I am an idealist, a hopeless dreamer.
I am discovering this more and more about myself as I surf the net in regards to issues of feminism. I encounter such raw unsheathed hatred towards myself because of my gender and my political leanings. I was aware misogyny existed. However these men are so embittered from not being heard (allegedly) that when I give them a chance to do so, I get slammed and banned. It is wham, bam, thank you ma'am at a new level.
To illustrate my view of the wrongness in woman bashing due to alleged misandry I will outline a personal example. I am white and I don't hate black people for hating white people because they hated black people. That kind of thinking just perpetuates a cycle of hatred, which I want to destroy. Certain individuals however seem to be doing just that, hating women, because women hated men because they hated women. It is absurd to those of sound mind.
I am becoming disenchanted with the notion of ever reaching anyone and convincing them to do away with that useless, harmful hatred. Give up on the self pity, and do something useful. However, in this absurd world I found myself in one day, saying that to a man may be seen as oppression.
So I ask you this, is everything oppression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"So I ask you this, is everything oppression?"
ReplyDeleteBetter to ask that of your SISTAS who have spent the last five decades broadening the definition of 'oppression' to claim more freebies from the state.
Living with men is oppression.
Heterosexuality is oppression.
Monogamy is oppression.
Sex is oppression.
Babies are oppression.
Having to go to work is oppression.
But treating men like shit, persecuting them and throwing them in prison just because you feel like it, lobbying for new legislation to make this easier to accomplish? Nahhh, that's not oppression. We just need to get over our self-pity. Riiiight.
If I didn't make it clear, get fucked.
@ Snark, learn to debate like a rational human being (male or female). Then perhaps I can respond to your assertions.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall saying any of those things were oppression, please direct me to where I did.
I hope you won't loose heart, FOTC.
ReplyDeleteThe world is full of extremist, and they seemed to like to gather on the Internet.
Just as there are radical feminist groups who hate men, there are radical masculist (or anti-feminist, or patriarchal, or whatever you want to call them) groups who hate women.
The key is to focus on the good!
I fear that men's rights activists are developing a bit of a bad rep on the Internet, because the movement is only just forming and so it is mostly only the crazies who have started talking out. But soon more sane individuals will follow.
I hope that masculism will be able to act as a balance to feminism, and then someday they will be able to merge into a single egalitarianism movement, as feminism has sometimes tried to be.
Don't loose faith!
@myself
ReplyDeleteLoose = lose
So much for my writing skills *eyeroll*
"However these men are so embittered from not being heard (allegedly) that when I give them a chance to do so, I get slammed and banned."
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of the problem come up in this sentence.
1. You start off with an "allegedly". This indicates to the reader you don't believe this and need to be convinced. You must be convinced that men can be oppressed. That they haven't been heard. We hear all the time that we need to hear a womans voice the fact that men need to defend having their voice heard is part of the problem.
2. "that when I give them a chance to do so" There are many places that men ARE having these discussion. You can go find them. You can't expect them to feel grateful that you are willing to listen. You aren't giving them permission. They don't need it.
"It is wham, bam, thank you ma'am at a new level."
Here you are saying you are like a prostitute. Playing a victim, which is a bit annoying.
Now I don't know what you have been dealing with exactly but if you go to a web site where men are angry, why are you surprised when they are angry? When there are ligament concerns, and most of the time women don't address those in rational debate on a forum but change the topic back to women, there will be anger.
Hatred and anger aren't the same thing. Men are angry that they are being oppressed. Can't really blame them. I haven't met any man who hates all women. I'm sure the exist but edge of the bell curve.
Anyways the internet is hardly real. If you are serious have these conversations with a living person. They will tend to go better and miscommunication will be less.
Not everything is oppression but feminism has set men against women. Right now women are still clamoring that they still aren't treated as equals. They don't want equality though. They don't want men to have equal right with children, they don't want women to be imprisoned as much as men, they don't want women to not get into college to have the 50/50 ratio that kept men out, etc.
What needs to happen is to stop and reevaluate how society is working and stop assuming that men are in power. Stop assuming that women are the oppressed gender. But so many people who say they are feminists refuse to listen. It really is just a word, but on the internet that is all we have.
I know where you are coming from and rational debate can happen. I'm all in favor of them. Don't become so disenchanted that fast. If you want rational debate be patient. Prove your willing to have it. The continual spiral of hatred isn't healthy for certain. But that is why I would say again, real life. We aren't real here. We can say what ever we want. Talk to the men in your life. It will go over much better than expecting the men on the internet to be excited to speak to you.
I see your site has found a few people willing to have these conversations. They tend to comment less than the angry ones so just make sure you address them and keep what you have going.
