Today I was watching an old Elvis Presley western. While watching I was struck by the fact that alot of a person's actions were attributed to the colour of their skin. It occurred to me, that there were parallels between that bigotry and the bias I encounter on my blog, in regards to having to defend my reasons for being a feminist and having to defend some really radical ideas from feminists that I don't believe in. I know this could risk bringing it back to the debate "but feminism is a "CHOICE", however I don't think that is applicable and also I believe I have defended that stance adequately.
Basically it is one group of people judging a person based on a part of them that may not have anything to do with the action. For example, it has been put forth on my blog that feminists have been not so kind to people in their experience. Can you however state definitively that this is due to their feminism and not due to some other bias they themselves hold? If you cannot then how can you support this intense anger towards all feminists?
Also I wanted to ask any members of the MRA if they feel they should support all assertions of people who identify as MRA (correctly or incorecctly). For example I was reading on one MRA site a statement the blog owner made. It was something along the lines of; there is a point in arousal where a man is no longer in control of his sexual desires. (Thereby excusing rape).
Do you agree with this?
If so how do you support it?
Are you MRA?
If so do you think you should have to defend this view whether or not you agree with it (as some have claimed I have to do in regards to radical feminism claims)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Speaking as an MRA, I can tell you that I routinely show these idiots for the sexist bastards they are. So does Snark.. So does Fidelbogen... Just ask the guys at manhood academy...
ReplyDeleteIn fact, very few MRAs are anything other than what a woman in the early 70's would have called 'feminist'.
It is Feminism that has changed...most of us have not. The main difference is this belief feminists cling to that women deserve 'special considerations' in all walks of life.
Frankly, without the myriad of support systems and gender based advantage women have, women would not have changed in their status one iota. Whether that would be due to lack of ambition, or lack of talent, is a moot point.
In return for my candor, how about you answer this...
Do you believe 'men' oppressed 'women' for 'thousands of years'? Do you defend/attack this position when espoused by Feminists and women? Why/why not?
I'll start:
Patriarchy Theory is codified man hatred, coupled with specious arguments that serve as little more than a thin veneer of 'justification' for truly sexist, evil acts.
Feminism has viciously attacked men and masculinity in the name of 'equality', yet have jealously guarded their power in the Family, even going so far as to demonize men to the point where men are not trusted around children, are assumed to be rapists and batterers, and are so callous that men 'don't really care' when their children are taken away.
"In fact, very few MRAs are anything other than what a woman in the early 70's would have called 'feminist'."
ReplyDeleteYes I would call a lot of the MRA's feminists, my boyfriend pointed this out before, so is hardly new ground.
"Speaking as an MRA, I can tell you that I routinely show these idiots for the sexist bastards they are. So does Snark.. So does Fidelbogen... Just ask the guys at manhood academy..."
Well that is surprising since snark is the one who told me I need to defend every feminist claim and fidelbogen didn't object. Also I can't ask questions other then here on my blog, my contributions are always deleted.
"Frankly, without the myriad of support systems and gender based advantage women have, women would not have changed in their status one iota. Whether that would be due to lack of ambition, or lack of talent, is a moot point."
I resent the implication that women dont have ambition or talent.
"Do you believe 'men' oppressed 'women' for 'thousands of years'? Do you defend/attack this position when espoused by Feminists and women? Why/why not?"
Yes I do believe this, I don't defend it though as I always thought it was self evident.
"Patriarchy Theory is codified man hatred, coupled with specious arguments that serve as little more than a thin veneer of 'justification' for truly sexist, evil acts."
I don't believe evil exists
Can you give examples of these claims?
"I was struck by the fact that alot of a person's actions were attributed to the colour of their skin. It occurred to me, that there were parallels between that bigotry and the bias I encounter on my blog. . "
ReplyDeletePseudo-paralells. Skin color is biology; feminism is ideology.
So yes, once again, feminism IS a choice.
"Can you however state definitively that this is due to their feminism and not due to some other bias they themselves hold? If you cannot then how can you support this intense anger towards all feminists?"
It all boils down to the question of what IS or ISN'T feminism. That question, it seems to me, is the crux of the biscuit.
