really about being “allowed” to fart and burp and such things – the gender-policing I have been confronted with has primarily been about my “nerdy” nature being perceived as unmasculine, my complete lack of interest in competitive and aggressive posturing behaviour, my similarly complete lack of career ambition (I have no need for large amounts of money, and I do not want leadership or authority over others), and parts of my body language and speech patterns sometimes considered unmasculine. I also have no interest in many subjects typically associated with masculinity (sports, violence, motor vehicles). I spent my 20’s trying to adapt parts of that to a form that women might accept (the only thing I have been consistently uncompromising about is my resistance to the rat race). I also have trouble keeping track of which conversation topics are considered acceptable for men (largely because I have not been able to see any consistent system in it).
When I finally realized that women are generally not interested in autistic computer nerds with at best mediocre-looking bodies, that I would never be able to change myself into something other than that, and that for every woman who might be interested in a man like me there are 8-12 men she can pick from, I stopped trying.
I sometimes get terribly lonely and depressed, but at least I have stopped caring when people tell me that I need to stop doing such-and-so or start doing this-and-that lest I be considered not-a-real-man or gay, and that women will not be interested in me. They will not be anyway, so I have nothing to lose. The billy club of the gender police is reduced to a squeaky toy.
I hope that helps to relieve a weight off your shoulders. I mention the burping and farting not because I enjoy those things, but because feminists tend to assume that men are wild, unrelenting savages who are only brought into line by the civilizing influence of women. Of course this is complete and utter crap, as the three men commenting on this thread are obvious examples of men who have never needed women to watch over us to ensure we are not wild savages.
It’s not that they forgot per se, it’s just that they never understood it. They were a movement of middle class housewives that tended to exclude actual working class women. There were groups of black women going on strike in Georgia in the late 1800’s and plenty of other women who had been involved in the labor movement for over a century, but feminists just don’t seem to get them, if they even know about them.
dungone, I have just stopped wondering if you and Daisy will ever find common ground.
Yeah well, if Daisy wants to be a Log Cabin Feminist of sorts, more power to her. I’ve come to a completely different set of conclusions than she has over the years. I’m also noticing that a growing number of women actually see things the same way that I do and refuse to call themselves feminists. I’m still not done arguing about Emma Goldman with her, but I’m tired of that debate right now and it will have to wait for some other day.
By the way… I can’t post on the other thread, regarding the erasure of various groups of people throughout history (Poland, Irish, etc).
“I am curious to know when it started that women became the default custodians of children according to the court.”
Tender years doctrine, promoted by a feminist.(cue ‘but not all feminists are like that!’)
RocketFrog you should take a look at eivind berge’s blog.
A person’s spending habits can be altered and manipulated by their childhood environment.
Eg. Compare the spending habits of black athletes/entertainers to black businessmen/business owners to rural/suburban blacks.
Black entertainers are overwhelmingly the result of single mother homes. Those same men have gripes the diamond/gold/shiny thing industry for over three decades (and even farther back, if Earl “The Pearl” Monroe and Walt Frazier, with their furs and jewelry can be used as an example.) Their spending patterns emulate their environment (women who like sparkly things and men who wore sparkly things to attract women.) Ostentatious items are the rule of the day (eg. Superstar entertainers with diamond-encrusted pendants that look like Spongebob or bottles of Alize.)
Black businessmen, OTOH, are (in the black community) stereotypically frugal. The majority of them come from dual-parent homes or were exposed to plenty of dual-parent homes as a child. If their business doesn’t specifically require eye-catching items, they don’t wear them. Preachers and car salesmen will have some “bling”, but restauranteers and stockbrokers usually won’t (one of my older cousins made a killing in the stock market. He stopped wearing jewelry as soon as he was married, aside from his bands.) Their toys also tend to be “bigger” while being useful (the 15mpg pickup that can pull stumps, not the 8mpg Escalade that looks pretty but with a readily detachable bumper. Or the mini-yacht with a deck that you can fish from, instead of the “ballin'” movie star yacht that is too heavy to use a sail.) And when they wear jewelry, its the type that can be deconstructed into sellable precious metals and gems (eg. The gold rope chains that old-school rappers wore was based on economic deprivation. The majority of them were Caribbean immigrants or the children of immigrants, and the base metal was a way to bypass weight/money restrictions on removing value from their islands.)
And for rural/suburban blacks, they mimic the mores of their area. If they’re surrounded by non-black people, they act like the racial group that’s in the majority (eg. if all of their white neighbours have brick frills and ATVs, they get those things. If they end up in a Silicon Valleyesque area, then they’re dropping coin on the Acer computer and private violin lessons. Etc.)
But the tendency towards flash is a universal trait of a female-empowered society. Even as I type this, I’m listening to two grown women sizing up the two smokers outside of a municipal building. Guy 1 is wearing a designer shirt, tight blue jeans, calf leather shoes and a wrought silver chain/crucifix. Guy 2 is wearing off-the-rack, K-Mart grade clothes and shoes with no jewelry. They have similarities in height and haircut, but guess which one received the wink and smile? Guess which one was telling his subordinate what needed to be done over the weekend?
“By the way… I can’t post on the other thread, regarding the erasure of various groups of people throughout history (Poland, Irish, etc).”
How do you meana? Technical problem? Can’t bring yourself to say anything? I can’t even remember which thread that was now. I love thread drift, but it makes it hard to remember where things are.
MaMu, spending habits and falmboyance of dress are very deeply informed by cultural values. Two hundred years ago businessmen wors ever and drab clothing that took decades to be upgraded into power suits. Aristocrats and therefore militayyr men went from dressing like peacocks in the 18th century to keeping that kind of display to their actual uniforms. It was not hard on those battlefields to tell exactly which regiments were where, and it didn’t matter which generla you were. It was plain to see form whatever hilltop you had chisen.
I se something similar to what you describe with basketball players in some immigrant communities,. In thier case they strive to present as respectable an image as possible. It’s their measure of success.
@Gingko, comments just don’t show up, but only on that thread. http://www.genderratic.com/p/2079/misandry-%E2%80%93-the-stereotype-of-the-man-hating-feminist/
I have a better idea. We shoudl talk about erasure. i have one planned anyway.
and I just thought of something. A lot of erasure is intentional on the part of the peole ebing erased. The Irish in America in particular spent like four generations down-playing the shit we’d been through out of simple historical revisionism and a desire not to identitfy with all that misery.
I think this post has isolated my real problem with the MRM: it is currently competing with feminists for “who is the greater victim” status. I have decided I hate the whole victim sweepstakes. Nobody wins.
Victim chic is no more becoming from men than it is from women.
Dungone on the Second Wave: They were a movement of middle class housewives that tended to exclude actual working class women.
Gingko: dungone, I have just stopped wondering if you and Daisy will ever find common ground.
One cannot find common ground with someone who consistently denies that I exist. POOF, all Second wavers are magically “middle class housewives”– never mind that I have never been 1) middle class or, 2) a housewife. He has his mind all made up, don’t confuse him with the facts.
He erases me because my very existence proves him wrong. Thanks for reminding him that I do exist. I have avoided posting here because I dislike constantly being erased. It just gets SO tiring.
I have to remind the feminists of the same thing… Dungone is exactly like them. They have written working class women out of the movement, and he buys their version of feminist history, successfully collaborating in erasing us.
He helps them erase me, and he doesn’t even get the joke. He is dancing to the radfems’ tune. Finding common ground with ME? No, I don’t exist–he is too busy trying to get the pretty, popular, middle class cheerleader’s attention, all while complaining about how spoiled she is.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
Ha! I don’t deny that you exist, you context-devoid person you… hopefully you get the “Log Cabin” reference without me having to explain it to you.
Seriously, Daisy, the only weirdness is that you stopped calling yourself a feminist. I hope you open your eyes and start to notice that the growing number of women who refuse to call themselves feminists aren’t just brainwashed little victims of the Patriarchy. Your fundamental problem is that you’re unwilling to consider the idea that someone, a woman especially, can stand up for women’s rights without actually agreeing with the idiocy that we all know as feminism.