”Certain individuals however seem to be doing just that, hating women, because women hated men because they hated women.”
ReplyDeleteA Feminist Open to Criticism (may I call you AFOTC?),
I was rather busy this past long weekend, and hadn’t had the chance to take you up on your invitation until this morning. Do see from you introductory post that you do seem to “get it” regarding one of the key issues that many men have with more radical gender-feminists:
”Now this is an interesting assertation from the radical feminists. It is so interesting because it is factually correct. However I resent the implications that exclude women from this category. A more politically correct phrasing of this statement would be-
"All humans are potential rapists"”
I whole-heartedly agree. Nearly anyone is capable of committing most any crime. The reality is that very few will actually ever commit the most serious of crimes, thus it is ridiculous to try to smear an entire class – men, women, blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, gays, etc. – by the acts of a few of their number.
I’m not sure what you wrote (and posted) that got you banned from the FRS. Pierce Harlan is generally rather open minded, and allows a fairly wide latitude for posters to express dissenting views. The only exception that I’m aware of is that he is protective towards those who have been victimized via false accusations. With him, it is virtually verboten to imply that they are not victims, or worse (as some have done) to imply that they are actually guilty of the crime of rape, and are simply claiming that they’ve been falsely accused. Some ex-posters have been particularly cruel towards those who suffered under the burden of a false accusation, and I agree with Pierce’s decision to prohibit that sort of attack against victims (I’m personal persuaded that he would react likewise to attacks against anyone who stated that they had been the victim of rape).
You seem like an open-minded person, so I’d hope that you’d refrain for any such personal attacks.
That said, I’ll finally get around to introducing myself. I’m a 47 year-old man, married 25 years, with three grown children – daughter 24 & 21, and son 18. My wife is a prosecuting attorney, who has handled numerous cases involving rape and sexual assault.
Having a wife (whose part of LE), daughters, and numerous close female relative, friends, and co-workers, I’m not the sort of anti-female guy who’s indifferent to the crime of rape. But, as Pierce have often gone to great lengths to (try to) explain (particularly to more radical gender-feminists), the crimes of rape and of false accusation of rape are two separate crimes. Being against one does not presuppose one to be for the other (but, that is quite typical for those feminist to insist MUST be the case).
(to be continued...)
(continuing...)
ReplyDeleteLike most people, I was at least vaguely aware that some women falsely reported having been raped (for one reason or another), but the issue of FRA’s never really hit home to me until my wife got caught-up rather deeply in a situation that turned out to be a case of a false rape allegation. She was mere days away from taking to trial a case against a young black man (with gang-ties, and a criminal record) for the rape of a white high school girl, from a well-to-do family, who’d been a good student, and never been in trouble.
But, as my wife was advising her of what to expect at trial, and indicating the sentence that she intended to ask for upon the probable conviction of the man, the alleged victim finally broke down and confessed that she had not been raped, that she had gone to the man’s home with the intention of initiating a sexual relationship in the hopes of becoming the man’s girlfriend. She accused him of raping her after she realized that he had no respect for her, and did not wish to have her as a girlfriend. She cried rape in retaliation for rejection. She lied very well, fooling investigators, counselors, and even the prosecutor.
I try to educate the guy’s who post on FRS that LE is not a heartless, man-hating amorphous mass, in lock-step, marching to the tune of the gender-feminists (with very little success). In fact, it was my wife’s own reaction the deception of the false accuser that lead me to understand the reality of just how serious the crime of false reporting can be (of course, I’ve learned a great deal more via the FRS). She was both very angry at the false accuser and very shaken by the realization that she might well have sent a man to prison for a crime he was not guilty of. Her feelings were also echoed by the victim counselors and the investigators who’d also handled the case.
As my wife is a part of LE, I’ve had the chance to get to know a number of police investigators, and speak to them of their own experiences. I afraid that many of the FRS posters have a decidedly anti-LE bent, and fail to understand that a great many in LE are well aware of the problems with women throwing out meritless accusations of rape and sexual assault. Most any police detective will tell of experiences as a patrol officer wherein a woman, contacted by police for her own misdeeds, blurted out a sex-related allegation in the hopes of getting herself off-the-hook; but, backed-off of making a formal complaint when “pressed” by the contacting officer. What the anti-LE contingent at FRS fail to comprehend is how much worse the issue of false allegations would likely be if LE were not as active as they are in putting an end to many claims very quickly after they are made – rather than blindly believing every claim by every women, and launching an all-out offensive to put some man in prison as a response.
Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from in discussing the issues presented at FRS. I do hope that you will take the opportunity to glance through the extensive archive of instances of FRA’s, and get a feel for why we are so deeply concerned about the issue.
