|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy, I think you mean well. Yet, I think you are wrong in this week's column. I want -deep inside- to stand for feminism. Yet, I have much trouble getting over the revulsion and no reason at all to trust self-identified feminists. Oh I am completely aware that I MUST trust. Yet the emotional reaction is not pretty. Emotionally for me, the words Equality and Feminist are antonyms.
I too feel the anger and distrust which the men on Soc.Men show. Oh I hide it better than they, but it is still there. Feminism means gender equality say so many. Yet, there is no show of equality for males: There is not even a pretense of inclusion in the word feminist. I know the history as do many others. It is in many ways a noble history fouled by bad science, myth and outright bigotry. And yet, there also appears to be no willingness to look at the men's feelings.
Maybe this will show the point. I run Volksgaren and we work with any person who needs help getting over the pain & problems acquired through abuse. We cannot get government funding and we cannot get foundation grants: That all MUST go to female only & feminist run "men's" groups. We can't get listed as a service to help victims of violence: The Harris government are afraid to list a non-feminist men's group due to the trouble that would cause with feminist groups. We cannot get our materials published through the National Clearinghouse because of their fear of powerful feminist groups: This in spite of the Clearinghouse having a mandated legal duty to publish. Who stands strongest in opposition to our helping people? Feminists and Traditionalists...
We sell our magazine to get money so that we can do our work. Mind, not one of the press outlets are willing to discuss our work or our magazine. The reason is straight forward, if they include us they will have hell to pay from the feminists. The media have accountants to keep happy: Dead men and children do not worry accountants, but trouble with powerful special interest groups do a lot to make accountants very unhappy...
One would think the Human Rights agencies and groups would help. The Ontario Human Rights Commission have said many times that they might hear a case of discrimination against male victims of Family Violence IF the case is from a female and saying that the discrimination targeted at males hurts females. They have also said that they doubt such a case would go through as men are not discriminated against since we have the right to pay for a sex change and then use the current female only system. Not one woman in Ontario is willing to try them on their word: The reason for that is straight forward, it would be a death sentence to any woman foolish enough to so flout the feminist way of doing things and the odds of success approach zero. Amnesty International and other Human Rights groups do not dare approach the problem because that would mean a run-in with feminist groups.
The one thing which stops the men's lists on the internet, including Soc.Men, from doing well is the pro-feminist groups of men & women who keep coming on to shut down all discussion. There is simply no way to hold an intelligent & free discussion when ninety or more percent of the time you are being accused on hating women, eating little babies and raping everything in sight. And that is a very mild description of what so often goes on.
Can you see where I am coming from? To me and to many others this is very much a case of the words do not even come close to aligning with the actions. Which creates the very powerful feeling of anger/rage/distrust... That's just right here at home. It is worse in many other places. Hurt people who cannot see hope of their emotions being seen make for a volatile mix.
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Wendy, I think you mean well. Yet, I think you >are wrong in this week's column. I want -deep >inside- to stand for feminism. Yet, I have much >trouble getting over the revulsion and no reason >at all to trust self-identified feminists.