Your fundamental problem is..
…is that when someone says this to me, I stick my fingers in my ears and say LALALA because they are always talking about THEIR problem with me, not any problem I might or might not actually have. Diagnose your own problems, okay? You honestly have no idea at all about what I think, hon. Even though I have explained and explained… and you nonetheless keep on getting it wrong. (deliberately) As I said, it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
I have five years worth of blog posts. Its been a long process, and its all right there. You might read it.. then again, you seem to delight in behaving like a feminist stereotype of the swaggering military man, smug and self-assured in your assumptions that you know everything already. And someone who knows everything already, certainly can’t be bothered to check the facts, right? (sigh)
I have been to this rodeo lots of times..,.. but it always ends with the poor bull getting himself all tied in knots. Boring after awhile.
That’s certainly another way of describing the issue.
Oh. is this thread going to devolve into dungone vs Daisy again? 🙁
I was really hoping someone would follow up on namae nanka’s link to Eivind Berge’s blog.
It seems like Berge is exactly the guy who anti-MRAs point to when they want to say that MRAs are crazy/evil. I mean, the guy thinks in-cel is a serious problem, and suggests that rape is affirmative action for men.
I would expect there to be some reaction.
Evil Green Ranger,
Also, he refers to the fascist mass murderer Anders Breivik’s killing spree as “activism” (and Breivik himself as a “formidable activist who would show the world what Vikings are made of”), and at one point mentions that he himself was driven by his celibacy to consider committing murder in order to be known as a violent criminal who would then be considered attractive by women.
I am not sure why namae thought I should take a look at his blog. I did, and found it mostly unnerving and disturbing.
As for “in-cel”, I think it can be a serious problem for an individual human being (I certainly know that I myself have a number of issues directly related related to my frustration over being unfixably sexually repulsive – and it is only recently that I have allowed myself to consider this a problem at all, until not so long ago I thought that believing in sexual needs at all was being a rape enabler), but it is probably a stretch to consider it a huge societal problem.
@Evil Green Ranger, only if people were interested enough to look at that link. It was directed at a single commenter.
That may be a problem, but for every Berge there are countless feminists in every country and throughout time who can be used to point out that feminists should worry about their own lot. It’s hard to say if his writings serve more than parody – he does have a graduate degree in English – and he is no doubt familiar with the sort of tactics used in the SCUM Manifesto.
Dungone: Your fundamental problem is that you’re unwilling to consider the idea that someone, a woman especially, can stand up for women’s rights without actually agreeing with the idiocy that we all know as feminism.
But see, feminism used to simply mean “equal rights” and that is all we meant.
Please check out this post: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2098/general-useful-new-word-narcissiverse/#comment-15505 …. part of which I addressed to you.
Feminism is merely a word describing the movement for equal rights for women… no more and no less. Anyone who engaged in this movement, is a feminist. (Just like the Grimkes were “anti-racist” but that term was not then in use.)
All these other meanings you have assigned the word, have been recent, revisionist additions, mostly derived from academia and fashion magazines. By invoking those meanings instead of mine, you empower the middle-class/bourgeois revisionists and erase the women like me… and Emma Goldman and every other woman who simply sought equal rights and opportunities with men.
Please do not erase us from FEMINISM. We did the hard work, while they are enjoying the fruits of our labors while simultaneously writing OUR definitions out of history.
And you help them, every time you write a paragraph like that.
Daisy & Dungone:
I’ve been meaning to ask you: At what point do you consider it reasonable to say that the meaning of a word has changed? Plenty of usages have altered radically even within my own lifetime (significantly shorter than yours). How meaningful is it really to say that a term like ‘feminism’ has any fixed definition at all? After all, is there or has there ever been any person with the sort of authority necessary to make one definition stand superior to all others?
The meaning of ‘feminist’ differs not only across decades and generations, but across cultures and localities. Just as the ‘feminist’ of the 1960s differs from the ‘feminist’ of today, the ‘feminist’ of the contemporary united states is not the ‘feminist’ of France or Japan (where ‘feminist’ is universally used to describe a man who behaves chivalrously and indulges women). Can we really look at this organic sprawl and state with a mechanical certainty: “Yes, this is the one and only immutable definition”?
As before, I have deep misgivings about such a definition, especially in applying it backwards in time and across cultural boundaries. Within our own culture, you have argued for the inclusion of influential early figures on the basis of influence and of adoption by later groups, creating a sort of continuity. Can you say the same thing for fundamentally separate movements for the rights of women, such as that which took root in China? Were the groups who ‘discovered’ writers like Goldman also reading their Ding Ling and their Lu Xun? Certainly they could hardly have observed much of the tradition which sprang from that source until decades after the fact (and it is a rich and a unique tradition). Can they really be said to have belonged to the same movement as those who coined the name your words would hang on them? Would that not take something from the very essence of what they were, what they represented?
I would also point out that your definition excludes more than a few persons generally considered to be notable feminists. What would you propose to do about that?
On a more personal note, I dislike your definition because it erases my right to choice. To say that “Feminism is merely a word describing the movement for equal rights for women… no more and no less. Anyone who engaged in this movement, is a feminist,” is not only to remove all choice from the label, but to state outright that any person who does not bear it must be opposed to equal rights for women. You are, in essence, telling me that I have no right, no possibility, to exist as I tell you I do. The entire formulation is a tactic of the very “middle-class/bourgeois revisionists” you rail against, and to employ it is to commit the same erasure against others which you complain (and rightly) has been practiced against you.
@HidingFromtheDinosaurs, okay this isn’t going to be short, but you asked… Feminism needs to be defined in a limited, precise scope, to describe those who use it themselves. It is nothing more than a label, a socio-political affiliation no different than a nationality. The way it’s used erases the actual affiliations of people who did not call themselves such; you might as well say that the ancient Babylonians were really Iraqis all along.
FWIW it was coined by a French guy named Charles Fourier in 1837, the same year he died. He felt that women should have more jobs and be treated as individuals in marriage (as opposed to coverture), but he didn’t advocate for sexual equality. His followers were known as Fourierist, not feminists, and they were more interested in creating a new world order than fighting for equal rights (hence they founded Utopia, Ohio, which failed a couple years later). He also thought that the ocean would lose its salinity and turn into lemonade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier
From there, it was introduced to the USA in the 1890’s but none of the women’s social movements labeled themselves as such until some 60 years later. They’d call themselves Suffragists, they’d talk about equal rights for women, but they wouldn’t associate with feminism. What’s more, these women had fundamental disagreements on just what equal rights entailed and they often vehemently opposed one another. So far, so good.
But then something happened in the 1960’s. Some of the very first women who actually referred to themselves as feminists were people like Valerie Solanas who came up with shit like the SCUM Manifesto (1959). NOW has called her the first outstanding champion of women’s rights and Some of the first women who actually started calling themselves feminists were putting out stuff like the Feminist Mystique and the SCUM Manifesto. I’m not really aware of an earlier work, although there may have been one. Then there’s the Feminine Mystique, which is pretty much officially cited as the kick-off for “2nd wave” aka the actual feminist movement. Friedman, of course, didn’t want to have to be a housewife, so she hired a housekeeper, wrote about how oppressed women are, and became the first president of NOW (obvious privilege denial is obvious). Within a few years you’d get a bunch of homophobic bigots called the Red Stockings concoct the idea of Patriarchy, all the while claiming that men owed women a great deal of servitude. In fact it’s this line of thought that I see as sort-of tying the 1960’s feminists to the Prohibition-oriented Suffragists, but for no other reason than the their shared drive to subjugate men.
So there is this very clear, easy to spot feminist movement that had some very clear, distinct ideas that started in the 1960’s. That’s what feminism is. It’s the only thing it has to be. The fight for women’s right was already there before they got around, the only thing they added to it were a bunch of stupid ideas that were no better than Prohibition and pro-circumcision of men that came before.
