OPEN THREAD – Long time no open thread!

Recently, thanks to following the anthropologist David Graeber on twitter, I observed the drama which later was dubbed #Jacobinghazi.

Very briefly, a feminist writer in the (pretty far) left academic magazine Jacobin had written a post about how stats-heavy argumentation shouldn’t be dismissed as a “bro” thing and left to men only. Pretty reasonable in my opinion. She also commented that she didn’t much care for that condescending diminutive “bro”, and certainly it was inappropriate to use in connection with serious issues like rape threats.

While saying the last part, she linked to a twitter post by the journalist Sarah Kendzior, who had did just that, talking about receiving threats from “brocialists”.

Big mistake.

See, Sarah Kendzior is the victim here – the victim of threats, so far – and a social justice warrior if there ever was one. And for a SJW, the first rule is: the victim’s experience must NEVER be questioned. She immediately decided that this linking was malicious, and motivated out of a desire to belittle the seriousness of the threats she received. Some people unfamiliar with that SJW rule said the obvious thing: Uh, she wasn’t belittling your experience, she was complaining that YOU were belittling your own experience by using the “bro” diminuitive.

Naturally, Kendzior saw this as someone maliciously trying to reinterpret her victimhood experience for her. And before the drama was over, she had reinterpreted a dozen other people in rather spectacularly creative ways, interpreting herself as a helpless victim of everyone who had ever disagreed with Sarah Kendzior. It’s summed up in somewhat 4-chan style here:

http://imgur.com/a/nUX1A

… and in a more serious investigative/polite manner here:

https://storify.com/nkallen/a-spiral-of-confusion/

For me it was pretty depressing to see how many people actually fell for such utterly transparent use of the victim card. Further depressing is that every single person commenting on this took for granted that Kendzior really did receive threats (which would be fair enough to assume in itself) and that these threats were from men. As if it was utterly impossible for a woman to write an anonymous threat. Most also took for granted (on victim status privilege alone) that they were from Jacobin writers as Kendzior hinted at.

But anyway, from that mess, quite by coincidence, I came across the science fiction writer Will Farrally, who’s written a book on online social justice earriors. I was so impressed with his insight into these sort of dramas that I bought his book and spent the rest of the evenring reading it. I heartily recommend that one, but this post already has two links, so I recommend googling it!

Jesus Christ, that JenniferP is a disgusting human being. I genuinely wonder how many men like me have killed themselves because of vermin like that.

I’ve said it before and doubtless will again: Even if “misandry” wasn’t part of my vocabulary, I’d still consider feminism my implacably hostile enemy as an autistic man. I have more respect for the kids who bullied me in school for being a freak than I do for most feminists, at this point; feminism shares all their vices and none of their meager virtues.

Actual concern for women’s feelings seems like blood in the water to an awfully large number of feminists. As soon as a guy lets on that he cares what feminists think a ending frenzy breaks out and he is quickly torn to shreds. That, at least, is what I have been seeing all over the place through things like twitter and tumblr.

This does not seem like the sort of selection pressure that is going to do feminism any kind of favours over the long term. Ah well, it’s nothing to do with me (uncaring lout ftw), but it is still sad to see genuinely nice people being harassed like that.

That thread is an awesome read! Basically a guy who recognises he has social anxiety issues, and wants to resolve them, tries to ask advice from a forum full of people who don’t even realise that they also have social anxiety issues.

Hilarity ensues.

you see that sort of shit all the time with SJWs. It’s not the neo-nazi or the actual misogynist who earns their ire, it’s the “ally” Time and time again, I’ve seen them sitting there, waiting for just one little slip up to occur so they can prance in and “call-out” and get their fix of self-righteous indignation.

It’s pretty self-defeating, but the fact is these people get off on their own perceived oppression. Any hint of having that taken away burns like acid.

Gingko, you may be referring to Michael Tomasky’s “Left for Dead”? It was serialized in the Village Voice (I think?) and probably other places too. That was 1996 though, and its dated now re: gender politics. He was sharply critical of identity politics as postmodern gobbledygook.