>Oh I am completely aware that I MUST trust. Yet >the emotional reaction is not pretty. Emotionally >for me, the words Equality and Feminist are >antonyms
just wanted to say, I know completely where you are coming from here. on another board I go to, some guy was saying how he and his girlfriend were feminists, to prove he would never pressure his girlfriend into sexual activity. But apparently, being one gives his girlfriend right to demand pleasure for herself while feigning away from activity that involves more than his head because "it's scary." it's just downright depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will femminist become a bad word like 'Male Chauvist'? Or will it be a catch phrase in a sales pitch pushing a Music artist or a book to legitimize the artist and make it seem as though if you buy this cd your supporting femminism. More men than I can tell you believe in the 'evil male'stigma and side with the hatred ideaology in hopes of getting a 'girlfriend'. I could show you a course outline in grade elevin english course that depicts men as hateful to women. It goes on to describe the "men in power" at broadcast stations who decide whats on t.v. and how it is their views that demeam women. The question asks for a written response or an essay. This may or may not be true and I'm sure most tv execs cater to the market. Maybe the person who wrote the question never saw "home improvement". Regardless of this fact what does this have to do with learning english?? Nothing it is a political agenda that spreads propaghanda to the most vulnerable of our society our children. I think that parents should consider sueing public school boards for this type of "education". It belittles males and it may explain why the males are now doing so poorly in ontario in english and in school period. Its not a matter of emasculation its a matter of poor identity and identity crises. Men should be proud to be men, as women should be proud to be women. And we should blame the generations of today for deeds of the past. As a culture in order to mature we dont need Femminism and we dont need Masculism what we need to do is look past our self identities to seek equality as a whole and correct the problems as mature adults. We can still maintain the interpersonal dynamics of our sexual identity on a personal front or in community while still maintain our indvidualistic persona. This will take sacrifice from everyone, but the rewards far out weigh the loses. We have to look beyond what happens to a person because of their sex to describe it as a sexists scenario. I am a big fan of Wendy McElroy and if she wants to keep her "femminist" title I'am all for it, one good thing about it is that she reaches a group that identifies with femminism and Wendy can convey her philosophy of the dangers of taking privlidge over responsibility as a society. In my opinion she leads the way in bringing true independance to women and to the human race. You dont have to be a woman to follow her ideals her philosophy neither femminizes or emasculates men rather enlightens them. You dont have to agree on everything she says, but in the struggle for equal rights, the road is bumpy in its transistion phase. Women had speacial privileges in other areas of life years ago unfortuanately it was not on paper so it goes un noted. But as a species we would not have been able to make it this far if one group was so suppressed or oppressed that the other couldn't survive. What we need is more examples of the good things men have done in the past instead of the bad. And Im not talking about Veterans Day or Rememberance day. I'm talking about the good deeds and the suffering of the idividual man, where women are not the antagonist or enemy and vice versa.
Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women had speacial privileges in other areas of life years ago unfortuanately it was not on paper so it goes un noted."
Such as? And were they worth the trade-offs, such as not having, say, the right to vote, hold public office, own property, choose one's own spouse, etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes they were the worth the trade-offs, because women didnt have the right to vote shouldnt be the end all arguement to the femminist agenda. One strong reason why men were in control of the vote is because they were closer to the battle. It was men dying in wars to promote better lives , not just for them but for their families. So it was men who had direct concerns about how things were run and had decided that representation for taxation is a good thing. You can not really say that each woman at the time was interested in voting. It is perhaps possible that women decided they were not interested in voting and left it to the men. Women had their own source of power and used it quit proficiently. And to say they didnt does little service to the perceptions of women. Women were able to manipulate and persuade men to get what they want, this is the adjusted survival techniques of anyone. Remember that we were called 'mankind' not because of our genitals but because of our opposing thumbs and our ability to manipulate objects. I would rather not be able to vote than die in some war over some crap. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I am all for the equality of the sexes, but genteel slavery is still slavery. Women "manipulating and persuading men" is not the same as having a legal vote and to be able to marry the spouse of one's choosing or, for that matter, choose not to marry at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And further mnore, if men and women are going to be equal, men themselves have to stop playing the "dumb" card. Be a man, for crying out loud, be responsible for your own decisions and stop saying Eve manipulated you into biting that apple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...it may explain why the males are now doing so poorly in ontario in english and in school period. Its not a matter of emasculation its a matter of poor identity and identity crises...
I couldn't agree more, Dan. I don't care what anybody says - feminism does shame males...all males. What else are we to think when we are taught that virtually every generation and every species of males in known existence and in history - despite the myriad differences which divide so many different generations and ethnic and religious classes of men - have all coincidentally agreed on one thing: that women should be trod upon like dirt and enslaved to us. Apparently, it is a view which even the fiercest male enemies have in common. Thus, the conclusion is that there is something about men and the male psyche which predisposes all men to oppress women. Just because certain men aren't doing so - or aren't doing so in contemporary times - doesn't change the empirical "fact" that whatever apparently common masculine neurosis compelled our male ancestors to subjugate females continually and consistently throughout history remains present in our enduring biogram. The truth is, boys and men are being taught today that, based on the actions of our ancestors, we are inherently inclined, as men, to victimize women...and that, were it not for the "noble" campaign of feminists, men would still be victimizing women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All people were victimized, life is a struggle. Do men have the advantage? No, thats rediculess. I admit we are obligated by our gender in what we do and who cares for the children in youth. Does that fact alliviate the burden from one gender in that fight for life? No, some people have special privledge such as the alpha male, but how long does he last? His life is in constant danger from competitors in prehistoric age to the modern age. Over 80% of the violence commited each day is commited against men. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in general agreement with jaxom in the first posting. For me the word 'feminism' is inextricably bound up with the word 'manhating'. That's their fault, not mine. I see no need or reason to preserve the word 'feminism', or to ignore the catalogue of malicious damage it has inflicted on the male gender simply because someone says it was 'good' once upon a time. The very word itself suggests an ideology of the female, not an ideology of the human. It implicity defines the male as inferior, as that which is to be lectured at, not listened to. Feminists need to talk less and listen more, because there are many things that they are sorely ignorant of. It makes me sick to think of this nasty word and the nasty, hateful anti-male ideology it spawned, and it doesn't matter how you try to pretty it up, it'll always end up dumping on men, either directly or indirectly.