@ beardreel
ReplyDeleteYes I agree, I want men's needs to be be put forth as much as women's. In fact scratch that I want gender to not even effect it to the extent where there are women's need's and men's, just society's needs.
Forgive my youthful exuberance, I get excited about ideas and then encounter obstacles and become very defeatist, I will be back to optimistic feminist shortly! stay tuned.
@ incurablesanity
You say a lot and it is late, but I shall try to address the issues you raise as they are interesting and made me think a little.
Firstly I do talk to men and women in real life about it, mostly my boyfriend and close friends, but I am seeking further information and to provide information for other people.
I use the term allegedly to indicate it is not a fact, even some of the MRA group would probably disagree that this is the major point of contention I am sure.
Well the wham bam thank you ma'am was a bit of a stab at the menfolk I admit, however if you read at the top of the screen I am a feminist, and as such I do think oppression of women is still pravalent in our society today.
I am aware anger and hate are different emotions, I am unsure of why you pointed that out.
I never stated they should be thrilled that I am willing to listen, but if they are so keen to talk and be heard why not do so when an opportunity arises, instead of rejecting me on the basis of my feminism. Being unwilling to listen to other viewpoints is a big part of the problem here I think, and yes sometimes I do get frustrated with people and their shortsightedness.
I don't say men need to defend their right to be heard, of course every individual within a society should have equal right to be heard. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth.
"They don't want men to have equal right with children, they don't want women to be imprisoned as much as men, they don't want women to not get into college to have the 50/50 ratio that kept men out, etc."
That is "them" I do not think like this, I support equality.
I am unsure of what you mean by "ligament" if you could clarify there I would appreciate it. I am not surprised they are angry, but I am surprised they are angry with me, I don't desire to inflict oppression upon them nor have I ever. When commenting on blogs in MRA company I don't change the topic back to women and I debate as rationally as I do here.
If I missed anything you wanted a response to, please let me know and keep the rational debating flowing.
@ slwerner
I didn't make any personal attacks, that is below me. The FRS men were pointing out that it was a waste of time and money in regards to removing pre trial hearings for rape cases (something along those lines, sorry I am unfamiliar with american law). I was expressing a view that while yes it is a concern that false allegations exist and letting it go along that far seems to be absurd, but asked them to consider that maybe it was useful in regards to cases where the man is guilty. I simply think in order to examine an issue properly both sides must be looked at, or only a biased view can emerge.
As absurd as it is to believe all accused men are guilty, it is equally absurd to assume all accused men are innocent, the law is in place for a reason, I was simply questioning that reason as I thought it was pertinent to the subject at hand. I am unsure of why I was banned, but as it stands I attribute it to narrowmindedness and am thankful I did not waste any further time there, although initially I found the blog interesting.
it is definitely disturbing that crying rape exists and that legal framework is in place to support it. From the perspective of the male who is accused and rape victims (myself included), it is quite damaging, all around the board.
Thank you for taking the time to introduce yourself and start up debate, it gives me a little hope that a compromise can be reached.
"@ Snark, learn to debate like a rational human being (male or female). Then perhaps I can respond to your assertions."
ReplyDeleteHahahaha. I knew it but I didn't think you'd fold so easily.
You're open to criticism just so long as it's based within your feminist paradigm.
Pathetic.
A feminist open to circle jerking would be a better name for this blog.
@ Snark, I am willing to defend myself only so many times before I give up on trying to get through to people. However I will try yet again.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with your viewpoints (I think, it is hard to know what they are at this point) you are entitled to your opinion, I object primarily to your debating style which seems to rely heavily on taking things out of context, sarcasm, extreme misdirected anger and cursing.
If you can adjust these and be less vague, I would be better able to respond to your comments, as it stands it appears you comment only to try to antagonise me, which is a doubtful result. I merely am realising how progressive and advanced I am in comparison to some others.
AFOTC:
ReplyDeleteAs is typical, you object to the TONE of the message, and will not engage in 'debate' until he 'changes his tone'. What you are doing here is telling him that unless he kowtows to your demands, then anything he says can be dismissed. ie, "do what I say or you don't get the 'reward' of being acknowledged".
This is absolutely typical of a Feminist in speaking to MRAs, by the way. It's so typical, it's stereotypical. And what it amounts to, is that only when men 'behave' will they be acknowledged, and only when men talk about things Feminists are comfortable with will those issues be 'legitimate'.
In short, you are placing conditions on this so-called 'free exchange', and moreover demanding 'power' be given to you that you DID NOT EARN. If you want a respectful debate, then prove yourself worthy of respect. Whining about the tone of an argument does not, in any meaningful way, address said argument.