Will Shetterly is probably the only person going this route now, arguing that identity politics have eclipsed actual progressive politics (defined as class politics): http://shetterly.blogspot.com/ He’s been called racist, sexist and everything else for holding fast to this, and this means you can trust him to say the stuff no one else will.

Thanks, Gingko! Daisy, you made me grin.

Big fan, Will, and loved your book – keep up the good work!

http://goodmenproject.com/feat…..nt-1545182

An article saying men who are for Women’s Rights only do it to impress someone and lure women.

Here’s my comment. I actually did it different this time.

“I went out on a date. Was very promising as images of good-will and understanding danced merrily in my mind.

It didn’t end well. First time was we disagreed on a very touchy subject, leading to the relationship put to pasture on my own decision.

Oh we had a great time at first. She promised that if there ever was a cold shoulder to cry on, they’d be there to provide good comfort and whatever concerns I have they’ll be heard.

Imagine how heartbroken I felt when I told them about the negative experiences I had garnered at the hands of both genders in my youth. A return trip to the past costs me a lot, particularly if I choose to highlight landmarks in detail and the frustrations at getting anyone to imagine that girls and women were capable of harm.

In the end, I felt good and awaited her counseling and the reveal of the heart she venerated.

Alas, to no avail. My date told me, flat out, that even though they were sorry for the disgusting behavior of the girls and women, in the end it didn’t matter. According to her philosophy, since I was a straight white male, I enjoyed the privileges of a system that oppresses women all around the world. The male powers that be have ensured their collective fortune trickles down from above into the palm of my hands like a waterfall of Reaganomics. Besides, she added, I was an anomaly as what happens to women and girls is worse, more of a priority. She even threw the very statistics at me that the OP used in this article as clean-cut evidence. “Sorry, Eagle. You’re a great guy with a fine attitude. Nobody deserves what you went through. But you’ve got to have priorities. You understand, right?.”

“Yes.” I said, keeping my sadness concealed, disappointment in check lest I come off as entitled to her. Funny, I thought, that she only said this when I brought up what the females did to me.

This plagued me long after the courtship failed. But being the open-minded individual I was, I decided to delve further into this. Maybe I wasn’t understanding her. After all, she still possessed this caring, compassionate side, which has lead to some progressive milestones. Maybe the date failed because I didn’t understand, wasn’t schooled enough.

So I made it my mission to arm myself with knowledge so that maybe we could give it another chance. She called me up the following day and said “Please don’t take offense, Eagle. I’m so sorry, that side of me wasn’t true. Let’s try again.”

“Sure.” I replied “But I need time to find out more about you. You don’t mind, do you?”

“Of course” she cheered, “Yes, that’s what I always say. Go, learn, don’t believe the biased Republicans or misogynists. Call me up later when you’re done and then we’ll set a date for another outing.”

“Deal.” I went, hanging up the phone.

So I made it my mission to find out more and what emerged did seem the better picture: Equal rights, sympathy, progress for everyone. Heck, I even found some areas that appeared compatible with my views. In all this emerged a re-construction of her into the perfect date material as it had been the first time we met.

Until I came across the unsavory element that brought my hopes crashing down to earth with a thud.

First there was Mary Koss and her erasure of Male Victims of female sexual abuse; the existence of an entire population of individuals wiped out at the stroke of a pen from statistical records because it wouldn’t be appropriate to call what happened “Rape”. They were saddled with the label “Sexual Assault”, sloppy seconds as opposed to the main course meal.

I choked. This was hard to believe after the unconditional semaritism touted.

Pulling up the rock revealed the red ants nest in full: Male victims of Domestic Violence left out based on The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence that forever labels them primary aggressors automatically arrested should they endure physical and psychological abuse from their spouses. She lobbied for it into law without a second thought and no consideration of the consequences.

Boys and girls in education struggling equally to keep up with the curriculum. She lobbied for the school system and educators to alter it and create programs designed specifically for girls only. Boys were left by the wayside. I couldn’t fathom the reasoning behind it when I later found out that the research showing both genders having trouble was right there before her eyes. And she went ahead with her advocacy anyway then patted herself on the back for a job well done..

