A commenter named WowFallacies drove by with the usual clueless advice on how MRAs could sort out some misunderstandings about feminism and stop being a “prick” about the whole thing.
Commenter Eagle 35 responded:
WowFallicies, I’m going to give you a list of facts about feminism as a movement just so you’ll understand where the hostility comes from and hopefully should clear up your misconceptions and assumptions.
1) When Male and Female rape victims were being tallied, Mary Koss (biased feminist researcher) went over the results of the former and decided that classifying what happened as rape wouldn’t be “Appropriate”. So with one stroke of the pen, she erased an entire population of people looking for validation of their existence from official records. And for decades, all research statistics have followed her methods to the letter: Classifying rape as only something requiring penetration while leaving out forced envelopment and other methods to be consigned to a paltry “Sexual Assault” label that grants nowhere near an equal level of compensation for the victims compared to a charge of “Rape”. No feminist stood to oppose her or rally to stop the research from being tampered with in such a way.
2) Sometime in the 80s, Feminists lobbied for The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence where Domestic Violence was deemed something men do to women alone, begetting Primary Agressor Laws. If any man reported domestic violence from his spouse, the police were required to arrest him on the spot regardless of whether he was innocent or not. Granted, every state varies, but overall the climate is skewed towards assuming every man as the primary aggressor in domestic violence. Meaning that male victims of domestic violence were put in a rock and a hard place: Man up and take the abuse or call the police and risk spending time in a jail cell. Again, no feminist stood in opposition to this.
3) In the 90s, research showed boys and girls struggling in the school system. Feminist special interest groups lobbied for change in the teaching methods and curriculum tailored towards how girls learned so they could be given a leg up even though the research was right in front of their FUCKING two eyes proving the contrary. No one thought to say “Hold on, we’re going about this pretty narrowly! Boys are struggling too. Let’s have some perspective here.”. It’s gotten to the point that decades later, any attempt to address the struggles of boys is met with hostility and disbelief in the issue. I’ll give you a guess as to who we can thank for that.
4) When it was reported that Boko Haram were going off on a killing spree in the name of their beliefs, innocent school boys were caught in their sights. It was also reported that another village had been massacred. They signaled out the male babies, the boys and men as special targets and gunned them down on sight, the death toll 300-400 plus. Yet, when they kidnapped school girls, the media and feminist groups joined together in unity to decry the terrorist group and declared their motives a part of the “War on Women”. They forgot the innocent boys and men dead and didn’t so much as utter a peep of concern back then. How do you explain that?
5) Finally, the major example of blantant hijacking of issues that cut across both genders and spectrums: Elliot Rodgers. When all was said and done, the media and feminist groups went on a verbal rampage, lambasting the Mens Rights Movements through unverified and spurious claims of a connection with the PUA forums Elliot frequented prior to his spree. Never one to resist running their mouths further, they declared that his spree was motivated PRIMARILY by misogynistic attitudes towards women. The true facts were thus:
A: Misogyny was ONE motivation, not the primary one. Reading his manifesto, he had deep-seated hatred towards Alpha males, his parents, brother, Asians, mankind, and himself.
B: Of the victims he killed, Three were men along with two women. Now you’re going to say “But he intended also to target a sorority house so it was motivated by hatred of women”. Wrong. He was targeting a SPECIFIC woman. Mainly, blonde women, because that was one of his preferences. You will also note he SPARED the life of a woman at gunpoint while injuring countless others, men and women, on a drive-by, including law enforcement officials.
Of course, the media and these groups never let a few harmless facts get in the way of their agenda. I’ve been on Mens Rights forums. You know how many users were scared to identify themselves as such in public thanks to this targeted smear? That if they so much as identified even support towards Mens Issues? Did you also know, conveniently, that a petition was set up for the White House to label Mens Rights Advocates as terrorists? TERRORISTS, WowFallicies. Let that sink for a minute.
I’ve given the feminist movement more than my fair share of patience and benefit of the doubt. Now. I’ve run out of patience. These last two obvious examples of hijacking an issue where both genders suffered as a consequence broke the back of this camel. It didn’t help that when I shared my story of being hurt by both genders, THREE feminists minimized my experiences by telling me I was still a privileged white guy and women had it worse.
So please spare me any talk about how feminism is there to help men even when your friends say otherwise. Sure, there are individual feminists that may hold egalitarian views. But you know what, don’t pretend that you have a smidgen of power the ones running the movement hold or think they will listen to your overall point without tearing you the pieces.