And now that we know what feminism really is, the only thing left to discuss is why feminists had sought to make the term “feminism” the exclusive owner of women’s rights ever since. Why would a movement with a very particular of angry, anti-male ideas label themselves as feminists but also muddy the waters by labeling everyone else who ever fought for women’s rights a feminist as well, and label everyone who did not call themselves a feminist an enemy of women’s rights? Well, the answer is pretty obvious.
Whoops, sorry for the editing fail in the 4th paragraph 🙁
Feminism is what feminists say and do. By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that. For all the dictionary definition says it’s about equal rights for women, you only have to look at the areas that feminists have successfully campaigned on. Reproductive rights are far from equal, but heavily skewed in favour of women. Ditto employment rights, education rights, rights to be free of violence and harassment, rights in front of the family court, criminal court and university tribunal, rights to health insurance, rights to state benefits, rights to bodily integrity, even rights to food aid in emergency situations, which is the result of feminist influence at the UN.
It happens because men are terrified of female disapproval. That’s power, and it doesn’t need elected representatives to work.
HidingFromtheDinosaurs: Feminism is always good and always correct, regardless of the time, the context or the particulars. Feminism is always good and always correct, regardless of the fact that ‘feminism’ means different things to different people. It is always good and always correct regardless of the number of times they’ve reversed their positions over time to the point that they now oppose what they once backed during the ’60s.
In fact, feminists are always good and always correct, despite the fact that half of them seem to hate the guts of the other half at any given time.
It’s the only group of people in human history to be 100% correct on all matters throughout all space and time. Despite being human beings.
Miraculous, is it not?
On Breivik, I could only get so far before I couldn’t read any more. I’m not sure what the appropriate way to deal with someone like that is… Anti-MRA folk make links-to-terrorism accusations that totally line up with his rhetoric. But they don’t seem to link him. I wonder why.
On in-cel: I’m sure it can be a serious problem for individuals who are stuck with it. Most MRAs seem to be more concerned about legal issues (family court/rape shield) large range statistical issues (death gap/assault rate,) and theory (disposability/utility.) Talking about in-cel seems to be making the personal political in a dangerous way. Unlike family court, in-cel has to be fixed one sufferer at a time. (It could also be that people are afraid of the “you just can’t get laid” shaming tactic.)
Evil Green Ranger,
On Berge: I think the reason they do not link him is because he is obviously unbalanced, in much the same way that someone criticizing feminism might be setting themselves up if they linked TheFemitheistDivine (whose blog has since been taken down – but who was in favour of instating an “international castration day”, and had a post about “heroes”, women who castrated and murdered their sons).
I tend to get disturbed when I read things like that – both Berge’s and TheFemitheistDivine’s rantings, in fact – and I am not very good at pulling myself away before my brain gets all messed up.
I remain confused why namae thought I should read Berge’s blog. Do I come across as a sympathizer of fascist mass murderers?
I am aware that this is an unpopular opinion, but I do not think it can be fixed. Some men are just considered unattractive by women; nobody wants them and nothing they can do can “fix” them into something women are attracted by (I should know, I am such a man). This can be quite painful, lonely and frustrating (especially over time), but when all comes to all, there is nothing that can be done about it, for the simple reason that nobody should be coerced into sex or romantic relations with someone they are not attracted to. Therefore the only thing that such a man can ethically do is to grit his teeth and accept things as they are.
Unfortunately, this particular type of man seems to be the most popular target of shaming by both feminists and certain MRAs (the “cannot get laid” shaming tactic you mention is applied diligently by both, and serves only to shame men of low desirability (or, by extension, to shame “real men” by implying that they are such men)).
Hear, hear! This is the perfect definition since it expands and contracts as feminism expands and contracts. It also requires us to note the time frame we are speaking of. And finally, it allows for personal experiences to shape the definition, which as a corollary renders the ‘no true Scotsman’ many feminists use down to its completely illogical fallacious base.
“Do I come across as a sympathizer of fascist mass murderers?”
Not in a million years.
About in-cels: fix the shaming first, that’s the unambigous part.
“It happens because men are terrified of female disapproval. That’s power, and it doesn’t need elected representatives to work.”
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. That’s how men learn to depend on female approval. The final step is to deny that power exists at all, so that no one ever addresses it.
@RocketFrog, I thought that TheFemitheistDivine was pretty much in keeping with a lot of 1960’s radical feminism. The difference is that the MRM doesn’t take someone like Berge seriously, whereas things such as the SCUM Manifesto are taught in schools and all the unbalanced materials are constantly downplayed by feminists. Any movement does have a responsibility to, at the very least, disassociate itself with harmful rhetoric. To the extent that anyone at all within the MRM associates with or incorporates Berg into their own activism, that would be a problem worthy of criticism. But I’m not aware of that happening, beyond an occasional individual asking someone else, “hey what do you think of this guy?”
That still leaves up for debate who feminists are. Clearly, feminists are the women who actually call themselves feminists. Everything else is a smoke screen. In fact, there have probably been tens of thousands of women who would have never called themselves feminists if not for the chaos created by female-supremacist bigots who went out of their way to label every woman as either feminist superwoman or victim of the Patriarchy. And who wants to be known as a victim of the Patriarchy, right? Part of the reason why they label anything good a woman has ever done as a feminist achievement is because it allows them to turn around and claim that women owe everything to feminists.
Yeah, pretty much nobody but feminists consider Berge an MRA, and come to think of it, they probably also consider RadFem Hub sociopaths feminists.
RocketFrog: The only reason I could see for suggesting Berge is that he does talk about incel as a problem. But his rhetoric is so odious, I am unable to extract value from it. You certainly don’t seem like a fascist murder sympathizer to me. I think JE makes a good point that virgin-shaming is something that can be addressed. Even if one’s incel can’t be fixed, it’s not fair to then mock them for it.
Ginkgo: Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression that the “big tent” approach prevented people from repudiating Berge/Solanas types. They could be temporarily excluded by NAxALT, but not excommunicated. Then anti-MRAs can point to Berge (or imply him without pointing,) and anti-feminsts can point to Solanas. (Then everyone can waste their time trying to defend their movement, instead of actually improving things.)
What makes you say that?
Hiding: I’ve been meaning to ask you: At what point do you consider it reasonable to say that the meaning of a word has changed?
When the dictionary changes the meaning, or includes more meanings. This is what is used as instruction for the young, for new users of the language, etc.
For instance the word “cool” historically meant, cool temperatures. When it changed in the vernacular, then that new meaning was included in the dictionary definition.
I kinda addressed more of that here
Patrick, check out that comment… here in the USA, “what Civil Rights activists say and do”–was already tried by the neocons, and it worked against them. They had to come up with new words for the Civil Rights activists they disliked for political reasons because they believed them to be strictly careering and/or demagoging.. (underlined in read on my screen…spelled wrong?… is “demagoging” a verb?)
Dungone: But then something happened in the 1960′s. Some of the very first women who actually referred to themselves as feminists were people like Valerie Solanas who came up with shit like the SCUM Manifesto (1959).
Robin Morgan included the SCUM Manifesto in “Sisterhood is Powerful” (1970)–which was an anthology as regarded as historical, like “The Federalist Papers”–it was not initially regarded as anything but darkly funny or psycho, like Abbie Hoffman’s manifestos (and written in that vein). Nobody outside of New York had heard of Solanas until that book came out… most people outside New York and rich artists/educated circles did not even know who Warhol was, except that he produced the Velvet Underground and weird movies. Most people did not know he’d been shot, let alone by whom.
SCUM Manifesto was published in 1969, not 59. I strongly recommend the movie “I shot Andy Warhol” for background on Warhol and Solanas, her association with The Factory and relationship w/Warhol and the whole scene. Really good movie that I thought captured the era very well.
NOW has called her the first outstanding champion of women’s rights and Some of the first women who actually started calling themselves feminists were putting out stuff like the Feminist Mystique and the SCUM Manifesto.