Shared Parenting was being considered as an option to address the disparity in family courts where fathers had less of a chance to stay in their kids lives even if they drained themselves mentally and financially to prove otherwise. 50/50 parenting, null and void if sufficient, viable evidence were found that either the father or mother were detrimental to the child’s well-being. She opposed this and claimed that this would allow abusive fathers access to their kids. Shared Parenting came and went with no supporters.

Woah! Unbelievable! My throat was parched, dry. This would be my date again?

Out of stubbornness and chivalry, but no less cynical, I called her up and gave her my support while thinking “Just don’t go too deep. Have fun, be considerate, caring. Remember, you still agree with some of her points.”

We were out on our second date. We got to chatting up and it looked like the tension had evaporated.

I should’ve known better when she broached the subject of Boko Harem. That’s when her other side fell out again. She let it hang with glee, going on about what they did typified the “War on Women” being waged on our doorstep. “My heart bleeds for those schoolgirls. It just goes to show that Misogyny knows no cultural bounds.” She ranted and raved.

A part of me was reviled. It knocked on wood, seered my nerves in order to get me talking. I don’t know, but I couldn’t let her opinions pass as gosiple again. “Um, Boko Harem also shot and killed innocent school boys as well. In fact, a recent news article mentioned their raid on a village. They signaled out the male babies, boys, and men then shot them on site. The body count was 300 – 400 plus.”

She glared at me, eyes burning. “Firstly, the schoolboys were dead anyway. There was nothing to be done. You can’t help the dead. Same with those males in the village. Now if they had kidnapped or raped the women, girls and female babies then there’s a difference. Again, priorities, Eagle, priorities.”

I said nothing save for a atonal, weak-kneed “I get it.” to concede.

We talked some more and finally, the subject of Elliot Rodgers came up. “Oh my god, that was horrible. Just horrible. Killing all those women, believing he’s entitled to sex from them as if everyone of them should just make themselves available to be taken. Did you read that manifesto of his? I did and it took all my power not to throw up. I’m so glad he killed himself but it’s just another example of misogyny and the problem of male entitlement. Did you also know that he’s linked to Men’s Rights Advocacy? It’s true. The media says so. I found out he hangs with those disgusting PUAs online. Yup, Mens Rights, always bleating on about how men have it bad. Ha, well if they’re like Elliot Rodgers, it’s all just a front to enforce their entitlement on all women. I’m just thankful there’s a petition out for the White House to declare them terrorists. Good riddance. You should sign it. I did and it felt good, like doing something for the justice and rights of women everywhere.”

That did it. What I saw in front of me was hard to stomach and it filled me with rage. With the comfort of cynicism to catch my fall, I decided to take the plunge.

“First, there is no evidence that PUAs are linked to Mens Rights Advocates in spite of what the media present. Second, Elliot Rodgers also hated Alpha Males, his brother, parents, humanity, and himself. He killed four men in addition to two women, intended to add a sorority house to his portfolio because Blonde Women were a preference he was especially frustrated with being rejected by, went on a drive-by injuring others of both genders including law enforcement officers and even spared the life of a woman at gunpoint before killing himself in the end. So it wasn’t solely Misogyny that motivated him. Third, I will never EVER sign a petition for the White House to label ANYONE terrorists just because I disagree with some of their points. I haven’t done it to you so you’d think some example following were extended in the name of equality, right?” I argued with a forceful tone that amazed even myself.

She was rendered speechless on the spot. We didn’t say anything further all the way to the end of our date.

To wrap it up in a bow, I called her on my phone at home. This time, it was my turn to break it off. “Listen, I have done the research and you accomplished some good things. You’ll get no argument from me otherwise. But, in the end, I also read about actions you took that went against everything you told me you stood for. Based on them, I can say with confidence that this relationship will never work out. Thank you, but we’re not compatible nor will we ever be. You take care of yourself. Good-bye.”

I hung up and breathed in. It was futile in the end, but I learned something about myself that will stay with me to the end in the name of not just equality but simple human decency and dignity.

