Responses to the commenters on the “Guilty Pleasures” post.

Okay, we are officially into the “Uccellina has much to say and too little time in which to say it” territory. I will try to address as much I can for now.

Serin

“Why do feminists always assume all MRAs are conservatives?” I’ve noticed the same thing you have, Serin – that MRAs have a broad range of political opinions on issues other than gender and feminism. Their opinions on those issues, however, may safely be deemed conservative opinions. Therefore I feel secure in labeling websites devoted to MRA “conservative websites.”

Regarding menarebetterthanwomen.com – while I think the site itself is clearly parody, many of the commenters take it seriously.

Andrewone thing I’ve observed is that when people say they “believe that there should be an organization that is a spokesperson for all of men in this society,” they usually do not include gay men in that category. Would your ideal MRA movement fight for gay men’s rights too? While I agree that there are far too many black men in jail, I think this is evidence of a racist and classist system and, as I mentioned before, of the damage done to men by cultural definition and enforcement of “masculinity”.

Rob“[wage-gap studies don’t account for] the AVERAGE woman working 10hrs a week less than men, nor . . . women taking time off for having children (averaged 5yrs out of career)” I think it’s important to consider the factors behind the choices we make. If women take five years out of their careers to have children, or work ten hours less per week, these things hardly happen in a vacuum. I suspect such statistics reflect necessity more than choice; if more men took more responsibility for childcare, I think you would see a distinct shift.

“Women lawyers don’t marry waiters, but male lawyers do marry waitresses” – those are the stereotypes, sure. But to me this says more about how our culture measures the value of a man as opposed to the value of a woman than about individual dynamics. Women don’t have to be educated or high-earning, they just have to be pretty and pleasant. Men don’t have to be pretty or pleasant, but they should be smart and rich. These expectations hurt everyone, male and female.

“[T]he link between feminism and communism has been so solidly established . . .” I’m never particularly impressed by the old feminism=communism cliche. First of all, feminism – particularly in the last twenty years – has made a concerted effort to concern itself with classism and racism, as they are inextricably linked to sexism. Second of all, if the language of oppression is so abhorrent to MRAs, why have they adopted it for their own use? (See previous post). I think the proper response to the rhetorical spectre of communism in a discussion of feminism is, “that’s just a red herring.”

CLAF “I find it astounding that feminists can conclude that they speak for all women.” Where did I say I was speaking for all women? I’ve re-read my post, and I just can’t find it. But I will say that feminism certainly represents women’s interests better than MRAs do. “Why do feminists think MRAs are going after all women?” I don’t think they’re going after all women individually, but I do think they’re going after the rights and interests of women as a class.

Khankrum You are clearly suffering from a lack of irony in your diet. Please see the website of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which basically states that the group is challenging a particular decision by the WA Supreme Court that denied same-sex couples the right to marry based on the “‘legitimate state interest’ [that] allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together.” So now WADoMA has proposed that, consistent with the above decision, procreation should be a requirement for legal marriage.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

“It has not come to all out Gun battles yet. But our Harper’s Ferry moment is coming.” And in that Harper’s Ferry moment when you take up arms and go out to battle, which side will you be on, Khankrum? The radical abolitionists’ or the slaveholders’?

Mom Thanks! You shameless feminist hussy, you.

Istoute I addressed your number 1. above, so I won’t here. Regarding 2., Standards of Beauty. People often conflate Patriarchy with Men, but that’s a false equation. Patriarchy is a system under which we all live and in which we all, to greater or lesser extent, participate. So the fact that women are running the advertising campaigns is not actually a counter-argument to anything I have said.

Regarding objectification of women, and leaving aside your claim that models aren’t victims because they make good money, I disagree that if you weren’t turned on by advertising images, that “something would be wrong with” you. First, I suspect a lot of men don’t get turned on by department store ads or cosmetics commercials, though I suppose I could be wrong about that. If you’re talking about images in pornography, I think if you weren’t turned on by them, it might mean that you were bothered about the greater implications behind the images. Or it might mean you need a different type of porn. I don’t know you, so I’m unwilling to guess.

Interesting that you ask what kind of message that sends to a pre-pubescent boy – what kind of message, exactly, do you think pre-pubescent girls get when they see such images?

Your “3) Fathering”: I think it is a strange contradiction of the MRAs generally that they advocate more “traditional” roles for women, yet fight for custody of the children in divorce situations and/or relief from child support payments. If women are encouraged to stay home and not be career-oriented, how are they supposed to support their children when divorce occurs? If “providing is parenting,” as you say, then in divorce situations men should feel comfortable with the parenting rights they have been exercising up to that time, should they not?

I think the solution to your question about how men should learn nurturance lies in the way we raise our male children. If people allowed men their vulnerability and stopped mocking kind men as “feminized” or secure men as “manginas”, then perhaps they would be better prepared to be equal parents.

Advertisements

46 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    Thank you for your response. It’s more than I expected.

    “Where did I say I was speaking for all women? I’ve re-read my post, and I just can’t find it. But I will say that feminism certainly represents women’s interests better than MRAs do.”

    Granted.

    But then why does it seem that only feminism determines what does and does not constitute misogyny? I advance the argument that accusing MRA’s of misogyny is in fact speaking for all women, since the concept of misogyny is inextricably linked to all women. Feminism has in effect decided that the challenge posed to it by men’s rights activists, is a challenge for all women. Yet, most MRA’s that I’ve read have no interest in challenging all women. They are quite determined however, to challenge feminism.

    But perhaps this is too broad. More appropriately, why is the definition of misogyny, something which feminism maintains is ongoing and systemic, entirely determined by, and used at will by feminism? Have we (in the most collective sense possible) not agreed that misogyny means contempt for women? Then therefore, why is an MRA a misogynist for pointing out that feminism does not seek equality at all, but female superiority instead? Such an MRA has taken issue with feminism, not with women. Most MRA’s believe in equal opportunity, and equal responsibility. Yet this is repeatedly called misogyny by feminists.

    “I don’t think they’re going after all women individually, but I do think they’re going after the rights and interests of women as a class.”

    The same point applies to this statement as well. Feminism seems to have decided that it is representative of all women. I can’t speak for all MRA’s, but I count myself among their number, and I have no interest in stripping women’s rights. What exactly would that accomplish for men, other than making virtually all western women more angry than they already are?

    Conversely however, knowing what I know now, I would never have gotten married-the situation is far too dangerous for men. Yet more and more women every year, complain that they have difficulty finding a husband-in language which seems to assume that a husband is their’s by birthright. Some women have even begun resorting to deceptive tactics to try to force men into marriage. Does a man not have the right to choose who he’s going to live with the rest of his life without coercion? – Yet scorning these practices is called misogyny by feminism. Why? I can only conclude that feminism isn’t about women’s rights at all, but about spreading hatred for men.

    I have no interest in taking a women’s right to anything; I’m in favor of equal opportunity and equal responsibility. But I take issue when standards are lowered to accommodate a PC agenda-affirmative action is not equal opportunity. I do however, have great interest in not being screwed over by a male-hating agenda.