What’s wrong with the Feminist Mystique, and why are you putting it in the same category as a man-hating tract? I think the idea that women should stop being housewives and support themselves was a great idea, and I am surprised any men’s rights person would think otherwise? (?)
Don’t get that at all.
I’m not really aware of an earlier work, although there may have been one. Then there’s the Feminine Mystique, which is pretty much officially cited as the kick-off for “2nd wave” aka the actual feminist movement.
Um, “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, was the official kick-off of the Second Wave. (1949) Feminism had already been popular in Europe before arriving in the USA.
Masters and Johnson would also be part of that movement.
Friedman, of course, didn’t want to have to be a housewife, so she hired a housekeeper, wrote about how oppressed women are, and became the first president of NOW (obvious privilege denial is obvious).
Her name was Betty Friedan, not Friedman. She wrote that women were pampered, not oppressed. I don’t think you read it, did you?
The word “oppressed” came from her socialist background, and those are the words lefties used, to counter the Freudian idea of “repressed”…
I could go on, but I’d be here all night. Suffice to say, Dungone’s history is lacking, to say the least.
Thank you. That was an excellent comment.
I think I will decline to hand supreme authority over the English language to the editors at Webster’s (only partially because I believe my linguistics professors would kill me for suggesting such a thing), but I have come to many of the same conclusions that you seem to. My solution has been to excise the word ‘feminist’ from my vocabulary as much as possible and stick to terms such as ‘women’s rights activist’, which I believe to be far less ambiguous and therefore significantly less hampered by politicking.
Hiding, check out that linked comment, which was addressed to Danny… what word(s) could we use for the feminist ‘excesses’ or hate faction? I prefer the term “female supremacist”–since the term “male supremacist” is already well known to people and you wouldn’t have to teach the definition. Also, we need to further develop the concept of “misandry” and make that a well-known and identifiable thing. As it is now, most people don’t even know what that means.
Both terms also have the appeal of applying to people of both genders as well as ideas, politics, etc. Very useful in criticism and analysis, due to specificity.
At least, these are the terms I have decided to use.
That was the comment I meant when I said “excellent”. I should have been more specific, sorry.
‘Female supremacist’ is fine, although I would reserve it for occasions when there’s an unequivocal statement to point to in that direction. I agree with you about ‘misandry’, and would also like to see the term more widely recognized. In general, I’m in favor of unambiguous terms to fit the positions of specific people, which can always be devised as they become necessary.
It was written in 1959, self published in 1967. “My Bad” but you still managed to be wrong. Not sure what other point you’re trying to make besides trying to downplay that god-awful piece of drivel, as is to be expected.
The French coined the term, which I’ve already said. As I understood it, she was an existentialist and her book has been criticized as misogynistic in it’s own right. Existential feminism didn’t exactly take hold – anywhere.
Oh, that’s a huge can of worms. I didn’t think the book was particularly anti-male, but rather it facilitated the hate that came by being wildly off-base and ill informed. It really set the stage for the classist upper-crust white women’s movement that was to come. Here’s a photo of her house, where she hired her maids so she could go do her feminist thing: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-76y6NwmwHsU/UFISbK0vDGI/AAAAAAAAB3k/Qg_t1z_kwBE/s1600/house+pics+006.jpg
If anyone actually wants me to write a treatise on why Betty Friedan was wrong about everything, let me know.
@dungone: Very informative comments.
I was wondering who exactly coined the patriarchy theory.. A search for ‘patriarchy theory’ in Google NGram shows that its first use in 1968.. and looks like Kate Millet used it in some essays. A quick look at the RedStockings manifesto from 1969 doesnt contain the words.. but does talk about the “oppression”.. III We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination ….
We also reject the idea that women consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Women’s submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.
But for the notion of of changing men, doesnt the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments convey pretty much the same ideas of oppression?
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
One thing that I dont understand well is the complaint that women were not allowed into some professions.. From reading AngryHarry, I get the impression that till the 1900’s, there was truly no way a woman could handle the logistics of such a job.. for e.g a doctor was expected to ride good distances on horseback, at unearthly hours if necessary, to see a patient. And given the oft mentioned fact that women’s participation in the workforce between 1860-1930s dropped massively…and voluntarily.. why did Betty Friedan in the 1950’s think that women’s lives/involvement in workforce was better in the 30’s and earlier?
Evil Green Ranger:
I consider myself neither a MRA nor a feminist, and I want absolutely nothing to do with Berge or Solanas. On the other hand, I think most MRAs and feminists are also sort of ashamed of the more virulently hateful members of their movements. What the “big tent” defense does is prevent them from saying, say, “Mary Daly was not a feminist” – all they can do is say that her feminism is not their feminism.
But if her feminism is a feminism at all, then feminism is not just equality, because her fantasies of a gender Endlösung had absolutely nothing to do with equality. If her feminism is a feminism, then we must concede that feminism is not only “just about equality”, it can also be about something completely different.
Likewise, if Berge is an MRA, then men’s rights activism can also be about something altogether more sinister than wanting to secure equality in the aspects of society where men are currently disadvantaged.
As for incel; the entire debate has taught me only that both sides on the gender debate seem to be mostly incapable of compassion for low-status men; low-status men are despised by many feminists and many MRAs (see how PUAs blather about “omega males”, for instance) alike. Hell, I am such a man, and I even despise myself for it.
While I agree that there’s plenty of shaming of in cels in the MRM I don’t think it’s accurate to refer to PUAs as MRAs. Both groups seem contemptuous of each other.
dungone: RocketFrog said it better than I can:
In a world where feminism is (only) about equality, then MRAs are also feminists, and there are very few of either.
“Big tent” movements gain two things; One: the appearance of size. If you can count anyone who ever said anything positive about women as a feminist, then you get to have a lot of feminists. Two: if you are one of the hateful members, the big tent gives you a chance at promoting your agenda. The SCUM Manifesto would just be an ISBN if it hadn’t been re-published in “Sisterhood is Powerful.” The big tent lets hateful rhetoric get spread to a wider audience.
Big tent movements get more attention, but at the cost of supporting the cranks. The MRAs will have the same problems, multiplied by the internet. In the 60s and 70s, someone like Robin Morgan could have a lot of influence on feminism, because of what she chose to anthologize. In the ‘teens, Berge is just a link away, and any commenter can “anthologize” him into the MRA-sphere at any time.
Like Schrödinger’s cat, haters like Berge/Solanas are in an unknown state. They’re in the movement when you need to point to how big it is, and when they are would be embarrassing, “her feminism is not my feminism.”
It makes it very difficult for an outsider to evaluate either movement.
On low-status men: I think this is related to apexuality — anyone below you on the status ladder becomes invisible. A while ago, my father said to me, “I have spent my whole life being unattractive to women.” This man has been married twice, and has four children! He’s clearly had at least some success. But, because he can only look up, he evaluates himself as a failure.
I suspect that the lack of compassion for low status men stems from a lack of compassion for men in general, and for themselves. After all, if you’re busy beating yourself up for being a loser, you won’t have any time to extend compassion to those below you. And the male gender role is designed for failure — you can’t actually perform it up to spec. So everyone gets to hate themselves, and, by extension, anyone doing worse than them.
AVFM has an occasional discussion of “zeta masculinity”, which I keep hoping will eventually give us a male gender that isn’t defined by self-hatred. Right now, though, zeta is defined by what it isn’t — service based, violent, disposable. Zeta needs a positive definition — a definition of what it is, rather than what it isn’t. (And a big set of role models.) It would be nice if they came up with it soon. I have two sons.
(Like you, I don’t consider myself an MRA. I used to consider myself a feminist, but I got better. Right now I’m just exploring the larger gendersphere.)
Well said, thanks. 🙂
anyways, Clarence dropped a link to Femen awhile back….
something that struck me about their “naked protests” is that it needs white knights to go and say, “oh, teh poor oppressed womyn–and yeah, I like boobs ’cause even though I’m a pro male feminist who has certainly experimented with guys, I’m no FAG.”