If you want to discuss or debate issues with MRAs, you will likely find no shortage of us willing to do so. After all, we ALLEGEDLY are dismissed routinely instead of listened to.. If you want to tell people how to act, what to feel, and what topics are 'valid' - that makes you functionally identical to every other Feminist that has ever tried to fake compassion to MRAs.
Feminism and Feminists have set the 'tone' for the debate for 50 years. Men indeed have been, and still are, told to shut up and take it like a man when it comes to these issues.
Our contention, as MRAs, is that it is indeed high time Feminists 'shut up and listen' for a change. I mean, after 50 years of unopposed dictatorship it's pretty obvious many Feminists have no idea how to handle men actually standing up and speaking their minds...
"I have no problem with your viewpoints"
ReplyDeleteEven the one that feminists should be converted into crude oil? Interesting.
"I object primarily to your debating style which seems to rely heavily on taking things out of context, sarcasm, extreme misdirected anger and cursing."
Oh snap. Because feminists totally never have done this.
Being a man is a biological fact, not a political affiliation.
Being a feminist is a political affiliation, not a biological fact. You CHOOSE to ally yourself with people who have made explicit their hatred for me, as a male and for no other reason. They have laughed about the idea of me being raped and genitally mutilated. They have entirely dismissed my human rights and have wished the most grotesque tortures upon me. Not for being an MRA, but for being a MAN. All the while demanding that I must stand up and fight for THEIR issues.
And you proudly wear that label 'feminist' then ask me to try to understand, to sit down for a nice reasonable conversation, and to reach a compromise.
I'm not INTERESTED in compromise any more. A few years ago, maybe. Now I'm invested in your defeat. The good times for men will roll only when feminism is dead. And to be honest - although I wish no ill upon non-feminist women - that's all I really care about. Because that's where you have pushed me.
Anyway, a friend of mine is having difficulty posting on your site. It's most likely a problem with blogspot. He wanted me to ask you the following:
Do women use their sexuality in such a way as to give them an unfair social advantage over men?
Why do women make up 60% of college graduates?
Why do women only make up a tiny proportion of the homeless, incarcerated, suicide victims, work related deaths, and war deaths?
"I merely am realising how progressive and advanced I am in comparison to some others."
ReplyDeleteOmg ur so enlightened gurl!
You might as well just walk away with your nose in the air. How stereotypical. Tell me, are you at college? An undergraduate perhaps?
"I use the term allegedly to indicate it is not a fact, even some of the MRA group would probably disagree that this is the major point of contention I am sure"
ReplyDeleteHow are you sure female oppression is a fact but male oppression isn't?
"Well the wham bam thank you ma'am was a bit of a stab at the menfolk I admit, however if you read at the top of the screen I am a feminist, and as such I do think oppression of women is still pravalent in our society today."
Stabbing men and then expecting them to "behave" in a proper debate setting. Tad hypocritical. Again how are you SURE women are oppressed? I've seen far to many statistical evidence to the contrary.
"I am aware anger and hate are different emotions, I am unsure of why you pointed that out"
You talk about not hating black people. It isn't about hating women it is about being angry. You seemed to have confused the two in the post.
Snark covered the feminism thing.
"I don't say men need to defend their right to be heard, of course every individual within a society should have equal right to be heard. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth."
Again that "alleged" word. They say they haven't been heard. You putting that alleged in there is the equivalent of rolling your eyes and scoffing. It might not be what you meant but it sure comes off that way.
"That is "them" I do not think like this, I support equality."
Then you aren't like any feminist I've ever met. And I've met a lot. Aligning yourself with a group in the way you do means taking responsibility for some of the stereotypes that come with it. If you want an honest discussion on gender relationships don't come in waving a banner of a group that has damaged the discussion demanding you be treated differently.
As for defining legitimate. More probably an issue of spelling thing correctly. I apologize for that.
"in MRA company I don't change the topic back to women and I debate as rationally as I do here."
"but asked them to consider that maybe it was useful in regards to cases where the man is guilty. I simply think in order to examine an issue properly both sides must be looked at, or only a biased view can emerge. "
On a blog concerning with false rape accusations you changed the topic right back to if he was guilty. The point is when they are innocent. They are fighting for the right of innocent men. Bringing up people outside that scope is counterproductive.
Sorry my responses will be a bit brief today I got work to do unfortunately
ReplyDelete@ Factory
No I object to his "tone" primarily because it distorts what he is trying to say, other then that he is angry, I am unsure of his claims.
@ Snark
Sorry I don't see it as appropriate to blame me for everything that is wrong with the world and feminism, when leveling accusations at me please first make sure I actually support any of the views you claim I have.