  2. 2

    “Women don’t have to be educated or high-earning, they just have to be pretty and pleasant. Men don’t have to be pretty or pleasant, but they should be smart and rich. These expectations hurt everyone, male and female.”

    Okay… However, these expectations are set and defined by women, but blamed on men. I’ve seen women who won’t consider even speaking to a man unless he makes more than x amount of dollars-something which is entirely the woman’s decision-if the man wants her attention, then he’d better get a better job. Women essentially have control of the marriage and courtship process, yet they don’t seem to want to do ANYTHING to change these stereotypes. Feminism has in effect reinforced them by trying to force women into the work-force. Most MRAs believe that women tend to “marry upward.” There is a vast amount of evidence in favor of this. A woman normally seems to want a man who is more successful than she is as a mate. When she’s successful she looks higher than herself. If she’s a corporate CEO, how much higher up the ladder can she go? My understanding is that Donald Trump and Bill Gates are taken. What exactly are men supposed to do? It seems to me, that as far as women are concerned, it’s up to men to change these stereotypes, yet there’s clearly nothing we can do about them, since they are maintained, and reinforced by women, and aggravated by feminism.

  3. 3

    Anonymous said,

    Your “3) Fathering”: I think it is a strange contradiction of the MRAs generally that they advocate more “traditional” roles for women, yet fight for custody of the children in divorce situations and/or relief from child support payments.

    How is this a contradiction? A man seeking a “traditional” house wife is still devoted to his children such that he would want to be with them after a divorce.

    If women are encouraged to stay home and not be career-oriented, how are they supposed to support their children when divorce occurs?

    MRA’s are opposed to divorce. Over 80% of divorces are initiated by women – often as no fault divorce. Men lose their kids, the house, the car, the family pet, a large chunk of their future income – and you think it is strange that men fight for custody and for more realisitc levels of child support. If a man fails his family by abusing them or spending everything on drugs or gambling, then fair enough the wife should be allowed to cut away with the kids, but we also want people to acknowledge the other scenario where no fault divorce is ruining mens lives.

    If “providing is parenting,” as you say, then in divorce situations men should feel comfortable with the parenting rights they have been exercising up to that time, should they not?

    Well lets turn the family law system on its head and imagine that men get custody 90% of the time. Wife comes home from a hard day at work and her house husband says “I’m sorry but I’ve found someone better” then calls the cops and accuses the wife of DV. Cops come and take the wife away, the husband changes all the locks and starts legal proceedings. Husband gets the kids and most of the assets, and the wife is told she can see her children once a fortnight and must pay the husband a large portion of her salary to compensate for her husbands decision to take a new direction in life. Do you think that woman would fight for custody of her children and/or lower child support payments in this scenario?

    I want to reiterate that I think parents who fail their family through abuse or sqaundering finances on drugs/gambling should definitely pay for their failure, but MRA’s want to highlight the massive number of no fault divorces ruining mens lives. Some people say that a woman should not be expected to stay in an unhappy relationship – well ok let her leave, and see if she is happier without her children & house and losing a large amount of her income. Atleast this would be a free choice instead of having such a situation forced on her by her partner’s decision through no fault of her own.

    This notion that a “traditional” woman was constantly cooking and cleaning isn’t entirely accurate. Both of my grandmothers had careers and even my great grandmother worked and all of their husbands helped with cleaning the house, mowing lawns, fixing roofs, and building fences etc. The house work was shared even back then. What made them traditional women was the fact that they wanted to keep their family together instead of fleecing their husbands whenever they saw a better opportunity.

  4. 4

    edog said,

    I agree with you. Social mores need to change as they relate to dating and marrying. Just as us men should lay off the attractiveness expectation, you women should lay off the money expectation!

    The day a woman has to do all the things that I have to do to get by (and, conversely, the day I have to do all the things she has to do to get by) will be the day we’ve reached TRUE equality between the sexes!

    Why not have HER buy her wedding ring, and I buy MY wedding ring? How about go in halves on the honeymoon?

    After all, marriage is supposed to be a partnership.

    I’m being selfish or cheap, you say? It all depends on how you look at it. Women have notoriously been the “cheapskates” in the dating ritual because our societal expectations were formed when most women didn’t work.

    If I’m to do my fair share of the housework (and yes, household repairs, mowing the lawn, and keeping both our cars maintained and repaired is just as much housework as cleaning, but nevertheless I clean too), then the woman is to do her fair share of paying for things! And it all starts when we’re dating.

    I, like everyone else, try to determine what future married life would be like with someone I’m dating. I do it the same way everyone else does, by observing behavior! And if a woman can’t pay for at least a few dates (including picking me up in her car and doing the driving), how can I reasonably think she’ll spend any of her money on something as boring as a utility bill?

    It does bear asking; if i’m giving to her, what am I getting in return? If she’s giving to me, what is she getting in return?

    Have you ever seen a feminist cry out against the unrealistic expectations she places on her man’s income?? No, but you’ll hear them constantly cry out against our unrealistic expectations of their sexual and physical attractiveness.

    It is the job of MRAs to speak for our interests and cry out against the money drain many (but not all) women have become. And it hits us squarely in the divorce laws.

    How’s this for inequality? Your expectations of us are legislated even after the divorce! Our expectations of you aren’t even mentioned in the law!

  5. 5

    desiknitter said,

    This is not as serious as the other comments, but I can’t help recalling as I read on: MRA was the acronym for Moral Re-Armament, a 20th century movement/organization that was sort of like a religious Peace Corps, and which had a branch in the town where I grew up in India. It had a very vexed relationship with the locals who always called it MRA and for a long time I had no idea what it stood for. Most people suspected it was a cover for the CIA, or a front for missionaries. They looked up at the sky a lot and talked vaguely about a hate-free world.

  6. 6

    PJ said,

    All I can say is that here in California, women’s groups have campaigned mightily against anything approaching rebuttable joint custody in this state.

    They are currently in a lawsuit trying to prevent the state from funding resources for male victims of domestic violence.

    Perhaps that is why feminists have such a bad name. The MRAs you cite are not all the cream of the crop, by any means, but neither are the feminists who raised money to free Andrea Yates or the onces lionizing Clara Harris.

    The difference in America is that if you try to allude to anything such as equal treatment under the law for men, you are immediately tarred as a sexist reactionary, which is rarely true for those men and women who for instance, are seeking joint custody legislation in California. On the other hand, you need not look far for sexism and bigotry in the Women’s Studies departments of our universities or in the sexist, destructive Family Courts in every county in the country.

  7. 7

    uccellina said,

    CLAF – “why is an MRA a misogynist for pointing out that feminism does not seek equality at all, but female superiority instead?”

    An MRA isn’t a misogynist for expressing the above opinion. An MRA is a misogynist when he or she invents language based on women’s anatomy to describe men or women who hold feminist opinions he or she does not like, such as “femcunt” or “mangina”. An MRA is a misogynist when he or she calls a woman a “vile hag” or “whore” instead of addressing her arguments, or when he claims that:

    Women will plot revenge for the most petty of reasons because emotions control their logical reasoning abilities. If you don’t flirt with them properly you will get sued for sexual harrassment, if you do flirt with them and they are having a bad day you will also get sued.