Take this line from McElroy's article:
The 21st-century feminist is anyone — female or male — who rejects gender privilege and demands real equality for men and women under the law.
Her subsequent four-point plan for 21st century feminism, while paying lip-service to the idea of 'equality' is nevertheless a very female-centred affair. If you're all for gender equality, why do you need to use the word 'woman' when you could just as easily say 'person'? And why maintain the idea of a 'women's issue' when this explicitly promotes the idea that men should be excluded? That's about 75% of the problem!
Her last remark nearly made me barf:
Perhaps, children now being born will adopt the label "feminist" as adults. If they do so, it will be for the same reason their parents rejected it: They respect individual choice and accept personal responsibility.
Yeah, because I guess feminism is the only thing that offers these things. We've got to associate all positive qualities with the female and, by implication, all negative qualities with the male, haven't we? Clearly that's one bit of feminism that won't be changed. Totally sick. Feminism=manhating no matter how you dress it up. I wouldn't ever call myself a feminist precisely because I believe in individual choice and personal responsibility. Oh, and I don't hate men either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you for showing me that article or statment made by Wendy McElroy, I have something I have written for the Movie review mailing list
I would like to send it to you my email is dan047@sympatico.ca or if there is another way to send it let me know thanks Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me the word 'feminism' is inextricably bound up with the word 'manhating'. That's their fault, not mine. I see no need or reason to preserve the word 'feminism', or to ignore the catalogue of malicious damage it has inflicted on the male gender simply because someone says it was 'good' once upon a time.
It's really not up to just you. For instance despite my mother being slightly oblivious to the abuses of modern radical feminists, my mother is not at all a manhater and she calls herself a feminist. She's a strong, caring, independent thinker and open-minded listener who pulled herself out of the German-American ghetto, began studying computers in the sixties (when women still weren't allowed to major in it at Dartmouth), earned a doctorate degree, and worked her way up to Chief Information Officer at a large college. She has no connection at all to modern feminist politics and she calls herself a feminist.
Would you have women like her suddenly stop calling themselves feminists because they lack sufficient misandry? They were there first. Would you have people like myself, with emotional bonds to non-manhating people who choose to call themselves feminists, reject them in some way for holding on to the label? If so, I think you are being a little impractical. The word is not going to go away just because some other people choose to inflexibly link it to manhating.
Her subsequent four-point plan for 21st century feminism, while paying lip-service to the idea of 'equality' is nevertheless a very female-centred affair. If you're all for gender equality, why do you need to use the word 'woman' when you could just as easily say 'person'?
First off, it seems to me that she chose that wording because she is trying to sell the idea of greater sensitivity towards and inclusion of men to other feminist women ("liberated woman of the 21st century"), many of whom indeed do lack such sensitivity to masculinist temperaments. Second, I think calling for the "removal of all laws that...privilege women at the expense of men" goes well beyond lip service (an example of lip service would be using the word "person" instead of the word "woman," because it might offend some small percentage of the men who also read the article). Third, there is nothing innately hateful about a woman writing from female-centered perspective anymore than there is with a man writing from a man-centered perspective, and it's not as if one would have to be a hermaphrodite to support both many women's issues and many men's issues at the same time.
Her last remark nearly made me barf:
Perhaps, children now being born will adopt the label "feminist" as adults. If they do so, it will be for the same reason their parents rejected it: They respect individual choice and accept personal responsibility.