In the following podcast, I discuss this point and related matters in some detail. It's about 18 minutes long:
http://www.4shared.com/audio/ljHlWEfO/CF11.html
"Also I wanted to ask any members of the MRA if they feel they should support all assertions of people who identify as MRA (correctly or incorecctly)."
"MRA" (Magical Reflex Acronym) is a somewhat ill-defined umbrella term referring to a loose, ad hoc coalition of people whose opinions and agendas often vary quite markedly. I have written a short article which attempts to clear up some of the confusion surrounding this notorious piece of terminology:
http://tinyurl.com/2g6br2o
"It was something along the lines of; there is a point in arousal where a man is no longer in control of his sexual desires. (Thereby excusing rape)."
That is a statement to which I would not sign. People who say such things are, of course, entitled to their opinion. However, it is politically LAME AS HELL to talk that kind of talk. And not only politically lame, but politically unnecessary. There are other ways to get the job done, which don't involve impeachable utterance.
The person you have referred to may be classified as a "relationship MRA", meaning that his discourse is woman-centric.
For myself: I am political MRA, meaning, basically, a theorist and a policy wonk. Women per se are not central to what I preach. Furthermore, I do not make statements classifiable as misogynistic.
You would want to introduce the term "non-feminist" into your vocabulary. It is, in many ways, preferable to MRA - or you might say it has more "reach". For myself: I am firstly and principally a non-feminist. . and only secondarily do I funnel down into the subcategory of "MRA".
"I resent the implication that women dont have ambition or talent."
Factory was not making that implication. For myself, I would say that SOME women have ambition and talent. . and others not. For what it's worth, I think that "ambition" is not necessarily such a good thing.
"Yes I do believe this, I don't defend it though as I always thought it was self evident."
I would suggest that you refer to Factory's original remarks (which you here respond to), and make careful note of how he employs 'quotation marks'. Think about how this inflects the meaning of the terms, and ponder what is communicated by those inflections.
"I don't believe evil exists."
To be honest, I find that sentiment trite and sophomoric. (And I enjoy Nietzsche and Machiavelli as well as the next guy, mind you! ;)
"So yes, once again, feminism IS a choice."
ReplyDeletePlease refer to previous posts, I am not willing to repeat myself numerous times.
"It all boils down to the question of what IS or ISN'T feminism. That question, it seems to me, is the crux of the biscuit."
Yes, I have stated that myself on this blog, which is why I brought it up.
""MRA" (Magical Reflex Acronym) is a somewhat ill-defined umbrella term referring to a loose, ad hoc coalition of people whose opinions and agendas often vary quite markedly"
Doesn't that seem to be the same issue we have on trying to come to an agreement on what the term feminism means. Please refer to the blog entry titled "The boyfriend".
"You would want to introduce the term "non-feminist" into your vocabulary."
How would you define non-feminism and in what ways do you see it as different from anti-feminism?
"To be honest, I find that sentiment trite and sophomoric. (And I enjoy Nietzsche and Machiavelli as well as the next guy, mind you! ;)"
Yes most people challenge me on this, but then most people challenge me on most things.
"How would you define non-feminism and in what ways do you see it as different from anti-feminism?"
ReplyDeleteExcellent. That is right up my alley. The following deals with exactly that point at very great length:
http://tinyurl.com/5uvm28
What do you identify as?
ReplyDeleteA non-feminist, of course.
ReplyDeleteI think the 'point of no return' in question would be about five-ten seconds before climax.
ReplyDeleteThere's no point denying the fact that the senses are inhibited at that point.
It's not really fair to compare MRAs to feminists, though. You have control of a vast infrastructure which you use to benefit women and deny the civil rights of men. We have nothing.
So the question of whether an MRA does or does not endorse another MRA's statement is irrelevant. It won't make a material difference.
Whereas feminism is responsible for terror and oppression of holocaustic proportions, and so affixing that label to oneself, and throwing one's support behind it, is a little different.
"So the question of whether an MRA does or does not endorse another MRA's statement is irrelevant. It won't make a material difference."
ReplyDeleteWell firstly in terms of pointing out hypocrisy in MRA thinking it does make a difference. Secondly I assume they want to be in position to change things one day, as such they are open to criticism.