@incurablesanity
I never said there wasn't male oppression
Perhaps for you it is just about anger, but as snark demonstrates by wanting to turn me into crude oil it is a lot about hate as well.
""I don't say men need to defend their right to be heard, of course every individual within a society should have equal right to be heard. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth."
Again that "alleged" word. They say they haven't been heard. You putting that alleged in there is the equivalent of rolling your eyes and scoffing. It might not be what you meant but it sure comes off that way."
I didn't say alleged so I am unsure of what you are trying to say. Also to clear up any offense taken by that word appearing in my post, I don't accept things as fact until I have done research into it and am satisfied. A person's opinion is just that an opinion not a fact.
I think it is counterproductive not to examine all sides of the issue, as I have stated before, this just creates a bias.
I have a bit of time in my uni work to comment further (yes snark I am a uni student).
ReplyDelete@ snark and incurablesanity
Well I liken this to christianity. People chose to be christian and as such align themselves with people with extreme views, such as homosexuals are evil and ruining society (marriage) etc. Do you think everyone calling themselves a christian should answer to why this is? I sure don't, I hold people accountable only for their own opinions.
@ Factory
As for the "stab" that was less a stab at men and more a stab at MRA's hypocrisy.
I would also debate that there has been a feminist dictatorship for 50 years, that is absurd to me. (again point me in the direction of material to show this).
As for me asking Snark to be more wary of his "tone" as you call it, well it is my blog and as such I have the right to keep the people commenting on track as far as debating (hurling accusations?) goes. I support freedom of speech, but absolute freedom of speech does not exist and nor should it. As you state on MRA blogs people are blocked and banned when the conversation doesn't conform strictly to the topic the blogger wants, so it is here. However I am relunctant to ban or block, I merely try to encourage more useful ways of discussing the issues at hand.
"I merely am realising how progressive and advanced I am in comparison to some others."
I withdraw that comment, it was a bit...snarky.
"I object primarily to your debating style which seems to rely heavily on taking things out of context, sarcasm, extreme misdirected anger and cursing."
I am sure feminists have, I don't approve of them doing so either, it cheapens the whole process.
I am sorry people (feminists?) have laughed about the idea of you being raped and having your genitals mutilated. I find this quite horrific, it makes my stomach turn. I do not desire for you to be mutilated or raped, in fact I want very much the opposite. I am concerned about the occurrence of males that suffer sexual abuse as well, definitely more attention needs to be shown to these issues. I also am alarmed about the apparent prevalence of rape in jail systems, and want to try to put a stop to it (including the rape of rapists). Nothing will be solved by torturing people. Penis can be a wonderful thing, why would I want to harm them?
"Anyway, a friend of mine is having difficulty posting on your site. It's most likely a problem with blogspot. He wanted me to ask you the following:
Do women use their sexuality in such a way as to give them an unfair social advantage over men?
Why do women make up 60% of college graduates?
Why do women only make up a tiny proportion of the homeless, incarcerated, suicide victims, work related deaths, and war deaths? "
These are all fair questions, but I don't have sufficient knowledge at this time to comment on them in any definitive way. (hopefully I can fix that)
I however can offer some speculation. The suicide issue could be attributed to many factors I am sure. One is that men are more likely to carry out a successful suicide then women, consequently resulting in them getting psychiatric help and then men dying. Another is as I have said before men are more relunctant then women to seek help for one of the main causes of suicide; depression.
War related deaths is obvious, they become soldiers more often then women. Although this is less relevant to me as an Australian then to you as an American, we don't have a very big defense force. Australia soldiers die so rarely that it is reported on the news when they do.
As for the rest, could you point me in the direction of some material that could lead me to forming views on these matters, as it stands I don't have enough knowledge to do so.
"However these men are so embittered from not being heard (allegedly) that when I give them a chance to do so, I get slammed and banned."
ReplyDeleteYou did say alleged. Verb tense doesn't matter that much.
Are you saying Feminism is a faith based group or that Christianity is political?
A. If feminism is faith based rational debate isn't going to happen. Just won't. So many reasons why.
B. Christianity being political. Yeah I think you missed the point of religion some where. One can believe in gender equality and not be a feminist. However it is a lot harder to believe in Christ as the son of God and not be a Christian. I'm not going to debate politics and religion and where the line is here but it does exist.
I think you should define what you mean by "feminist" clearly we have very different views on what this could mean. However going on an MRA site and saying your a feminist is probably more like going to a race relations site and saying how much you like "Birth of a Nation." Of course you are talking about how it revolutionized film making, not the fact it is pro KKK. In a conversation about race relations the "other side" of the film isn't worth brining up. It is insulting to say it has value in that context.