    Both of the above, CLAF, are from blogs on your blogroll.

    As to your second comment – and Anonymous, for you too – please see my response to Istoute below.

    Edog – I think it’s totally fair to ask that a woman you’re dating pay her half of the dates. I don’t think you’ll find a self-proclaimed feminist who would argue that it isn’t. When Husband and I were dating, I won’t say we kept a tab for each of us, but I think it probably broke down to about 50/50. After we married, we declared a “one-pocket” rule which has held true through periods of both his unemployment and mine. It doesn’t matter which of us wins the bread – we both get to eat it.

    I would like you to find me a U.S. family law statute that specifies “wife” support rather than “spousal” or “child” support. The fact that the higher-earning spouse is often the husband is not the fault of feminism – it’s one of the things feminism seeks to rectify.

    Desiknitter – “They looked up at the sky a lot and talked vaguely about a hate-free world.”

    One of my favorite pasttimes! Maybe we have more in common than I realized.

    PJ – What lawsuit is that? Who are the parties involved? Do you have articles or sources you can offer?

  8. 8

    Expressing contempt for an ideology is misogynist? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t actually make sense to me.

    There are two points, first I will address language, and only language.

    Admittedly, the language is rude, disrespectful, usually inappropriate and childish. Name-calling shouldn’t be necessary.

    But this does not make it misogynist. It seems that the only reason that this language is misogynist is that it is expressed in anger at feminism.

    Not all women who speak to Fred X are subjected to abusive language.

    Your charge of misogyny would seem to be valid if any female-opinion was attacked with the same level of scorn, but this is not the case. Since the offending terms are hurled at both men and women with equal venom, and equal frequency, Fred is not being misogynist at all. You have decided that the feminist opinion represents the opinion of all women, and therefore, any critique of the feminist opinion is labeled misogyny, when clearly, the feminist opinion is not the same thing as the opinion of all women-in actual fact, feminism is quite content to use women as nothing more than cannon fodder in its misandrist crusade. Women are nothing more than human shields for feminism, entirely disposable. And you accuse men of misogyny, when in truth feminism is more misogynist than men could ever hope to be.

    Second point:
    “Women will plot revenge for the most petty of reasons because emotions control their logical reasoning abilities. If you don’t flirt with them properly you will get sued for sexual harrassment, if you do flirt with them and they are having a bad day you will also get sued.”

    Can you disprove this thesis? Can you provide sufficient evidence to convince a rational human being that this is not the truth, because I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that this is at least, largely true. Certainly this does not happen in every case, and the reasoning for his argument may not be 100% accurate, but clearly his thesis occurs in sufficient frequency to make women plotting revenge the rule rather than the exception.

    If this statement was blatantly false, then it would be misogynist. However, I have seen plenty of evidence to support the thesis. Women are perfectly capable of leveling false accusations of rape at men. Women are perfectly capable of leveling false accusations of “abuse” at men. Women are perfectly capable of lying in court to their advantage. What he says appears to be entirely within the realm of FACT.

    Have you heard of the Super Bowl violence hoax? A few years ago, (1994 I think) feminism sponsored an advertisement during the Super Bowl which sought to raise awareness about violence against women. The advertisement alleged that there is more violence against women on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year. This was entirely false, and by consequence is entirely supportive of the above thesis.

    Therefore by your logic, reality or the truth its self must be misogynist because it often doesn’t conform to feminist theory. It is a fact that women will stoop to all sorts of levels to try to get revenge for various petty reasons. You would honestly try to argue that these and other facts should be suppressed because they don’t fit within the feminist agenda?

    When is your next book-burning party?

  9. 9

    Addendum,
    Furthermore, it occurs to me that the definition of misogyny has become so broad as to be meaningless. Anything and everything is a candidate for misogyny. I think that it would be therefore more appropriate to view being branded a misogynist as being entirely meaningless.

    Thank you for helping me see that accusations coming from feminists are meaningless.

  10. 10

    Mom said,

    From CLAF: “It is a fact that women will stoop to all sorts of levels to try to get revenge for various petty reasons.”

    Here is a perfect example of misogynistic thinking. This statement makes a sweeping generalization about “women” and says they “will” behave badly with respect to men. CLAF, you may well have had unfortunate encounteres with a woman or women who have acted pettiily and sought revenge. But as Uccellina points out, individual experiences and anecdotes do not rise to the level of evidence for such a claim. If I said that men will act aggressively in order to control women, I would be guilty of an equally unsupported statement. I would be condemning all men for the actions of some. As a feminist, I deplore such reasoning.

    Similarly, women may sometimes make false statements against men. Does this mean that men do not sometimes make false statements against women? Does it mean that we should presume a woman’s allegations are false?

    I have to wonder what your sources are when you characterize feminism as “using women as human shields.” How much feminism have you read. Or are you presuming to understand it based on the opinions of those who oppose it? Are you an independent thinker?

  11. 11

    Happy Bullet said,

    “Women will plot revenge for the most petty of reasons because emotions control their logical reasoning abilities. If you don’t flirt with them properly you will get sued for sexual harrassment, if you do flirt with them and they are having a bad day you will also get sued.”

    Just wondering.. because you seem to not like the comment. It would have been utterly impossible for this comment to have been made if it were not for feminism with it’s broad sexual harassment definitions and laws.

    So, even if it we could accept that it was misogyny, it is assigning motivation to a common abuse of feminist inspired laws which in order to assign motivation to must exist in the first place.

    So.. this imputed act of misogyny would not exist if feminism did not, specifically if those skewed laws did not.

    Of course, we’re ignoring what the motivation for abuse of those laws is, if not that – and whether speculating on them in the slightest would be considered misogyny, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

    “Misogyny defined as speculation as to motivations for abuse of skewed laws inspired by feminism”.

    Something to think about if you don’t like it.

  12. 12

    Happy Bullet said,

    “I don’t think they’re going after all women individually, but I do think they’re going after the rights and interests of women as a class.”

    This comment was rather odd as well. Particularly when put next to claims that you are not speaking for women directly.

    You’ve said that MRAs express opinions on matters that are conservative. Well there are plenty of conservative women.

    Thus MRAs would be sticking up for the rights that THOSE WOMEN want then right?

    Unless you’re defining what the rights and interests are of ALL women…

  13. 13

    Canadian Liberal Against Feminism said,

    “Here is a perfect example of misogynistic thinking.”

    Thank you for proving my point. I stated a fact, and that fact was deemed misogynist. Thank you so very much.

    “you may well have had unfortunate encounteres with a woman or women who have acted pettiily and sought revenge. But as Uccellina points out, individual experiences and anecdotes do not rise to the level of evidence for such a claim”

    Actually, my experience with women has been largely positive. It’s feminists I have a problem with.

    I wish it was just my individual experience-sadly it is not limited to that. If you want a source, I’ll give you one: Crystal Gail Magnum and the Duke rape hoax. Another? Warren Blackwell in the UK, convicted of rape on the basis of an entirely false accusation. Another? It is revealed that a large number of women claiming to have been drugged and raped is nothing more than a case of over-intoxication. Another? Abigail Gibson in the UK makes four different false rape accusations. Another? Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women’s shelter movement is branded a gender traitor. Another? Clytemnestra and her adulterous lover allegedly hack Agamemnon to pieces after he returns from the Trojan war. Another? A women confesses to murder on national radio in the United States because her one-night-stand refused to pay child-support. Another? A woman tries to trap a man into marriage by getting pregnant with someone else’s baby.