The MGTOW response is to just ignore it-erasing all their power weather the cause is just or not.
one of the images was a topless women being overpowered by the police. I’m guessing it was Russia. Yeah, it is a powerful image. Also, as I don’t know a ton of the culture they are protesting in, public nudity may or may not be legal. Obviously a shock tactic. I did see an image of a naked guy years back at a labor protest, so it’s nothing new. Obviously the guy won’t get the white knights support.
@Evil Green Ranger, that’s not the ‘big tent’ approach. The ‘big tent’ theory says that everyone’s rights/concerns can be addressed by the movement, including that of women who disagree with one another. That doesn’t mean, however, that feminism or the MRM is a purely opt-in movement that can’t reject anyone, nor does it absolve either movement from repudiating ideas that it sees as harmful. Besides, the MRM has never claimed to be a ‘big tent’ in the first place. Nothing stops other men from repudiating people like Berg on account of some idea that any man’s notions of men’s rights must be respected by the overall community.
As another example, the MRM is, for instance, completely set against the PUA movement and will likely never emulate feminism by creating “PUA MRA’s” who it forever downplays as having “some good ideas” that addressed some pressing need of its time, the way feminists often defend bigoted radical feminists who called for male genocide. The difference between feminism and the MRM is that feminism does have a set of widely agreed upon theories – such as Patriarchy – that invariably blame all of women’s rights issues on male oppression. That is why people like Daisy find it altogether inconceivable that religion itself could be a problem for women; instead she sees it as something that men did to women through the use of religion and refuses to budge in spite of all evidence that men are running away from religion, that religion also subjugates men, etc. The MRM has no such theories – it simply doesn’t need them – it is at this point nothing more than a collection of real-world issues that affect men, including the defense of men’s reputations against feminist accusations (Rape Culture, Patriarchy, etc).
” We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.”
Good catch. This right here encapsulates the inherent tradionalism and patriarchalism of feminism, or that form of feminism, which is prety damned dominant. Changing the man – how wifey is that? Woman as the moral paragon, the voice of conscience – how tradcon is that?
It just drips with the gynonormativity every little boy grows up drowningin. Yeah, that’s really the way forward.
You know what would have been a truly radical feminsm? Not the retreat in patriarchal gender assumptions we now call radical feminism, but a feminism that analyzed and attacked traditional toxic femininity with the same “sexist pig!!!” ferocity it went after traditional masculinity. Something like the MRM.
That assault on traditional femininity had been going on since at least 1900. In that era you had figures like Annie Oakley, who in an earlier time would have been the object of horror, not a cultural icon. It was all aspects of traditonal femininity that were coming under scrutiny – there was a general repudiation of and anxiety over the privileging of refinement and delicacy, a reversal of a cultural trend toward refinement and delicacy that had been going since the Baroque period. You see this in pieces form the turn of the century moaning about the feminization of young. You see this in the Teddy Roosevelt persona, all horses and guns and ten-gallon hats and going our West to make a body for himself.
When it came to femininity it translated to a crumbling of all the gender policing around being a lady. This process took decades. Eventually it got real – it got down to short hair and short skirts, and then women smoking, and then the road was open. in essence the female role and femininity beame infinitely expansible.
It’s time for the male role to do the same. and some of the most vociferous oppostion is coming from women, in fact that’s where most of it is coming from. We have been seeing since the early 90s articles in popular magazines about men who won’t commit (to woemn), where are all the “good” men, articles mocking men’s recreational choices, articles mocking men when they don’t settle down and make some woman happy and further articles mocking them when they do just to keep the pressure on. It is all about genderr policing men and keeping them in side a narrowly defined gender role, and all for the benefit of you know who.
And it doesn’t matter where someone says they fall on the ideological spectrum – you see this coming out of all kinds of people.
And so an MRM that undermines all this, that criticizes male disposability and interrogates male hyperagency and the presumption of male guilt, that offers competiton to women in the areas of vulnerability anf victimhood and oppression, is a real deep threat, both ideologically for some and psychologically for all but a very few actual egalitarians.
I know “big tent” from politics originally — I may be misapplying it here in the gendersphere. Big tent seems to me to be defined by the absence of a test that would show if you are really a member or not. That directly implies that you cannot throw someone out of the tent. I can personally reject Berge, but I can’t declare that he’s not part of the MRM.
If the MRM is not “big tent”, what is the test that shows if someone is “really” an MRA? There’s certainly an occasional scuffle between the traditionalist and egalitarian MRAs.
Many MRAs seem to use PUA concepts, and I’ve even heard people say that “game” is a necessary component of becoming an MRA. It doesn’t look to me like MRAs and PUAs are set against each other. (I personally don’t like mixing dating advice in with social change — it seems like a distraction.)
I don’t know if you call the discussions of male disposability, female hypoagency, and the actor/object socialization theory or not. I do. I’m not sure that I’m ready to adopt it all, but it seems like a theoretical model that can be used.
I guess I’m a bit confused — I seem to be seeing a different MRM than you are.
The Redstockings are generally one of the more prominent groups of radical feminists who were in favor of using gender as the primary class construct which oppressed women. Many socialists at the time, including socialist feminists, argued that the Patriarchy did not exist as a real thing. It was this effect that the Redstockings had on the feminist movement which makes me inclined to say that they were the ones who really centered feminism around a Patriarchal theory. I suppose that saying they “coined” the term was not the right way to say it. http://www.uwgb.edu/walterl/denmark/The%20Redstocking%20Movement.htm http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2010/06/redstockings-manifesto-part-3.html
This was true of much of the women’s rights movement. The Teetotalers who made up a majority of the Suffragist movement wanted to change men as well, but the way they wanted to change men was to make them slaves to marriage; they viewed men’s role as being obligated to work hard to provide resources for women and women’s children.
One difference that I think exists between earlier movements and feminism is that Patriarchal theory is that it’s expressed in universal terms, so much so that they concocted a theory of sort of golden age among prehistoric humans where men and women were perfectly equal and life was some sort of idyllic existence devoid of all of the problems which they attribute to men.
So yeah, the proof is in the pudding – we can see from women’s dropping out of the workforce to become housewives that most women at the time were more interested in a certain lifestyle than in sexual equality. The interesting thing to me is that there were women who were disgusted by the women’s rights movement and wanted women to take more responsibility for themselves – for instance Emma Goldman – but their pleas were largely ignored and aren’t acknowledged by feminists even to this day.
And that brings me back to Betty Friedan. The whole entire appeal of Friedan was that she ignored that there was this incredibly powerful women’s movement that spent 150 years creating the housewife role for women in industrial society. She turned this on it’s head, calling it the Comfortable Concentration Camp as if women were prisoners of it, rather than the benefactors and champions of that lifestyle. She outright denies that it was women who wanted it that way, focusing instead on some of the aspects of the women’s rights movement that called for more opportunities for women, but never took hold. Friedan didn’t blame this on men in so many words but instead, she wrote a broad overview of what she saw as the societal institutions that were controlled by men – everything from magazines, advertisements, education, psychology, etc. That was her appeal – an outright denial, a refusal to accept blame for women’s own decisions that resulted in their a lifetime of boredom and dissatisfaction. This is what set the stage for her contemporary feminists who codified all of these gripes and complaints in terms of the Patriarchal theory.
And now, ironically, the “third wave” feminists are at it again with the revisionism, completely ignoring the feminist’s own roles in denigrating housewivery, claiming that if it wasn’t for men and the evil Patriarchy, motherhood would be a profession offering 6 figure incomes with the prestige of a CEO. It’s sort of like a hybrid of the original Teetotalers and 60’s radicals, basically saying that they want the comfortable lifestyles of their “concentration camps” but have everyone treat them like a world-conquering Rosy the Riveter.
Yes, it’s confusing. First of all, feminists aren’t really a “big tent” group because they do require a very rigid ideology for women – namely, they blame everything on men. In the sense that they are a “big tent” group, it’s owing to the fact that they will happily blame everyone’s problems on men, including the problems of men themselves. In that sense, they’re able to represent anyone and everyone. But in no other sense.