Warren Farrell was an egalitarian feminist. So was Erin Prizzy. Look what it got them. Erin’s contributions as the first female to open a women’s shelter were written out of feminist history as if they never happened. Warren continues to receive grief over a 20 something year old bit of research on incest that NEVER GOT PUBLISHED IN THE FIRST PLACE! And is still parsed as unconditional support! This is the thanks they get for bringing up the other side of the gender debate in a movement supposedly for equality.
Commenter Greg Allan expanded on Eagle’s comment:
Feminist special interest groups lobbied for change in the teaching methods and curriculum tailored towards how girls learned so they could be given a leg up even though the research was right in front of their FUCKING two eyes proving the contrary. No one thought to say “Hold on, we’re going about this pretty narrowly!
I was running funding and grants systems for schools in Australia through this time and had full access to all demographic data within our schools including outcomes. The catchcry was that the entire system wasn’t “girl friendly” even though overall outcomes for girls were already better than those of boys. By the mid nineties there were programs for girls in every school in my state but nothing for boys anywhere.
Some of us DID say “hold on” in fact. Myself and quite a few others in my state’s school system warned of a bleak future for boys but were roundly denounced as misogynists. The potential impact WAS known but they forged ahead with changes to both the curriculum and the methods of delivery nonetheless. It was quite deliberate and we have reaped exactly what we sowed.
Here’s a tip: if you talk to someone about feminism in hostile tones, and they happen to identify as a feminist, the reason they don’t give you the time of day isn’t necessarily because they don’t think your problems are a valid concern – it’s because you’re being a prick about it and stepping all over other people’s attempts to deal with other problems and trying to invalidate their concerns (this article basically boils down to “women have no fear about saying this so their fear must just be rich-white girl paranoia and men are the only ones really being oppressed,” which sounds a lot like trying to invalidate other people’s problems to me).
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
One thing about WowFallacies…he/she doesn’t bring quite the same aggressive, shrieking, “kneel-and-be-ashamed!” pile of slag that used to be the norm. Instead, this one seemed to be a passive-aggressive tutting, which seemed to be trying to channel the process of scepticism to condescend you into feeling intellectually shamed.
However, it didn’t work at all. Not just because of a lack of information, but it comes from a person who applies the process of inquiry the same way as Rebecca”the Swamp Donkey” Watson: someone who has read the sheet music of a Beethoven Symphony, but has neither any idea what it sounds like, nor understands why anyone would listen or play outside of bullying or impressing someone else.
Whether WowFallacies is part of the sceptic movement or not, from the rest of us who are, try harder. You lack sufficient evidence, and scepticism concludes with advice, not passive-aggressive snark.
Incidentally, Crayle, I’m a big fan of the Horatio Hornblower series. One of the running gags of the series is that despite his name, the lead character simply doesn’t “get” music. At all. He can’t even recognize “God Save the King”.
Similarly, WowFallacies may be one of those people, like conspiracy theorists, who claim they’re skeptics, but are only skeptical as far as it advances their ideological goals.
Not only is this false, so what if it was true? That doesn’t make it a “pissing contest” with feminism, that makes it criticism of feminism. You’re not even the first person to imply that “real” men’s rights advocacy would involve not criticizing feminism at all. Heck, even feminists can’t decide if the movement is for women or women and men. And of the first group, they can’t decide whether men have no issues worthy of advocacy, or whether men have issues and they’re not feminism’s baliwick.
Of course, if society was as misogynist and male-privileging as many claim, why don’t MRAs have more power and influence? Heck, why is feminism even allowed to exist?
What does pointing out feminism’s perceived flaws when it comes to men’s rights have to do with saying men’s issues are worse than women’s? Oh, wait, nothing. The most common complaint is that feminism claims to be for “gender equality”, but usually ignores men’s issues almost entirely. Feminists tend to gets really upset when people point out the hole in their coverage area, so to speak.
Nonsense. People have tried to talk about men’s issues IRL, only to have feminists break the law trying to silence them. Repeatedly. Men get called “fucking scum” and rapists just for wanting to attend these talks. And those weren’t even MRAs. Heck, Feminist Critics, a site whose primary admin is a feminist is on several web filters. Just a whisper of “men’s rights” or criticism of feminism, and the wolves come out.
Well, more like dogs.
Well, more like a pack of yapping chihuahuas.