    Just how many do you need?

    The points stand, very strongly and proudly: That women are entirely capable of seeking revenge for the pettiest of reasons, and that the very facts themselves can be considered misogynist-something which makes no sense at all.

    “As a feminist, I deplore such reasoning.”

    As a feminist you’ve already accepted and supported such reasoning.

    “Similarly, women may sometimes make false statements against men. Does this mean that men do not sometimes make false statements against women? Does it mean that we should presume a woman’s allegations are false?”

    Men are no longer on trial. Feminism is. I’m calling feminism to account for its attempts at destroying all heterosexual relationships. I’m calling on feminism to defend its self. I will not answer any attack on men, because men have overwhelmingly proven themselves innocent. My personal estimate is well over ten million dead-ten million sacrificed. And that’s just for starters.

    “I have to wonder what your sources are when you characterize feminism as “using women as human shields.” How much feminism have you read. Or are you presuming to understand it based on the opinions of those who oppose it? Are you an independent thinker?”

    I am an independent thinker. I’m well versed in tactical considerations, and the Roman hastati. I just posted a long discussion of Roman battle tactics, and I won’t get into much of it here.

    Feminism uses women as cannon fodder on the basis that it purports to speak for all women. Feminism picked a fight with men, and when men started to hit back, they were falsely accused of misogyny-thus moving all women squarely into the path of men’s well-aimed counter-attack. Feminism used women to attempt to try shame men into remaining silent, to prevent men from posing any challenge to feminism because any challenge would be taken as an attack on women. I will counter this tactic and I will forge ahead and the attack on feminism will not stop until feminism is destroyed. Therefore, feminism has been quite happy to use women as cannon fodder. See Erin Pizzey for another example of that. I have read her book-I believe her far more than any feminist because she actually DID something to help people. She STARTED something. But because she actually dared to suggest that men weren’t the abusers that feminism said they were, she was branded a traitor and threatened with death-by feminism.

    Feminism is the true hate-movement, and MRA’s are here to call feminism to defend its self. But unlike feminism, we believe in due process, and we’re giving feminism the chance to defend its self. So far, we’re not impressed.

  14. 14

    Mom said,

    CLAF, I find it curious that you believe that feminism is out to destroy all heterosexual relationships. If that were the case, no feminists would seek out such relationships (which you declare in one of your posts that they feel entitled to). No feminists would want marriage. And, indeed, some don’t. But some do. Most happily married women I know call themselves feminists. Perhaps it’s different in Canada. But I doubt it.

    As for your examples, you could cite a hundred more and they still would not add up to a generalizable “fact” about women. You may be an expert on Roman battle tactics, but you’ve a lot to learn about social science.

  15. 15

    uccellina said,

    CLAF – “Expressing contempt for an ideology is misogynist? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t actually make sense to me”

    Evidently you didn’t actually read what I wrote. I’ll let you go back and try again.

    “Not all women who speak to Fred X are subjected to abusive language.”

    No, only those who disagree with him.

    “Since the offending terms are hurled at both men and women with equal venom, and equal frequency, Fred is not being misogynist at all. ”

    How can I rephrase this so that it will be clear? The language itself – the words themselves -regardless of the gender of the target – is misogynist.

    As far as the rest of your comment, I think Mom has answered it admirably.

    “When is your next book-burning party?”

    Um, the fifteenth of March, I believe. We’re starting with Ann Coulter, then we have Robert Jordan (because he will never, ever finish that Wheel of Time series), Bret Easton Ellis (Less Than Zero was bloody awful), and Michael Faber (I gave up on The Crimson Petal And The White after the third perspective shift).

    Happy Bullet – “Misogyny defined as speculation as to motivations for abuse of skewed laws inspired by feminism”.

    I’d respond if I could figure out what exactly you’re trying to say.

    “You’ve said that MRAs express opinions on matters that are conservative. Well there are plenty of conservative women.”

    Yeah . . . that’s not quite what I said. Critical reading is hard, isn’t it?

  16. 16

    Rob Fedders said,

    Mom,

    LOL!

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/womens-studies-101a-winter-semester.html

    That is just about as absurd of a statement as Uceellina made when she said that Feminism = Communisim is a Red Herring.

    But then again, logically, one might assume that since Uccellina obviously didn’t know of the Equal Rights Act of 1963 – yet was still speaking out, with ignorance of its existence, and when confronted with existence AUTOMATICALLY shifted the blame to men.

    “The long march through culture” exists solely on the presence of conflict in society. So the government can come in and “fix things.”

    Feminism is all about creating a perpetual conflict which will never end because IT RAILS AGAINST NATURE! Therefore it is an unsolveable problem.

    The only argument that is not a “Red Herring” is that feminism is a front to cause societal destruction and allow for governmental intervention.

    I am formatting a response FOR MY OWN BLOG, rather than here, as it was Uncillinna who, without provacation attacked my blog…(Women cannot be aggressors – MY ASS!) Replying here with any proper effort will obviously be an exercise in frustration – for one cannot even sense the presence of Uccellina to acknowledge that she lacks to speak of authority on such matters, as in the 1963 law.

    But, since neither you, Mom, nor you Uncillina, even knew that there was such a thing as a law passed 44 years ago GUARANTEEING equal pay for equal work…

    How much faith should anyone pay to anything which you argue? You are obviously uneducated “useful idiots” in regard to feminism.

    Lol! Marxism needs class confict to exist, yet you insist that by providing all the neccessities in which ALL Marxist deem neccessary for Marxist survival, that it is ONLY A RED HERRING!

    BS.

    Await my reply.

    —–

    “Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116


    BTW, this response will be copied and posted at my blog. Revisionism is a hallmark of Marxofeminism.

    Cheers,

    Hope your cats are doing fine

  17. 17

    Canadian Liberal Against Feminism said,

    “I find it curious that you believe that feminism is out to destroy all heterosexual relationships.”

    Really? That’s exactly what feminism has been seeking to do. You don’t even have to take my word for it.

    “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

    “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

    “The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in “Women and the New Race,” p. 67).

    “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin

    “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies.

    “Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen…[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny… ” — Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color

    “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” — Ti-Grace Atkinson

    “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” — Ti-Grace Atkinson

    “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a
    lesbian to be fully feminist” (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

    Need I go on?

    “As for your examples, you could cite a hundred more and they still would not add up to a generalizable “fact” about women.”

    Then what exactly is a fact? You’re attempting to muddy the issue. I have made a statement of fact, namely that women are happy to engage in any number of disgusting behaviors for the sake of revenge, often for petty reasons. You wanted evidence, I gave it. It is a FACT, it is a truth-statement. – Yet you would claim that this fact is misogynist, which only reinforces my original thesis. Feminism will denounce anything which doesn’t agree with it as being misogynist.