Feminists make it even more confusing because of how they try to twist “big tent” principles to exonerate completely inexcusable bigotry among their own. It’s really more of a wildly self-contradictory cross between a “big tent” approach and “lone wolf” theory. Sort of like if a white supremacist pledged allegiance to a terrorist but refused to admit that he supports terrorism.
And they’re every bit as idiotic as the feminists who claim that wearing heels and makeup is using the “tools of the oppressor” to subvert the system. Other men completely denounce these “MRA’s” and will fight tooth and nail to refute them.
These are indeed theories that are being formulated as we speak. But instead of the warped “big tent” approach of feminism, the MRA movement is fighting tooth and nail to formulate specific definitions of itself. To the extent that they disagree on fundamental approaches, they should be considered separate movements. If one group of men’s activists creates a huge mess for other men to clean up, you won’t find too many men looking for ways to blame it all on women.
“Many MRAs seem to use PUA concepts, and I’ve even heard people say that “game” is a necessary component of becoming an MRA. It doesn’t look to me like MRAs and PUAs are set against each other.”
EGR – welcome, BTW
“It doesn’t look to me like MRAs and PUAs are set against each other..”
There have been some royal donnybrooks, and over substantive issues. Paul Elam calls PUA “pussyism” because it centers getting laid as the measure of manhood. PUAs responded by saying he was just bitter because he never got laid. I think he pointed out he had laid their mama. So that’s how that conversation went.
Gay men find a home in the MRM and contribute articles to AVfM and have their own MRM sites. A gay PUA is a contradiction in terms.
So if we say that paul Elam is a resaonable standard of MRM thought, then the core issue between the MRM and PUA is centering of women. The MRM basically thinks 1) no real men’s movement should center women and 2) centering of women is traditionalist and patriarchal 3) so it opposes tradtionalist patrairchal structures.
So when internet feminists say the MRM is all about maintaining the patriarchy, they are either uniformed or deliberately misrepresenting it.
“A gay PUA is a contradiction in terms”
It’s not you know. There a few coaches out there teaching men to be better at attracting other men. They just get ignored since there aren’t any white knight points to be had for attacking them. Also Mehow.
The difference I can see between PU and the MRM is that the MRM is focused on helping men through societal change, where as PUAs try to create personal, internal change. Societys attitude towards unattractive men sucks and needs to change, which is why we need an MRM, but I personally needed to learn game to deal with what was stopping me from forming relationships with women, which was that women weren’t sexually attracted to me on a personal level.
“…which is why we need an MRM, but I personally needed to learn game to deal with what was stopping me from forming relationships with women, which was that women weren’t sexually attracted to me on a personal level.”
Oh, don’t say that, Shouty, or Dungone will declare you not a “real” MRA.
Personally, if someone wants to use “Game” concepts to help them attract women it’s neither more nor less to me. Provided you don’t focus your activism on “game” and you support helping men out in areas traditonally considered “MRA” concerns, you are an MRA to me if you want to be.
I don’t identify as MRA because it’s too exclusive, even though I support 90 plus percent of everything Glenn Sacks and NCFM and AVFM have ever done. I’m an equalist.
Yes, it’s definitely confusing. IMHO feminists aren’t really a “big tent” group because they do require a very rigid ideology. In the sense that they are a “big tent” group, it’s owing to the fact that they will happily blame everyone’s problems on men, including the problems of men themselves. In that sense, they’re able to represent anyone and everyone. What they can’t handle are women who want to take responsibility for their own lives and men whose lives are affected by factors beyond their own control. But other than that they’re a “big tent.”
Feminists make things even more confusing because of how they try to twist “big tent” ideals to exonerate completely inexcusable bigotry among their own. In essence, it’s nothing more than the No True Scotsman fallacy rather than the “big tent.” It’s really more of a sort of reverse “lone wolf” theory. Sort of as if a white supremacist were to pledge allegiance to a terrorist but refused to admit that he supports terrorism.
And they’re every bit as idiotic as the feminists who claim that wearing heels and makeup is using the “tools of the oppressor” to subvert the system. Other men completely denounce these “MRA’s.” They don’t just tell you to ignore all the bad stuff on the one hand while praising PUA’s as “strong independent men” who contributed to the movement against matriarchal oppression or any such nonsense. They are completely denounced. You simply can’t pin what one group does on another group that doesn’t support them in any legitimate way. You have to treat them as separate.
These are indeed theories that are being formulated and gradually adopted. Generally, those ideas aren’t coming from PUAs or right-wing extremists.
Ginkgo is right though, the PUA movement is strictly for heterosex. At best, perhaps a menage a tois type situation. But the fundamental aspect of it is this breakdown of cultural assumptions and expectations between men and women, and how to use those to your advantage. I am not familiar with the gay community, but I don’t see that there is some sort of expectation as to which person will do the approaching, paying for dates, sexual escalation, etc. etc.
Unless the “patriarchy” is just a figment of their imagination. The feminist movement views patriarchy as the universal oppression of women by men. The MRM doesn’t recognize that as a valid theory.
@ Equilibriumshift: Tell that to the Lesbian PUAs I know. I’m not going to, I think game can potentially help everyone.
By turning them into wannabe sociopaths? You’re giving them far more credit than they deserve. The MRM is very much about personal, internal change – a change of perspective away from the toxic masculinity that’s exemplified by the PUA mindset. PUA is all about doing what traditional men have always done – to define themselves and manhood itself by female approval. They’re not “changing” that, only the MRM is working to change that.
“A gay PUA is a contradiction in terms”
It’s not you know. There a few coaches out there teaching men to be better at attracting other men. They just get ignored since there aren’t any white knight points to be had for attacking them.”
They get ignored because they are irrelevant. If a gay man wants to get laid, he goes to a bathhouse. Or he goes to Manhunt or any number of hook-up sites. Or he trawls in a park or any number of other places listed in the Damron, which will tell you where ever cruisy park and beach is for practically every city in the world.
Because men like to hook up and that really includes gay men. And we really don’t find the arts of PUA to be much help. You eegt rejected because the guy you are going after has a set type and your’re not it and no amount of PUA is going to change you from oats to rice or rye or whatever his type happens to be, or he doesn’t like your age, or some other non-negotaible reason.
It may indeed be that he’s playing hard to get. But if he is, nothing PUA has to say will change his attitude, because that attitude is not the same complex of gender indoctrination that a woman brings to the table, and nothing like the same sense of inherent sexual value, that you can crack with a glib tongue. If you get turned down, just move on because there is no negotiating and besides there are plenty more, and probably more fun.
Sure, sure, I readily admit, “game” is likely good for everyone. Everyone feels more confident when they feel attractive. But the PUA movement is specifically geared towards heteorsexual males, esp. with regards to dissecting and profiting from gender roles and gender role manipulation.
But the PUA movement is simply using the tools of the oppressor to achieve liberation! How can you not get behind that?
“But the PUA movement is simply using the tools of the oppressor to achieve liberation! How can you not get behind that?”
They’re the wrong set of tools for the job. I’m happy to admit that. Pick up isn’t going to do much to make things fairer in society for men as a whole, other than exposing what the standards men are judged by and how maladaptive they are to modern civilization. Used without due care and attention, yes, they may well make things worse.
Pick up is for use on an individual level, to help make indivduals more charismatic and attractive.
“Pick up isn’t going to do much to make things fairer in society for men as a whole,”
I am not so sure about that. The individual PUA’s success or failure, there are the externalities of his efforts to consider. What will the societal effect of women experiencing the same treatment they dish out to men in the dating scene? i am not sure that the effect would be bad.
When Nora Vincent tried to pass as a man, she had an epiphany on how cruel women routinely and even unwittingly are to men. Eventually she had a nervous breakdown trying to live up to that gender role. That was another epiphany for her.