"Whereas feminism is responsible for terror and oppression of holocaustic proportions, and so affixing that label to oneself, and throwing one's support behind it, is a little different."
Well I don't agree with any of this. Secondly is that why you called me a fascist and a nazi even though I am obviously left wing?
". Secondly is that why you called me a fascist and a nazi even though I am obviously left wing?"
ReplyDeleteI don't see the bearing of that statement. Do you mean that "facist and nazi" are somehow contrary to "left wing"?
facist was a right wing party
ReplyDeletenazis were right wing (mass murder of homosexuals)
"Well firstly in terms of pointing out hypocrisy in MRA thinking it does make a difference."
ReplyDeleteThe non-feminist sector is simply "the rest of the world." (i.e. exclusive of feminism).
And it is a bit silly, I think, to accuse something THAT large of "hypocrisy in its thinking." That would be like saying "the world is inconsistent." Personally, I never expected any different.
"Secondly I assume they want to be in position to change things one day, as such they are open to criticism."
Generally speaking, MRAs have a different worldview than you do. As such their grasp of the essential nature of the conflict, and their sense of tactics, is opaque to your understanding.
As for "open to criticism": Criticize, to your heart's content, any putative MRA you meet. Feminists have always done that anyway. . .
""Well firstly in terms of pointing out hypocrisy in MRA thinking it does make a difference."
ReplyDeleteThe non-feminist sector is simply "the rest of the world." (i.e. exclusive of feminism). "
That comment was directed towards Snark, nothing to do with our non feminist discussion.
"And it is a bit silly, I think, to accuse something THAT large of "hypocrisy in its thinking." That would be like saying "the world is inconsistent." Personally, I never expected any different. "
Well I more meant the hypocrisy in individual MRA's. Example being Snark.
"Generally speaking, MRAs have a different worldview than you do. As such their grasp of the essential nature of the conflict, and their sense of tactics, is opaque to your understanding. "
Do enlighten me.
"As for "open to criticism": Criticize, to your heart's content, any putative MRA you meet. Feminists have always done that anyway. . . "
Bitter generalisations are below you.
"facist was a right wing party"
ReplyDeleteBenito Mussolini (named in honor of Benito Juarez) was a socialist, an atheist, a statist, a collectivist, a man of proletarian origins whose father was a dedicated leftwing revolutionary.
Italian fascism is said by many to have been a maverick form of socialism - the debate rages on.
". .nazis were right wing (mass murder of homosexuals)"
Aye. And if the Khmer Rouge or the Bolsheviks had added homosexuals to their mass-kill lists, they'd have been right-wing movements. . right?
And if the National Socialists had limited themselves to killing just Jews, then I reckon they'd never have made it into the ballpark,eh? :(
Fidelbogen
ReplyDeleteThere are arguments for them being right wing and arguments for them being left wing. I just find the arguments for them being right wing far more compelling.
However the topic has been derailed and I would like to return to the issue at hand. This is kind of an irrelevant aside I started us on. Please refer to the original post if you have forgotten the topic.
I would like to categorically state that, while I identify strongly as a feminist, I do not agree with the SCUM manifesto or anything therein.
ReplyDeleteFeminism does NOT equal the SCUM manifesto!
I can't say that enough. In fact, most feminists I have met abhor it, just as most Germans I have met abhor the Nazis and Nazism. However, like the Germans, the Feminist movement is made up of individuals, and no two individuals, regardless of what movement they share, can ever agree on Every Single Thing.
I do not hate men at all - I hate the system of Patriarchy and the systematic and cultural oppression and subjugation of women as somehow "less than" for being born with a vagina instead of a penis.
Oh, and the Patriarchy hurts men too! So if you're REALLY interested in men's rights, I suggest taking a look at this thing called "Patriarchy".
But isn't the Patriarchy just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women's woes? NO, it's not.
If you're really interested in helping men, then joining a group that fights the Patriarchy, as defined above, is the only way to honestly do it, although I'd love to hear from you if you have a different way.
There are many, many other things I believe in as well, and Feminism covers all of them and they can be summed up as "Systematic equality for ALL, and always examine your privilege, because everyone has *some* form of privilege."
Response to Deviant one here.
ReplyDeleteMisandrists are the most powerful, most organised, loudest, most able to affect change, of all feminists.