Yeah, because I guess feminism is the only thing that offers these things. We've got to associate all positive qualities with the female and, by implication, all negative qualities with the male, haven't we?
I thought that was one of the best parts of her article. She is pointing out that modern radical feminism (referred to earlier as "ghosts") has largely failed to sell itself to the younger generations because it has disrespected "individual choice and personal responsibility," and it needs to stop doing that. I don't understand how you read so much negativity into this statement. Really, I suspect if she came out and said that to make up for past abuses, feminists should only concern themselves with supporting "men's issues," that some of you would still see it as some sort of secret coded manhating rant.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I refer you again to the following line from my earlier posting:
I see no need or reason to preserve the word 'feminism', or to ignore the catalogue of malicious damage it has inflicted on the male gender simply because someone says it was 'good' once upon a time.
Whatever feminism once was or once meant, it is no longer that and it no longer means that. There is no reason to inflict the word on future generations as if it is somehow the only word that can stand for the respect of individual choice and personal responsibility - something McElroy implied at the end of her article. Your mother's use of the word is thirty years out of date, and it seems ridiculous to pretend otherwise to future generations. Are we to halt the process of invention with the products of your mother's generation? The word 'feminist' had to be invented by someone. I'm sure some other word can be invented which not only takes over all the supposed positive qualities it posesses, but is also free of the massive stain of manhating it has acquired during the last three decades. Hopefully one day nobody will call themselves a feminist out of shame at what was done in its name. If that doesn't happen it'll be because those shameful things have been whitewashed out of the history of feminism, and that must not be allowed to happen.
As for 'making up for past abuses', that's a feminist phoney-Marxist idea; a manifestation of Nietzsche's 'slave morality'. I would want someone to support 'men's issues' because they can see it's only right and fair to do so, not because they've been shamed into it. Thanks in no small part to feminism, however, men's issues are now perceived to be the moral opposite of women's issues, which makes it impossible for many to respond to them sympathetically (read the very first post relating to McElroy's article if you need convincing). The very word 'feminism' embodies this denigration and denial of the male experience, it isn't simply an unfortunate thing that happened by accident in association with it. As for seeing 'secret coded manhating rants', there are so many public, unencoded manhating rants out there that I don't need to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been taking a break from these discussions in order to regenerate. Nevertheless, there's a distortion that's been presented here that no one else has hopped on. I've decided to do so. Even if there are responses to this post, I may not write further about it at this time. It won't mean that I agree or don't have a counter. It will mean that I'm back to my much needed break.
Now, as for the vote. Feminists love to jump on this one. I'd sure like to see, though, a valid statistic on the percentage of men and the percentage of women who have ever lived and who have been able to vote. I'd guess it's about 20% of the men and about 19% of the women.
No doubt feminists will respond with more smoke screens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'd sure like to see, though, a valid statistic on the percentage of men and the percentage of women who have ever lived and who have been able to vote."
Have been able to vote? Or took advantage of that right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will add to this that it's also worth considering the percentage of time that men have been able to vote and the percentage of time that women have been able to vote. Our species has existed for something on the order of a million years. Our values and societies developed throughout that period. The difference in the percentage of that time that men have been able to vote and percentage of that time that women have been able to vote is vanishingly small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I am seeing is that people are lumping all groups that have any degree of association together into one large group. While this is very easy to do it is also wrong.
A similar association happens with religions. If one for a moment comparisons to compare a simliar association with religons. The tendency is to group all major religons together. If your Christian then they all get put in one big pot. While they do have similar beliefs anyone taking a moment to study them individually can recognize they often have major differences.
I, for one, refuse to lump all feminists in the same group. I do not think that every women that self-identifies as a feminist is man-hating. I also do not think that every feminist group is inherently man-hating. I also do not think that every Musilum wants to kill Americans or that every Christian believes in blowing up abortion clinics or hates homosexuals. A key element to any critique is to remove personal bias from the lens and see what is being said. To avoid preconceived notions about a person or a group (ie. stereotypes) is one of the hardest things to do but often very rewarding.
Preventing this halo of the man-hating versions of feminism coloring our perspective of other male friendly versions is a trick to prevent anyone that disagrees with pop-feminism from becoming unified against the hate propaganda they issue.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