“When Nora Vincent tried to pass as a man, she had an epiphany on how cruel women routinely and even unwittingly are to men. Eventually she had a nervous breakdown trying to live up to that gender role. That was another epiphany for her.”
But she also interpreted the general indifference everyone has for most men (ie not being looked at, or admired, or catcalled, or whistled, or complimented, or talked softly to) as “respect”. It’s being attention-starved.
@Scala, in other words she didn’t get it. She couldn’t connect the dots between the cruelty and the isolation. Fortunately we can go by her physiological reaction if not her intellectual one 🙂
I’m not sure what PUA has to do with Men’s Rights. It might have a side effect, as Ginkgo suggests, of making things better, but for the most part (as I understand it, anyway), PUA is about having better access to sex and has little or nothing to do with what most MRAs are looking for.
A PUA could be an MRA (though he might be looked down upon by some for reaffirming toxic gender roles, he could certainly share an interest in and advocate for Men’s Rights), or a PUA could not be an MRA, and I don’t know that anyone would be surprised.
The only real link that I can see between PUAs and MRAs is that many people in both camps have had to deal with issues relating to how men are treated by most of society, PUAs in the realm of sex/dating, and MRAs in, well, as much as they can identify. MRAs may also take some issue with the role men are often required to play in heterosexual dating/relationship culture, but that doesn’t mean they are also PUAs or use PUA techniques.
So, I guess I’d say that PUAs and MRAs may look similar because they occasionally concern themselves with a particular area of interest, but they don’t necessarily approach it the same way. Neither is a subset of the other, nor are they part of the same group, but one could be both, either or neither if he chose.
“I’m not sure what PUA has to do with Men’s Rights. It might have a side effect, as Ginkgo suggests, of making things better, but for the most part (as I understand it, anyway), PUA is about having better access to sex and has little or nothing to do with what most MRAs are looking for.”
yeah, uh, as someone who participates in the so-called manosphere…
…towards the end of Inmalafide there was a debate between Paul Elam and a blogger who was named Frost or something like that. The split between PUA’s and MRA’s is somewhat recent although Roosh was calling them incel whiners and such for awhile. I think Roissy/Heartiste also insulted MRA’s. Many in the manosphere call PUA’s “pussy-begars”–in fact the harshest critics of PUA will say it is better to be incel or hire a prostitute than to alter your personality to what a woman finds attractive. That’s also a somewhat complex topic as doing some things that might make you more attractive to women overall will also help in other areas of your life. IE working out to improve your health, appearance and strength. Reading to become knowledgeable on many topics and well spoken. Traveling or trying new things to become more “rounded.” The critics of PUA mostly bring up the fact that many men, especially shy men will find doing cold-approaches a soul crushing process. They will also talk about how PUA coaches often exploit inexperienced men. Also, while many people find the number system of rating women to be misogynistic, a lesser talked about form of misandry is how men are ranked as Alpha, Beta and (in some caste systems) Omega.
anyways, these movements will become more fragmented. Paul Elam finally started listening when people complained about the racism of the manosphere. Still, I think MGTOW will fragment from MRA. MGTOW will be men who want to “opt out” rather than fix the system. They won’t care so much about the inequality of divorce laws. They will be the guys who talk about living on less than 20k a year and starving an unsustainable system by paying as little as possible in taxes. They will be the guys who won’t be shamed into “manning up” or “marrying the sluts.” They will be the guys who won’t become cops or military. They will become the guys who fight male disposability by not giving a damn about a government that wants to bleed them dry. And the best part-they won’t need to shed a drop of blood and there isn’t a fucking thing that David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer or David Duke can do to stop this….
There are two types of politeness. Positive politeness and negative politeness.
In positive politeness you are nice to other people, talk to them, offer help and make them feel included.
In negative politeness you back off and give people some personal space.
Both types of politeness are equally valid; it really comes down to personal preference. So I see absolutely nothing odd about Nora using the word “respect”. If you are the kind of person who prefers negative politeness it would come across as respect. And if you’re raised in a culture that promotes negative politeness than you intend it as respect, even if it would be perceived differently.
It seems to me that “big tent” is used in at least two ways, both in the sense Dungone refers to, and in the sense that the movement is big enough to both encompass people like, say, NSWATM’s ozymandias42 on one hand, and raving gendercidal lunatics like Mary Daly on the other. I was referring to the latter usage of the term.
Sometimes, feminists will refer to the dictionary definition and say that feminism just means gender equality (and that by extension, anybody who is not a feminist is also a male chauvinist bigot). But this is demonstrably false: Mary Daly and Valerie Solanas were not in any way pro-equality, and yet they are considered feminists, even by feminists themselves. So many feminists operate with the “big tent definition” that a feminist is someone who self-identifies as a feminist – but even that is obviously not how the word is actually used; witness the discussion between dungone and Daisy about Emma Goldman. Goldman never self-identified as a feminist (the word was not in wide use during her lifetime). Mary Wollstonecraft also never called herself a feminist (the word had not been coined yet when she was alive), but she is usually held by modern feminists to be one.
All of this boils down to: Feminism has a meaning beyond “equality”, and “feminist” has a meaning beyond “someone who calls themselves a feminist” (the latter one should actually be pretty obvious: If, say, Mitt Romney declared himself a feminist, would any self-respecting feminist therefore consider him one? Of course not, and they would be right not to).
I have come to think that the best informal definition of “feminism” is “pro-woman” – which is not necessarily a bad thing (especially considering that someone who is pro-woman can also be pro-man). In my opinion, however, it is often somewhat mistaken to be either “pro-woman” or “pro-man”, for the simple reason that not all women have the same interests. Working class women are not likely to benefit from having women quota’ed into the boardroom of large corporations any more than working class men have benefited from having men in those positions. Some women (such as religious conservatives) are against free access to abortion, other women regard it as an inalienable right. Defining one’s political affiliation as “pro-woman” is at best incomplete: Which of these women are you sympathizing with? It cannot be both; their interests are at conflict.
The same applies to the MRM. As a left-wing North European pacifist man with a mental disability and who until about a year ago worked in the public sector, I have often felt completely alienated by the rhetoric employed by many MRAs – they are pro-man, but the men they are pro- are usually nothing like me.
I suppose this is also why sites like the GMP seem so bizarre to me; they are discussing Very Important parts of All Men’s Lives that are not even peripherally connected to my own life, and are so alien to me that they might as well be describing the plot of a movie (and one I likely would not want to watch). Usually when they write something that has any degree of connection to my own experience it is from a position of contempt or in an attempt to whitewash feminists’ use of ableist shaming, see the latest NSWATM post for an example of the latter (it amazes me that ozy can keep maintaining that creep-shaming is an important defense against evil rapists and not at all ableist or classist shaming when in the very discussion thread for that post, women are openly stating that they use it against homeless men and men with speech impediments).
A friend of mine once described hierarchical power structures as a ladder on which shit obeys the law of gravity: When looking down, all you see is shit, and when looking up, all you see is assholes.
I think that it is also close to impossible to perform the female gender role up to spec. I have known many women who suffered mightily under that pressure. It is just that the feminist movement has been relatively successful in teaching women that they do not have to adopt the rigid classical female gender role (unfortunately, some variants of feminism have then constructed their own female gender role, which is usually just as rigid).
I sort of hate the “Greek System”. It is based on canine ethology, and even there it has turned out to be wrong, except in prison populations: In a natural wolf pack, the “alpha male” and “alpha female” are usually the parents of all the “betas”, and the “betas do not have sex” rule is not because the alphas do not deign to have sex with lesser wolves, but a simple behavioural adaptation that reduces the risk of inbreeding. Even the guy who coined the terms (who chose Greek letters specifically to avoid ascribing human social roles to wolves) has stopped using them.