    The fact that the sky is normally blue during the day could be interpreted by feminism as being misogynist because it’s not normally pink! (I know, sometimes the sky is gray, sometimes it’s black etc.) The charge of misogyny has become meaningless and you have made it so.

    “you’ve a lot to learn about social science.”

    This is another meaningless charge, and common feminist tactic. The attempt is to shame me in believing that my learning is somehow deficient. It is not my learning which needs to be called for account, (well, actually, most of my professors ought to be on trial with you) it is yours.

    “How can I rephrase this so that it will be clear? The language itself – the words themselves -regardless of the gender of the target – is misogynist.”

    Ahh-So now we’ve shifted from calling an MRA a misogynist based on his use of certain langauge, to calling his language its self misogynist. Interesting. I know they’re related, but they’re not exactly the same thing.

    It seems to me that the language is only used to attack feminism and adherents of feminism, not women in particular, or even in general. The fact that most feminists are women is not sufficient in this case, and the charge of misogynist remains entirely meaningless. The example you cite is clearly targeting feminism, specifically a certain type of feminist, but this does not make it misogynist-you’ve decided that attacking feminism is misogyny. Attacking feminism is not misogyny. Or is it that attacking feminism while expressing rude, and unnecessary contempt for it is misogyny? No I don’t think so, or else the definition of misogyny is expanded to such a degree that it becomes meaningless. Simply saying it is misogyny, does not make it so. The charge of misogyny continues to be meaningless when used by feminists because it is used against any and all attacks without prejudice.

    In other words, since few if any men would ever say outright that they hate or dislike all women (clearly misogyny), then I can only conclude that being accused of misogyny is a meaningless accusation, like most feminist quasi-accusation. Therefore, we’re all misogynists, meaning that none of us are misogynists, or can be misogynist.

    Try again.

  18. 18

    Canadian Liberal Against Feminism said,

    Addendum-Actually the language might be misogynist. It’s certainly rude, and not very appropriate. Since it is only used against feminists however, this does not make an MRA who uses the language a misogynist. An anti-feminist yes, but still not a misogynist.

    “Not all women who speak to Fred X are subjected to abusive language.”

    “No, only those who disagree with him.”

    He runs his blog, I run mine. But I sense there’s a hidden point in there somewhere.

    First of all your assertion is not entirely correct. Fred’s normal MO when responding to a comment is to very plainly state why the commenter’s assumptions are wrong. No abusive language is used until the end, normally hurled in response to an insult by the commenter.

    This is not always the case of course. Fred seems very frustrated to me, but I find it really hard to blame him for that. He sees the situation for men as being entirely unfair. Can you blame him for that? If you blamed him for being rude I would see it as legitimate. He is very often rude. But I can’t blame the level of frustration he’s experiencing. I’m experiencing the same thing, but sadly for me, my ego and superego are farther apart than Fred’s-I see this as my deficiency, not Fred’s.

  19. 19

    Sarah said,

    CLAF, are you serious? You make sweeping generalizations about women basically being evil, call it FACT with no support, bring up several very radical feminists as “proof” that feminists are against relationships… you even bring up fiction about the Trojan War as “proof” that women are evil (you conveniently ignore the part of the story where Agamemnon kills his and Clytemnestra’s daughter to ensure safe sailing). But all of these isolated “examples” are not proof.

    Rob Fedders, are you seriously positing that the United States of America will immediately become communist if equal rights are granted to women? Have you read the Equal Rights Act?

    I don’t even know what else to say – I am speechless at these mischaracterizations of feminism and of women in general. You think that women are weaker, more devious and morally inferior, and yet you don’t think that you hate women?

  20. 20

    MonkeyGurrl said,

    Yeah. What Sarah said. Mah po’ leetle head hurts from trying to make sense of all your points and counterpoints. While CLAF has some well-argued perspectives (I can understand the point being made, regardless of whether I agree with them), Fedders just got me confuseded.

    I think it’s the inconsistent spelling (“Uceellina”, “Uncillinna”, etc.) and the, uhm, *odd* capitalization (“Red Herring”) that really made my head spin.

  21. 21

    Rudy Ericson said,

    F-S lied on your Guilty Pleasures post. I did not peruse Freds blog for 7 hours looking for misogyny. It was more like 10 minutes on the first month in his archives. One of Fred’s first posts was about how women have never been discriminated against. A few days later Fred posts a video on women’s suffrage. He cannot see his own hypocrisy and does cartwheels and backflips with a dictionary to ‘prove’ that he is not a sexist.

    I had to go out of my way to show that my blog was parody. Fred thought I was trying to infiltrate the MRA. That is funny.

  22. 22

    Oh, I’m serious.

    “You make sweeping generalizations about women basically being evil, call it FACT with no support, bring up several very radical feminists as “proof” that feminists are against relationships.”

    I did not say women were evil. I said they were overwhelmingly capable of it. That there is evidence turns this opinion into a fact. My experience with women has been very positive. My experience with feminists has not.

    And what exactly is wrong with bringing up radical feminists? If they don’t speak for feminism, then why do you allow them to? Why aren’t you calling for their silence? Why are you wasting valuable time with me instead of bringing these hateful women down and discrediting them?

    “you even bring up fiction about the Trojan War as “proof” that women are evil (you conveniently ignore the part of the story where Agamemnon kills his and Clytemnestra’s daughter to ensure safe sailing).”

    I was waiting for someone to catch that. Even if I withdrew it, it doesn’t diminish the fact that women are capable of doing some very evil things.

    “But all of these isolated “examples” are not proof.”

    These “isolated examples” are a pattern of behavior. And they are not isolated, for that was only a small sample. The truth remains, women are capable of intense evil for weak reasons.

    And besides, feminism has been quite content to use a few isolated examples of men raping women to effectively establish the belief that all men are rapists. Feminism has been quite content to use a few isolated examples of abusive husbands to brand all men as evil abusers.

    I have no interest in stating that all women are evil, but all women are overwhelmingly capable of doing evil. The very same applies to men, but this is not my concern.

    “You think that women are weaker, more devious and morally inferior, and yet you don’t think that you hate women?”

    Actually, I do not think this. I rather like women. I deeply love my wife simply because of she is female, and I am male. There is more than biological pre-disposition present in our relationship, but at its core, that’s all we need.

    Nor do I think women are inferior as you accuse, all of my accusations are leveled at FEMINISM. I have no interest in making women feel bad because they are capable of intense evil, I have interest in trying to get women realize that feminism is a hateful lie by making them believe that they are entirely without flaw.

    I love humanity madame. Feminism hates humanity and in doing so feminists hate themselves. If they didn’t then why is so much emphasis placed on “learning to love yourself” and having positive body image?

    It is feminists who hate me, simply because as far as they are concerned, I was born cursed-cursed with the biological reality of being male. To a feminist, I’m guilty of original sin, and they only need to cite my penis as proof.

    Under the guise of feminism, misandry has become much more widespread, and much more serious. It’s not women who hate me; it’s feminists. I don’t hate women, I hate feminists.

    Feminism seeks to blame men for all of the evil in the world; it can be no other way for the feminist revolution. Feminism decided, without reservation, or even any rational thought that men were the problem, and that they had to be dealt with, in the same way that the Nazis decided that Jews were the problem, and in the same way that the Russian people decided that the aristocracy was the problem.