Note: My film example both sides of "Birth of a Nation" are true. It is the audience I'm addressing that I need to be aware of. That is all.
@ Factory
ReplyDeleteI was merely responding to your argument about choice, as in being feminist as a choice and being a man as not a choice, both feminism and christianity are choices so within that framework I think it applies.
As for my use of the term "alleged" I have explained this, scroll back if you have forgotten.
I am not sure why you are talking about a film, but I study film at uni so I am slightly intrigued.
I defined how I fall into the category of feminism in my first post. Please refer to that.
Other then that, I am sorry, really not trying to insult you here, but you seem to be wasting my time, arguing the same points over and over again. Move on.
1. I'm incurablesanity not factory. I'm not that cool. I think you are responding to me however so I'll respond back.
ReplyDelete2. I really think I made my point that feminism and Christianity are not the same when it comes to being a choice. Please address this not dismiss it. Or just ignore it that would work too.
3. If you study film "Birth of a Nation" is worth knowing. REALLY racist. But did change a lot in film making.
4. You say feminist is synonymous with gender equality. That doesn't say much. However I am interested in why you choose feminist instead of a myriad of other word choices that aren't so charged. Particularly considering who you wish to speak to on the net.
5. I'm not insulted. However I don't feel like the points I'm bringing up are being addressed. You said you wanted a logical debate but I have yet to see any evidence of this on your part. I was just thinking the exact same thing on time wasting to be honest. Most of this isn't a debate at all. You aren't addressing my questions, my points, the issues I'm bringing up either. I really am trying to clarify what is going on.
Haha sorry, I'm doing uni work and this blog isn't set out in an easily viewed format.
ReplyDeleteIn what way am I not logical?
Perhaps it is fault on both parts then, because I see very little to really address about what you are saying.
I am interesting in the film however, I will hunt it out during the holidays.
In regards to christianity and feminism, yeah I can't say much as your criticism seems to be based on the fact I can't call feminism religion or christianity politics, which I am not doing. I don't see how believing in god is not a choice. So I guess agree to disagree there. I attempted to discuss the issue with my boyfriend but he is busy with study. He said he would look at my blog and comment later, so perhaps he can help me clarify. (he is a genius apparently, 140+ IQ).
I chose to call myself a feminist, because I consider myself as such and wanted an opportunity to change some views about feminists, I get sick of being accused of being an ol,d ugly, hairy armpitted lesbian. It is just not true (although women are hot).
"I do think oppression of women is still pravalent in our society today."
ReplyDeleteI am aware that "oppression" of every kind is prevalent, that of women being merely one item on the list. Is there any reason why I should give a snap about the hypothetical "oppression" of such an abstractly named entity as "women"?
Considering the death of the social contract (for which feminism is largely responsible), I really have no moral duty at all toward "women", do I?
"I am aware anger and hate are different emotions . ."
Just out of curiosity, are you aware that indifference (not hate) is the opposite of "love"?
@ fidelbogen
ReplyDeleteHow can you admit oppression of women exists and then call it hypothetical?
Why wouldn't you "give a snap" about oppression of women? oppression is a terrible thing.
I would argue you (and I) have a moral duty towards all of humanity (and animals).
I have heard that put forth yes. What about it?
Research the movie first. Just a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteYou are drawing parallels between feminism and Christianity. I'm arguing that it is a faulty parallel. Believing in God isn't a choice the same way, is in fact what I'm saying. I know people who want to believe in God but can't or people who really wish they didn't believe in God. It isn't a choice like choosing a label.
Now you've done something that bothers me a great deal, and I'm going to point this out not at criticism, but so you know how it comes off so please understand that.
I'm all for talking to lots of people on subjects but you really just came off as "I don't get it so I'm going to ask my boyfriend and then I'll tell you what I think"
Also I grew up in a household of genius. I don't care what your boyfriend's IQ is, and no one else on the internet really probably does either. I'll be interested in what he has to say, but not his IQ.
Rephrase the question again.
Why do you CONSIDER yourself a feminist? When so many other groups believe in gender equality why do you affiliate yourself with that group?
If you want to engage in a logical debate don't just dismiss things because someone misunderstood you. Try to understand what they got from what you said, fix it and discuss what is being said. Otherwise you are missing the point. I can't read your mind. You aren't trying. All your saying is "that isn't what I said" but you aren't saying anything more.
Here, read from this link. This is from a blog run by a woman, and it is called EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT. Interesting, she considers men and women 'equal' in some way yet identifies as anti-feminist. Please read the post. Since you apparently want to 'dispel the myth' of women being man-haters, perhaps you are simply uninformed ...