Did you know glancing at a female constitutes rape at this point in time? Only in foggy heads. Feminism is sad.
Whatevs: That’s not true, nor have I seen a feminist claim that. At most a feminist might argue that it can cause some kind of nebulous “fear” in women, which is a ridiculous argument nonetheless.
There’s plenty to criticise feminism for without making stuff up.
I think he’s referring to “Male Gaze”.
“They might actually listen to and support you if you show them that you can reciprocate that compassion.”
What compassion is the writer referring to? The self-aggrandizing “all your issues are belong us” a la “homophobia is really just a form of misogyny” compassion of those who think that feminism is the proper basis for discussing gender issues, that the gender debate belongs only in feminist space and under feminist tutelage?
Or would it be the dismissive “patriarchy hurts men too and “what about the menz” compassion were are so used to in feminists spaces?
Or would it be the “yes, but….” compassion of feminists who rail about abductions of school girls but are silent (unaware?) of the mass murders of school boys, who see three dead men and two dead women and make it all about the wimminz and howl about MISOGYNY!!!! and ignore the killer’s howling misandry, who howl about FGM in other countries and are all excusatory about MGM in this one, who howl about the rapes of women and shout down discussion of rapes of men and boys, and who equate the rape (of women) to the murders of men, who think that refusing to draft women is really misogyny because it low-rates woman, as if that is somehow on par with the raging misandry of that institution…. that sociopathic, dead to men’s suffering kind of compassion?
Please specify which compassion you speak of.
Like I said, I’m waiting for them to hijack the next crime or issue that’s reported in the media where it cuts across both genders.
Then they’ll have no more excuses to hide behind in terms of their duplicity.
I’m a little confused about the last paragraph of Greg Allan. The ones previous discuss how simply trying to discuss boys schooling got people labeled and shamed but then this last paragraph puts the blame for not being allowed to address men’s and boys’ issues is because of stepping on woman’s issues.
“Here’s a tip:” Don’t trouble feminism by invading their royal dominion of public schools and universities. Use private or home schools and trade/technical schools. Even no education is better than reverse education. Earn as little income as you can manage so you pay as little in taxes to the state as you can. If you have a choice between a fine and a few days in jail–take the jail. If you can cost the state some expense (even at your own inconvenience) do so.
Let feminists run this world themselves without “pricks” helping out.
Sorry for the grammar in the first paragraph above. :-/
The first paragraph after Ginkgo introduces me was actually my quoting of Eagle in the source post. I had it in italics in the original. It may help if you look at it in the original context.
The funny thing is, people tried to discuss men’s issues in feminism for years. They simply weren’t having it, for the most part.
I think the term “all about the menz” is quite telling. It indicates that the people using it think any discussion of men’s issues at all in feminist spaces will instantly completely marginalize women’s issues. Which doesn’t explain why they’re okay with so much as discussions of men’s issues in non-Party approved language being shoved out the door. There’s a reason the most popular versions of “Toxic Masculinity” studiously avoid even discussing whether there’s any blame to be found in women or feminists, and tend to limit themselves to social pressure instead of institutionalized sexism. Heck, “experts” like Jackson Katz opine that if men would just report their rapes and abuse more, they would be acknowledged. Talk about hyperagency.
“Stare rape” is a thing that some feminists complain about:
“Those aren’t real feminists.”
“But they’re calling themselves feminists, and instituting a policy that affects hundreds of people. Shouldn’t you be more concerned?”
“…Those aren’t real feminists.”
The Real Peterman: I stand corrected, Whatevs was right. Just when I think feminists can’t get any more ridiculous they do something like that.
My guess is that they are calling it “psychological rape” for rhetorical and emotional impact and not because they think it actually is rape. But then that would be insulting to actual rape victims surely? Wouldn’t doing this count as “Rape Culture” or some such shit?
The page on Goshen College was taken down after MRA’s mailed them about it. As far as I can see term psychological rape by stare comes from SAPAC at the UM Ann Arbour in the early 1990’s when it was lead by a Julie Steiner – see these two articles from the Michigan Review (page 6 in both links):
Here is my page: web page [Hermine]
I need a citation on #3. I’ve posted this as a question on /r/TheRedPill.
“I’ve given the feminists more than my fair share of the benefit of the doubt”
…but half-baked conspiracy theories and 6-month-uncited sources? Those are totally cool! I wonder how feminists are getting the benefit of the doubt here!
“but” — Oh there’s the kicker.