    Feminism staged a Marxist style revolution, all while completely ignoring the lessons of history. Feminism isn’t enlightened, it’s ignorant-feminism is an attempt to get license for evil, a license for hatred, specifically the hatred of men.

    The truth is of course that neither gender is the solely responsible for our problems. We are collectively responsible. Unlike feminism however, I am willing to accept my responsibility. Feminism has tried to free women of all responsibility.

    We’re never going to get anywhere until feminism goes the way of the dinosaur. We’re never going to achieve our potential until we stop blaming each other, until the feminist revolution is GONE. And the first thing that has got to go, is your misguided notions about feminism.

    Feminism is hate. Feminism is hate, and nothing more.

    I’m completely serious madame, because anything less is nothing but the most tragic and horrible failure, the failure of the human race.

  23. 24

    Rudy Ericson said,

    “And besides, feminism has been quite content to use a few isolated examples of men raping women to effectively establish the belief that all men are rapists. Feminism has been quite content to use a few isolated examples of abusive husbands to brand all men as evil abusers.”

    Isolated. That’s rich. Rape and abuse of women is a bit more common than this person is willing to admit. And I’ve never heard a feminist say or even imply that all men were evil.

  24. 25

    “Isolated. That’s rich. Rape and abuse of women is a bit more common than this person is willing to admit.”

    What’s “rich” is just how ignorant you are. I can only assume that you’re referring to the body of feminist scholarship which maintains the statistic that one in four women are rapped, or some other such nonsense. And it’s nonsense because the scholarship its self cannot be trusted. See http://www.angryharry.com/es31millionwomensubjectedtodomesticviolenceeveryyear.htm
    for evidence of false scholarship.

    “And I’ve never heard a feminist say or even imply that all men were evil.”

    Really? Are you insane as well as ignorant? The ignorance we can work on,the insanity might be a problem, but I digress. So you’ve never heard
    a feminist even imply that all men were evil? You haven’t read very much
    feminist scholarship. You don’t know what it is you support.

    “Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it ‘Her’. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.” — Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

    Now you’ve seen a feminist imply that all men are evil.

  25. 26

    Addendum,
    Here’s another one with a touch more brevity.

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

  26. 27

    A Canadian Liberal Against Feminism said,

    Further Addendum (I will try REALLY hard not to do this again)

    “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

    Hm… How can this not sound like ethnic cleansing to you exactly? Sorry, it’s not ethnic cleansing, it’s gender cleansing. No less than a call for the widespread extermination of men.

  27. 28

    Sarah said,

    “I have no interest in stating that all women are evil, but all women are overwhelmingly capable of doing evil. The very same applies to men, but this is not my concern.”

    CLAF, why are you ONLY concerned with the “evil” of women, not the “evil” of men? That, to me, is a great injustice.

    Feminists did not create rape. Feminists did not create ad campaigns that make women feel unattractive. Feminism is pretty much fighting against everything you accuse it of.

    Again, you are giving examples from very radical feminists (who we “allow” to speak because silencing people isn’t on our agenda). It’s funny that you only pay attention to the very few feminists who fit your argument, and ignore the many, many feminists who want to ensure that women AND men can live together without all of the hate and power struggles. I know that sounds overly simplistic, but I just don’t think you’re getting it.

    Oh yeah, I’m a feminist. I don’t hate men.

  28. 29

    Hi Uccellina! I came here from Pandagon – yikes, there’s a whole world of missing the point going on here. I’d get involved, but as Godwin’s Law has already been invoked, I think the debate’s over.

    Great blog, by the way – I’m enjoying it.

  29. 30

    “CLAF, why are you ONLY concerned with the “evil” of women, not the “evil” of men? That, to me, is a great injustice.”

    You are attempting to muddy the argument. Originally it went like this: Feminist_Scum on his blog pointed out that women were capable of evil. This was branded misogyny. I established that this was a fact, and therefore, by feminist logic it must follow that thenature of reality its self must be misogynist. And therefore, the definition and accusation of misogyny has become entirely meaningless.

    Granted, I should have said that the evil of men was not my present concern.

    I am only concerned with the “evil” of women at this time, because it is feminism that is being evaluated on the basis of its merits, if it has any. We can list the crimes of men if you want, but this is largely well known, and I believe, unnecessary.

    By contrast, the crimes of women are largely unknown, and in order to examine feminism, we must establish the facts. FACT: Women are capable of doing great evil. FACT: Feminism calls this FACT an example of misogyny. Therefore; 1) the charge of misogyny has become meaningless, 2) the truth is considered irrelevant to feminism, and therefore ignored. If the truth doesn’t matter to feminists, then what does? And why? I can only conclude that the truth doesn’t matter to feminists because feminism deems the truth to be counter to feminist interests. Therefore: Feminism has no problem lying for its agenda.

    “Feminists did not create rape. Feminists did not create ad campaigns that make women feel unattractive.”

    Actually, from a certain perspective, feminists did create rape. Ever since the definition of rape has been largely handed over to feminism without question, rape has been expanded almost without limit. If a man and woman engage in consensual sex, several days later, the woman decides that the sex was rape, and the accusation is treated seriously. Therefore,
    feminism has created a rape out of nothing.

    Feminism would hang men on the basis of a rape accusation alone, despite any facts to the contrary. I cite the Duke Rape case, and the surrounding fallout as proof. So in a way, feminism has created rape. Feminism certainly maintains and feeds rape.

    “Again, you are giving examples from very radical feminists (who we “allow” to speak because silencing people isn’t on our agenda).”

    That madame, is a very deliberate lie. Silencing people is very definitely on feminism’s agenda. I cite the life of Erin Pizzey as proof.

    “It’s funny that you only pay attention to the very few feminists who fit your argument, and ignore the many, many feminists who want to ensure that women AND men can live together without all of the hate and power struggles.”

    If the majority of feminists do not believe as they do madame, then you have yet to take any action which I have seen which differentiates yourself from them. Furthermore, since the vast majority of the feminists that I cite are both well-respected in the feminist community, and normally in academia as well, these people are ENTIRELY representative of feminism! These are the people who write the books on feminism! Who else speaks for feminism exactly?

    And if not, then what exactly are they representing? If it isn’t feminism, then why are they still being allowed to call themselves feminists, instead of something like “bigot”?

    You would say that feminist professors don’t represent feminism? – This is like saying that physics professors don’t represent physics. – Ludicrous.

    “I know that sounds overly simplistic, but I just don’t think you’re getting it.”

    Not getting what exactly? You have yet to even attempt an intellectually sound defense of feminism, or even make a single complete argument. As far as I can tell, your only response to my points is, “Well, we’re not all like that!” Fine! But you have yet to DEMONSTRATE that you are reflective of such an assertion. It would be very nice for men to be able respond to the feminist assertion that all men are rapists in the same manner. Sadly for men this defense doesn’t hold up too well in the court of public opinion.