ReplyDeletehttp://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html
"How can you admit oppression of women exists and then call it hypothetical?"
ReplyDelete"Oppression" of "women" may or may not exist, depending on how you define oppression and women. (This could be a long essay!)
Are you familiar with the expression that "men can suffer, but they cannot be oppressed"?
"Why wouldn't you "give a snap" about oppression of women? oppression is a terrible thing. "
Why? Well, in today's political climate, as a man. . . why the hell should I? I do not recognize any presently valid social contract that would obligate me in that manner. (Another long essay!)
Another thing (linking back to my earlier paragraph): "oppression of women" is a contested and problematic concept - basically a feminist meme, and not one that I would let pass without a lot of critical scrutiny.
For what it's worth, I do not acknowledge any so-called duty toward "women". My sense of duty extends only to woman A., woman B., etc.... and only if I deem those individuals worthy.
A separate social contract for each, you might say.
"I would argue you (and I) have a moral duty towards all of humanity (and animals)."
I would be interested to know on what basis you argue that. In the meantime, can we keep the discussion narrow? This is about men and women, not animals, etc. .
"I have heard that put forth yes. What about it?"
I just wanted to plant that in your head for future reference, because it is an important concept. What the future bodes is not men "hating" women, but simply shrugging their shoulders, dusting their hands off, and turning their backs.
I think what you're missing here AFOTC, is that your 'role' right now is to actually understand men's issues BEFORE you place women's issues above them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a mistake many 'earnest Feminists' commonly make, and I hope the next 'wave' of you correct said mistake. It destroys your credibility almost immediately when you display stunning ignorance, and refusal to learn. And while I admit you are not the best example of this, er, 'stunned refusal', you are most certainly also neither the first, nor the last.
I will state categorically that you have NO IDEA what the mens movement is about, you just want us to stop and 'think of the wimminz'. It's also probably a bit weird to have man after man look at you and ask "Why the fuck should I? What have women done for me?". And now Feminists are noticing this might affect THEM too, and can't understand the generalized social hostility Feminists have EARNED.
To that, of course, I say "What the fuck do you think MRAs have been telling Feminists for years?"
As humbling as it may be, your role, IF you have any at all in these matters, is predicated on you actually knowing what you're talking about.
So, I ask you...can you name 5 things the Mens Movement is working on, and what your position is on them?
Here's a hint: the 'freedom' to wear a dress and act like a woman is NOT one of them.
@ snark
ReplyDeleteI have read that blog, what in particular did you want to draw my attention to?
Incorrect, I wanted to dispel the myth of feminism being synonomous with man hating.
There is an influx of women on the internet supporting misandry and calling themselves feminists. I do understand this, which is why I created my blog to show a different view.
@incurablesanity
In regards to my boyfriend I was making a joke. Yes feminists can have a sense of homour about sexism directed towards themselves
@ factory
Where did I place women's issues above men's?
I am about to head off to an exam so more to come later.
You keep on talking about morality, your moral obligation, what do you base your morality on? Moral obligation implies that your guiding principles are unchanging, not relativistic to your existence, but as you are obviously anti-Christian (no pro-Christian would speak of Christianity in the terms which you have), what religion provides you your guiding moral principle?
ReplyDelete"There is an influx of women on the internet supporting misandry and calling themselves feminists. I do understand this, which is why I created my blog to show a different view."
ReplyDeleteYou have put your finger on something critical and central here.
I do not see this "influx" that you speak of; to me, it looks like business as usual - and I have monitored feminist presence on the internet for years, long enough to know what what's new and what's "same old-same old".
But to continue: if they CALL themselves feminists, then who is to say that they are not in fact feminists?
Do you consider yourself an authority on what is "real" feminism and what is "not-real" feminism?
And do you feel that feminism as a sociopolitical entity would be meaningful or viable if it were NOT based upon misandry?
@ Trent13
ReplyDeleteIf I were christian, I believe that I would in fact speak of christianity in the same manner
I think it is absolute rubbish to assume morals can only be based on religion. However that said I do like the the teaching of buddha. I however reject the inherent religious elements of it (eg reincarnation)these characteristics link quite well to characteristics within the christian faith. I choose to follow it only as far as I think it makes me a better person.
Interesting question
@Fidelbogen
Please read the newest posts I have made, then bring up any issues you still have.
@ Trent13
ReplyDeleteSorry I initially missed where you used the term "anti-christian" to describe me. I would object to this labelling. Some of my closest friends are christian, I don't respect them any less for it. I would however respect them less (and possibly have not become friends with them in the first place) if they were bigots and used the bible to support it.
I am pro-christian in terms of freedom of speech which includes freedom of religion.