What was the girl’s name? Well…you should know by now. I’ll leave it to you.”

I noticed just now there was a contradiction and added it was HER who put the relationship out to pasture the first time. Not me.

If you’d like, Ginko. But don’t mention my handle. I already post there on the subreddit. Just say “Here’s a commentator in The Good Men Project thread laying out his concerns.”

To be safe, I’ll let others do the talking. Let it speak for itself.

Oh and hey, I got cosplay photos!!!! I just got back from HeroesCon.

Wonder Woman in all sizes and colors: http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2014/06/heroescon-2014.html

Sorry you and Clarence weren’t allowed to argue on Feminist Critics. THIS GUY sure called it right: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/06/25/eagle3x-and-the-relationship-that-wasnt-rp/#comment-884839

ballgame’s control freakery has gotten worse, not better, over time. Yeesh!

–still banned (NOT “on moderation”) at Feminist Critics

Daisy,

Identity Politics are divisions. There is only one single social justice issue in the world: economic. Everything our “revival” of “Social Justice” entails aligns seemingly perfectly with an overclass who desire to keep the underclass fighting amongst themselves; further, the entire context and actual goals align to “selling you shit” and thinly veiled “bootstraps” philosophy by focusing on issues like the wage gap, which doesn’t help anyone at the bottom of the barrel.

It’s this insistence on the absolute morality of claims versus the reality that this changes absolutely nothing. We’re all still suffering and fighting to get by. People want to reduce to identity, when we should be expanding to “humanity”.

At the end of the day, it’s how the owners convince the activists to do their dirty work for them. “Social Justice Warriors: Making things better for the upper class since 1999”. Want to talk postmodern Foucault? how about we talk about how every discourse on social justice has been coopted by one established power base or another leading us to here where Foucault would be rolling in his grave at the sheer idiocy inherent in forgetting that as soon as you’re part of the status-quo, you’re part of the status-quo. That’s the whole goddamn point of History of Sexuality: that discourses change and are the result of power dynamics. Orthodoxy is the death of discourse. This explains why there’s such a desire to uphold the “man’s side” of tradcon as they’re needing of that stoicism and workhorse role to maintain that power and position as “status-quo”.

A bit of an old open thread, but I though I’d put this out there:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/anti-feminist-women-hobby-lobby-decision-great

I used to love reading the Guardian until it became saturated with this kind of nonsense.

That said, there’s some very interesting comments in the CiF section.

Hey look, my comment is in moderation! From now on, let no one here wonder why their comment has gone into moderation. There is no sense at all to it, so the question is idle.

I am moderated now too! So, we now know: WordPress moderates long winded people! :p

I picked up a copy of bell hooks’ Feminist Theory since I’ve seen her name come up repeatedly. I’m only about halfway through, but I feel like I’ve seen what I needed to see.

Her own criticisms of “white feminism” are pretty biting, and I have to say it sounds applicable even now, thirty years later. She notes the dogmatism in feminism, the hostility toward men, the lack of definition for the word “feminism”, and so on. I would find her recommendable for that, at least. Hey, she can’t be dismissed as easily as dissident feminists are.

However, this book also establishes her very clearly as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” feminist. It’s kind of funny how some of the issues she has as a black woman relating to white feminists sound a lot like non-feminist men relating to feminists, yet it’s not apparent whether the parallel occurred to her. I mean, I realize explicating that would not go over well today, let alone the mid-eighties, but it still falls short of inspiring.* Oh yeah, and she totally quotes Carol Hanisch’s “Men’s Liberation” with some approval, to the end of suggesting that men do not need or should not have a movement outside feminism. It seems like she basically just wants to recruit men to be feminist foot soldiers who possess no intellectual autonomy.

I also have a copy of Millett’s Sexual Politics, which I haven’t read. Good god, she devotes as many pages (60ish) to D.H. Lawrence as she does to the eponymous subject of the book! This is not promising.

*It reminds me of FC’s Daran once categorizing his interactions with Tigtog of finallyfeminism101 as a “win” insofar as receiving basic courtesy from e-feminists is a coup.