    The feminist dictated rape and domestic violence laws are excellent evidence of what you call “sweeping generalizations” being implemented. Yet for some reason, you’ve decided that the same can’t be applied to feminism. Why not? Feminism threw logic out the with foolish assertions that all men are abusers and rapists, this has become enshrined in law! So why is the MRA assertion that all feminists are man-hating lesbians any less-valid? (Okay, not all feminists are lesbians. But all feminists hate men.)

    “Oh yeah, I’m a feminist. I don’t hate men.”

    Another lie. No madame, I’m “getting it” quite well. It is you who aren’t “getting it.”

  30. 31

    Okay, I *am* getting involved.

    CLAF – you are aware that simply putting “FACT” in capital letters before something doesn’t actually make it a fact?

    “You are attempting to muddy the argument. Originally it went like this: Feminist_Scum on his blog pointed out that women were capable of evil. This was branded misogyny.”
    I don’t know the blog entry to which you’re referring, so I’ll take your word for it that someone said this was misogynistic. However, I think most feminists would agree that some or all women are capable of evil, just as some or all men are. If, however, you say that *all* women are evil (not “capable of evil”, but “are evil”), that is misogynistic. Please don’t forget that in the sentence “People behave like this”, the brain puts in its own filter: someone who agrees with the statement will probably read it as “Some people…” and mentally add in the necessary caveat. Someone who disagrees with the statement will read it as “All people…” and react angrily.

    (As a side point, what do you mean by “evil” here?)

    “I established that this was a fact”
    As I said above, I don’t think any feminists (or women, for that matter) would disagree that women are capable of evil just as much as men are, and that some people (male and female) commit acts that could be considered evil.

    “and therefore, by feminist logic it must follow that thenature of reality its self must be misogynist. And therefore, the definition and accusation of misogyny has become entirely meaningless.”
    This only follows if I accept your first two points and if all feminists think in exactly the same way. But please remember that one feminist doesn’t speak for all feminists, just as one MRA activist doesn’t speak for all MRA activists. None of us belong to some huge hivemind.

    “Granted, I should have said that the evil of men was not my present concern … I am only concerned with the “evil” of women at this time, because it is feminism that is being evaluated on the basis of its merits, if it has any.”
    Who is evaluating feminism? You? For what reason? Are you working for a government commission on the subject? Or is this just a roundabout way of saying “I only want to talk about what I want to talk about”?

    “By contrast, the crimes of women are largely unknown”
    Um, Myra Hindley? My own opinion is that there are some crimes (for example, the murder of a child) for which women are considered monsters, far worse than men who commit the same act. There are some crimes (e.g. the sexual abuse of a child) for which men are considered monsters, far worse than women who commit the same act. This generally happens when the crime includes transgressing an established gender stereotype (woman as nurturing mother; man as protecting father).
    “and in order to examine feminism, we must establish the facts. FACT: Women are capable of doing great evil.”
    Fine, yes, some women are deeply damaged and disturbed.
    “FACT: Feminism calls this FACT an example of misogyny.”
    No, it doesn’t. There’s a world of difference between “all women are evil” and “some women are capable of committing evil acts”. The first is woman-hating/bigotry/misogyny, whatever you want to call it, the second is a “FACT”. Feminism isn’t some monolithic set of rules, you know. “Feminism” can’t call something anything. Individual feminists can, but they don’t speak for everyone who is a feminist.
    “Therefore; 1) the charge of misogyny has become meaningless”
    No, it hasn’t. See above.
    “2) the truth is considered irrelevant to feminism, and therefore ignored. If the truth doesn’t matter to feminists, then what does? And why? I can only conclude that the truth doesn’t matter to feminists because feminism deems the truth to be counter to feminist interests.”
    As I said before, feminism is not a monolith. There are no 10 Commandments of feminism. I am sure that feminism, as with all political movements, has its ideologues who would rather dismiss evidence that threatens their passionately-held beliefs. I’m seeing a fair bit of that from some of the MRAs who have posted too. However, as a good feminist, I’m treating you as individuals and not assuming because Mr X says he’s an MRA and believes something, Mr Y who also says he’s an MRA believes the same thing.
    “Therefore: Feminism has no problem lying for its agenda.”
    Well, that’s quite a charge. Does capital-F “Feminism” the noun lie for its agenda? Or are you actually saying that about some individual feminists? In which case, see the absence of hivemind above.

    “Actually, from a certain perspective, feminists did create rape. Ever since the definition of rape has been largely handed over to feminism without question, rape has been expanded almost without limit. If a man and woman engage in consensual sex, several days later, the woman decides that the sex was rape, and the accusation is treated seriously. Therefore,
    feminism has created a rape out of nothing.”
    No, if a man and a woman have consensual sex, no rape has occurred. If a man and a woman have sex and one of them was not willing but the other went ahead regardless without consent, that is rape. That has *always* been rape. If someone alleges that a crime (of any sort) has been committed, it damn well *should* be taken seriously. The police investigation of that crime is the point where it is determined that there is enough evidence to support the allegation in a court of law.

    “Feminism would hang men on the basis of a rape accusation alone, despite any facts to the contrary. I cite the Duke Rape case, and the surrounding fallout as proof.”
    I think many feminists are more inclined to believe an accusation of rape than to dismiss it immediately as untrue, yes, because for a very long time, it’s been near impossible for women who have been raped to get people to take it seriously. That’s not right, but it is understandable. Sensible feminists say that it is up to the court to decide, while pointing out that the rape conviction rate is lamentable (less than 6% of all cases that come to court in Britain), mainly because it’s so hard to prove.

    “So in a way, feminism has created rape. Feminism certainly maintains and feeds rape.”
    Only if you start from the point of view that forcing someone to have sex with you without their consent wasn’t rape until feminists made it so. I don’t accept that premise. You shouldn’t either.

    There are some radical feminists who espouse points of view like the ones you carefully selected above. I am a feminist and I disagree with them. The feminists I know love, respect and value the men in their lives. You’re simply wrong about that. It all comes down to the fact that feminism is not a monolith.

  31. 32

    Sarah said,

    Well said.

  32. 33

    First off, I’ve read your post from start to finish, so I’d like to take two seconds to thank you for honestly engaging and adding something meaningful to the discussion.

    “CLAF – you are aware that simply putting “FACT” in capital letters before something doesn’t actually make it a fact?”

    Granted. However, there is a history behind this. I have supplied evidence.

    “I don’t know the blog entry to which you’re referring, so I’ll take your word for it that someone said this was misogynistic. However, I think most feminists would agree that some or all women are capable of evil, just as some or all men are. If, however, you say that *all* women are evil (not “capable of evil”, but “are evil”), that is misogynistic. (As a side point, what do you mean by “evil” here?)”

    I’m going to take these together, both the question and the point. First, thank you for asking. To answer the question is not easy, since there is so much ambiguity in what evil actually means, but for the time being, I shall define evil as setting personal interest above other interests, which results in harm to others. So, nothing wrong with having personal interests, harming others in getting what you want, not so good.

    Now to address the point, it may be true that some feminist scholarship would be more intellectually honest, however this has not been applied on any sort of national level. Rather, profoundly dishonest feminist scholarship has been used as the basis for establishing an anti-male bias and procedure in law, and in public opinion. In order to do so, it appears that this same dishonest feminist scholarship successfully established that women were incapable of doing evil. Furthermore, when the facts overwhelmingly fly in the face this possibility, then this same feminist scholarship has succeeded in establishing a judicial and opinion bias which somehow asserts that women are capable of far more limited evil than men.