"I think it is absolute rubbish to assume morals can only be based on religion."
ReplyDeleteGo read some Nietzsche. Go find out what 'the Enlightenment' was, and then get back to us. You're out of your depth here. You cannot create an objective morality ex nihilo.
"I am pro-christian in terms of freedom of speech which includes freedom of religion."
ReplyDeleteThese are different freedoms. And THE STATEMENTS ARE TOO BLANKET. Freedom to worship as one pleases is not 'covered under' freedom of speech. Can you not see that some religious practices are not 'covered by' free speech, having nothing to do with it?
I'm sorry. I can't go on. You don't understand anything. And I know that you don't understand that you don't understand anything. You probably think you do understand a lot, but that's all part of the not understanding.
"These are different freedoms. And THE STATEMENTS ARE TOO BLANKET."
ReplyDeleteTrue, I should have said freedom of expression rather then freedom of speech, but people tend to use them to mean the same thing.
"I'm sorry. I can't go on. You don't understand anything. And I know that you don't understand that you don't understand anything. You probably think you do understand a lot, but that's all part of the not understanding. "
Feel free to stop following my blog if I have nothing of interest to say.
Another comment from the boyfriend-
ReplyDeleteTrent13’s questions seem to carry the implicature or make the presupposition that (objective) morality must be grounded in religion. If this is based on the idea that morals must come from God or some other divine entity then I have a single word response Euthyphro. A response I’m quite happy to elaborate on if need be, although Plato is considerably easier to read than Nietzche. But if we are to talk about metaethics and we are to play the game of suggesting reading lists then I would suggest we put Hume on the list, as well as Ayer, Hare, Mackie and Moore – though a more gentle introduction would be provided by reading some of the metaethical musings of one Peter Singer (and no I haven’t read everything all of these people have said – in fact I’ve only read scattered passages of some of them).
“You cannot create an objective morality ex nihilo.”
An interesting statement considering it is only divine command theorists who seem to be committed to the view that objective morality was created ex nihilo.
Hi Cassie,
ReplyDeleteI'm reading through your posts and comments little by little. Interesting to be here at the start of a blog when everything is new and fresh. And a point on that.
Do not be (and it doesn't seem you are) discouraged by the first wave of people attracted to your blog. They tend to be on the more extreme end, challenging everything you say to "test your mettle" and see if you'll hold up.
I find you to be "open" as your title states, even when you are ignorant on a topic, which is great. Also rational, which I found missing in large doses on both the feminist and MRA sites. Although, I have to say I find more on the MRA sites, which is sad to me. That's why it's good to see the budding of sites and views like yours. I think this is the start of our "next wave." And just wait, once the other feminists start showing up, you will likely get slammed harder for holding onto your views.
I had one tell me in response to a statement I made, "You're too neutral. You're going to lose our cause if you don't re-focus against men." I didn't get far when I asked exactly what "our" cause was.
On metaethics and moral ethics predating religion, nice work. I was going to rally on this myself, but you've already brought in Platonian and Humian references, so I'll leave it alone.
The Ethical Society is one group that bases its views on what is right and fair in the treatment of people and the planet without resorting to mythical beings to enforce them.
On the topic of feminism, I've found many people from all over the political/gender spectrum don't understand (which is in itself ironic) that feminism is a continuum of beliefs. It is not one thing. Some of us are at one extreme (the so-called man-haters), others are at the other (sadly tagged as trollers and fake supporters on the staunch feminist websites for not toeing the line). As with all belief systems, there is a rolling continuum and it is not only possible, but I would HOPE the eventual goal for us to love vag and pen equally and with respect.
I appreciate Snark very much on another site and he is definitely capable of intelligent, coherent presentation, but he's, well, Snark-y, and gets away from himself. Try to hang in there with him until he gets past his opening salvos. There's good stuff in there too. I agree uncontrolled rage doesn't make for good discussion.
For me, I'll repost my response to your invitation on Cortney's (Feminism/Pop Culture)blog:
"I appreciate you inviting me to read your blog, but I may not be your best anti-MRA (assuming you mean Male Rights Advocates?) writer.
I tend to try viewing topics through as neutral (or quirky) a lens as I can manage and often end up upsetting people on both sides of a particular issue, without intention. I've been accused of being both a feminazi and misogynist for holding the same views, which I just find funny.
I'll check out your blog."
Welcome social worker.
ReplyDeleteAll views are made as welcome here as possible.
Thanks for your supportive words. I will continue to fight the good fight.
I wasn't so much looking for people against MRA's so much as people with a different perspective, its been a bit of a one sided debate in here.
Understood. I inadvertently flipped your meaning.
ReplyDelete