I would very much like it if it was possible to be a man without chafing under a stupid gender role that makes no sense without being constantly verbally beaten up by society for failing to live up to a gender role expectation. I would actually have believed that feminists were a natural ally in this endeavour, but it seems to me that many modern feminists get very upset when men stray from their expected roles (or, at least, when they do so in ways not planned and approved by feminists themselves). Witness how intensely they shame men who give up on romantic and sexual relations with women (such as the MGTOW movement), and how quickly they slip into conventional, patriarchal language while doing so.
I grew up in a very feminist environment as a child (I was never in any doubt that it was a disappointment to my immediate surroundings that I had not been born a girl), and when I was a young adult I was a “pro-feminist” political activist for some time (in my particular community, it was considered deeply controversial for men to identify as “feminist”, because men could not truly understand the lived experience of women under patriarchal oppression, and because men calling themselves feminist was regarded as a “colonization” of women’s spaces). Eventually the shame, self-hatred and verbal self-flagellation drove me sort of insane, and I spent first some years abusing alcohol and drugs, then spent some years dragging myself through a difficult recovery process, and spent the rest of my 20’s and early 30’s pretending gender debate did not exist. I would get triggered into various forms of self-harm (but never substance relapses) when I got reminded about how much I hate myself for being a man. It is relatively recent that I have dared to follow this debate again. I have ranted at length on this subject elsewhere on this blog.
On “big tent”: There used to be egalitarian feminists. Even now, people claim that feminism is about equality — perhaps, for some, it still is. dungone has a good point about this being a variant on “No True Scotsman”.
RocketFrog: I understand “big tent” the same way you do. TGMP might as well be called “The Good, Rich, High-status, College-educated, Heterosexual Men Project,” or “The White Guilt Project.” (Or the “Look like good husband material project.”)
“Zeta” is an odd choice. I think it stems from the general lack of knowledge of the Greek alphabet. I’m looking for a “Men’s liberation” to blow the doors off the constrictive male gender role the same way that women’s liberation did for the female. (This part of the discussion should probably go onto the other thread.) I’ve read the archives here, and a decent chunk of the last year at Feminist Critics, so I know some of your history. It sounds like you got an extra helping of abuse for “failing” at the male gender role. That sucks.
On “game”: It seems that there are the full range of opinions in the MRM about the place of game. I’m not sure that I’m ready to define the MRM as “people who agree with Paul Elam.” (Though he’s clearly an important voice.) Ginkgo, I like the idea that game may erode the (toxic) social fabric of the dating scene.
Ginkgo: Thanks for the welcome. And thanks to you, Typhon, and Xakudo for having this place, which seems to be the only place on the internet willing to talk about the struggles for either/both genders, without falling into “misandry don’t reals/misogyny is just a shaming word.”
“In positive politeness you are nice to other people, talk to them, offer help and make them feel included.
In negative politeness you back off and give people some personal space.
Both types of politeness are equally valid; it really comes down to personal preference. So I see absolutely nothing odd about Nora using the word “respect”. If you are the kind of person who prefers negative politeness it would come across as respect. And if you’re raised in a culture that promotes negative politeness than you intend it as respect, even if it would be perceived differently.”
“Negative politeness” isn’t politeness. Or respect. Except when done with people you consider your betters (ie mafia people with The Don). Most men don’t consider other men “their betters”. Most women don’t consider men “their betters”.
Heck, baby boys are given “this respect” more, because they’re boys. Less cuddled, less talked to, less interacted with, etc.
They’re less loved, given less attention, and made to feel like their very existence is barely to be tolerated, as long as they have some use.
As a woman, I don’t feel like I’m treated as a hammer, only useful until it breaks. Pre-transition I felt no value, except in as much as I could “do the job” and “pay the bills”.
In other words, as a woman I feel more than adequate (without doing a thing, including grooming), when perceived as a man, I was always told I was inadequate. No inherent value to maleness, only value as to what it does. And large inherent value to femaleness, regardless of child-bearing capabilities (I’m infertile and trans, people don’t enquire upon that to treat me this way).
@Lillies, hi. To add to what Schala already said, let me just point out the obvious – the “negative politeness” cannot be appreciated by the recipient if it is not matched with “positive politeness.” Yes, it would be really nice of some men didn’t go to the extremely rude lengths to inform women that they have been noticed. But if they don’t take some steps to make women feel included, most women readily feel rejected. Imagine talking to a cute guy at a party who keeps making eye contact with a friend of yours who he finds attractive instead of you – you would probably feel rejected. Women also complain of being left out “in the board room” when they just sit there quietly waiting for the men to solicit them for their opinions – they’re not beyond righteous anger at this “negative politeness.” They certainly don’t view it as a sign of respect when they want someone to acknowledge them.
What Nora Vincent experienced was a sort of invisible male Burka. Yes, even Muslim women often speak of the small perks of being completely hidden and anonymous. That’s what Vincent thought was a nice change of pace – the anonymity. And like you, Muslims often envision the Burka as respectful of women. But it’s not and Western feminists know better. It really isn’t a good thing overall.
“There are two types of politeness. Positive politeness and negative politeness.
In positive politeness you are nice to other people, talk to them, offer help and make them feel included.
In negative politeness you back off and give people some personal space.”
Nice and concise and accurate.
Negative politeness – that’s why privates or even sergeants don’t walk up to generals. Which is Schala’s point.
As dungone points out: “But if they don’t take some steps to make women feel included, most women readily feel rejected.”
I remember an article of the moaning-about-the-hardhsips-women-face type in which the writer detailed how now that she was older, no one (men of course) looked at her, she had become “invisible”. I guess the only thing worse that the male gaze is no male gaze.
It’s the lack of this tyupe of politieness that gets called street harrassment etc.
““Negative politeness” isn’t politeness. Or respect.”
As someone who lives in a culture where negative, not positive, politeness is the norm I feel completely confident in saying that you’re just flat out wrong here. I give, receive and witness negative politeness every day; it happens in both directions across both social hierarchies and genders.
Or just type negative politeness into google scholar, the amount of results should show that it is a serious concept.
You’re mixing up spaces. Appropriate social behaviour varies depending on context, that’s just common sense. Negative politeness is rarely appropriate for a party, because just by being there everyone’s declared that they wish to socialise.
However Nora’s main demonstration of negative politeness occurred while walking on the street, a place negative politeness is far more appropriate. She received positive politeness in different, and more appropriate places, such as when joining a bowling team.
The new “democracies” are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or pupeteered heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three
recent examples). Tags bout US trend has been stimulated with a involving complicated social, politics, and also monetary elements:.
Then, when I was still at campus, I saw a smoke, and no
longer after that, lots of people living bear
our campus almost provoked us to join them, but we decided to stay inside.
If some one wants expert view about running a blog after that
i advise him/her to pay a quick visit this web site, Keep up the pleasant
Link exchange is nothing else however it is only placing the other person’s blog link
on your page at suitable place and other person will also
do same for you.
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all of us you really realize what you’re speaking about!
Bookmarked. Please additionally talk over with my website =).
We will have a hyperlink alternate arrangement between us
My webpage: Minecraft Crack
Hey there! This is my first comment here so I
just wanted to giv a quick shout outt and say I genuinely enjoy readingg through your posts.
Can yoou suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same subjects?
Amazing issues here. I am very glad to look your post. Thanks
so much and I am looking ahead to touch you.
Will you kindly drop me a mail?
Ahaa, its fastidious dialogue on the topic of this paragraph here at this website,
I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.
This is simply because the 64-year-old hotelier has been associated with some of the most popular and luxurious hotels in the
past. There are many reasons to use a roll-up banner stand including the fact that they can be
put up within seconds and are easily transportable. If you know your color, you can by-pass looking at 75% of the clothing,
zeroing in on only those colors you know work for you.
Here is my blog; magazine
Something else that you may be very happy to hear is that this is not a plan where you have
to measure or weigh portions, as you determine how much you need to
eat, therefore, making it a much easier to stick with.
Unlike most fruit and vegetable coconut contains saturated fats.
“Your brain is 60 percent fat; it’s built from the fats that you consume in your diet, and fat can reduce inflammation.
Here is my webpage … paleo diet