    In order to preserve this myth, this same feminist scholarship levels the claim of “misogyny” at anything which is put forward to try to dispell this myth.

    “As I said above, I don’t think any feminists (or women, for that matter) would disagree that women are capable of evil”

    I think some feminists would, and have. Since a criminal court, for lack of a better purpose is, I feel, our best barometer for measuring “evil,” I cite the overwhelming gender-bias in the sentencing of criminals as proof of this action.

    “This only follows if I accept your first two points and if all feminists think in exactly the same way. But please remember that one feminist doesn’t speak for all feminists, just as one MRA activist doesn’t speak for all MRA activists. None of us belong to some huge hivemind.”

    I’m not fully willing to accept the full implication of this statement immediately. When people like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, and so forth are entitled to write books about feminism without being questioned, or discredited by feminism, then it’s very hard not to see feminism as a monolith.

    That being said, I will make an honest attempt to see what makes you different from them. So far, not too bad.

    “Who is evaluating feminism? You? For what reason? Are you working for a government commission on the subject? Or is this just a roundabout way of saying “I only want to talk about what I want to talk about”?

    Yes, me. I don’t work for any government commission or other “official” body, but if I, as an MRA is going to be accused of misogyny, I want to know why. Saying that I “hate women,” when my words and deeds speak otherwise seems rather bigoted. When the myth that “there’s misogyny everywhere!” is extended to the judicial system in the form of gender-bias
    rape and domestic violence laws, I have a vested interest in finding as much of the truth as possible! I’m a man, a biological reality which I can’t change, and which might get me unfairly railroaded in court some day, possibly founded entirely on a baseless accusation. And if I don’t do something, any sons that I might have are liable to suffer the same fate! This is unacceptable to me.

    “Um, Myra Hindley?”

    Myra who? In truest ignorance, is that the lady who drowned her kids in the bathtub?

    “My own… …stereotype (woman as nurturing mother; man as protecting father).

    (trying for some brevity here.) Interesting. I would be curious to see supporting facts on this.

    “Fine, yes, some women are deeply damaged and disturbed.”

    This is not an excuse. There is evidence to support the idea that it is often used as one, to great effect, however.

    “No it doesn’t… …everyone who is a feminist.”

    I’m afraid that I have to maintain that a number of policies and laws seem to be implemented on the basis and input of a select few (MacKinnon et al.), and therefore these few largely speak on behalf of all feminists. If feminists want this changed, then it is their responsibility to take action. Otherwise, I feel no need to consider feminism as anything but a monolith. My ultimatum, (and I think it’s a fair one), is revise, and I will be the first to reconsider.

    “As I said before, feminism is not a monolith.”

    Perhaps not, but I’m afraid that I’m going to have to ask for more than your assertion on this point.

    “I am sure that feminism… …MRA believes the same thing.”

    I’m according you the same respect, and giving you the opportunity to provide proof. However given the political clout behind the institution of misandry at present, I’m sorry, but the word of one self-described feminist is not going to be deemed sufficient. Assassinating Catherine MacKinnon on the other hand certainly deserves a more balanced evaluation!

    “Well, that’s quite a… …absence of hivemind above.”

    I think there’s sufficient evidence to back up that charge. See Erin Pizzey.

    “No, if a man and… …the allegation in a court of law.”

    There are simply too many examples of men being convicted on the basis of accusation alone for me to give this point much credibility. Should the accusation be taken seriously? Of course it should, and it should be investigated. But an investigation shouldn’t turn into a witch-hunt, and there are far too many examples of cases turning into precisely that.
    Women are lying about it, and courts are finding men guilty on their lie alone. The system is broken, and feminists broke it.

    “I think many feminists… …mainly because it’s so hard to prove.”

    Is the conviction rape low because it’s difficult to prove, or because the men are actually innocent? I agree that cases which turn into “he said-she said,” are impossible, and maybe a crime took place. But our system is based on innocent until proven guilty. It is unacceptable to try to change this in the case of rape simply because it suits feminists, yet this is exactly what has occurred.

    “Only if you start from the… …You shouldn’t either.”

    I disagree with your first premise. By establishing absurd rules for consent, feminists have made it unsafe for men to engage in any sexual intercourse without a signed waiver, and even that would not be sufficient to protect the man. In effect, by twisting the rules for consent, feminism has created, perhaps not rape its self, but a new form of rape, which has subsequently done away with the old one.

    “There are some radical feminists… …not a monolith.”

    Your assertion is admirable, but I’m afraid I can’t retract my argument on that basis alone. I respectfully invite you to furnish proof, and to do something beyond changing my mind. If feminism is composed of individuals as you say, then take it back. Change feminism into something better than the man-hating crusade that it has become. For that however, I fear that it cannot be done without getting your hands very dirty. I would change it,
    if I could. But my biological reality prevents me from even making the attempt.

  33. 34

    feminist_scum said,

    Rudy you’re lying. Fred told me you were on his blog for 7 hours going through the archives trying to find sexism against women, and you found nothing. Due to me refusing to post on feminist blogs anymore because of censoring, this’ll be my last post here.

    Again – stop lying.

  34. 35

    uccellina said,

    Hey everybody – isn’t it impressive how some commenters have managed to turn the discussion from MRA to the merits of feminism? Just observing.

  35. 36

    MonkeyGurrl said,

    What I like is how you can step back and say, “Now talk amongst yourselves!”

  36. 37

    uccellina said,

    Hey, CLAF already Godwined the discussion. If they want to keep talking even after that, that’s their business 🙂

    (Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Generally the understanding is that once a discussion has been Godwined, it is, for all intents and purposes, over.)

  37. 38

    uccellina – Sometimes diplomacy means sitting at the table after everybody else has gone home.

    Also, while technically correct, Goodwin missed the point.

  38. 39

    husband said,

    CLAF –

    I would not call what you are blathering about as anything
    remotely resembling “diplomacy” – more like hysterical vitriol.
    The party is over, everyone else has gotten bored, turned out
    the lights and gone home. You are alone, shouting in the
    dark, and no one is interested.

  39. 41

    Addendum,

    So you surrender then? You can’t win, so you just give up? What a weakling.

  40. 42

    uccellina said,

    Ah, now it becomes clear. Some of us were having a discussion, while others were having a pissing match. If it makes you feel better, CLAF, sure – go ahead and write your name in yellow snow.

  41. 43

    Mom said,

    Thank you, Husband.

  42. 44

    A said,

    CLAF: after a tough week at the mines, a good laugh is so therapeutic. “Listening” to your pompous assumptions about Mom and U, without knowing who they are, what their credentials may be, etc. has provided that. Well done.

    Mom and U: your patience and good humor continue to amaze me.

  43. 45

    […] when Uccellina’s hand gets called in her portrayal of MRAs as “conservative” she admits … “I’ve noticed the same thing you have, Serin – that MRAs have a broad range of […]

  44. 46

    Johne808 said,

    tretinoin chemotherapy dbffbeckgfed


Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: