|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:39 PM March 8th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
In saying that men are stuck in a 1962 mentality, Dr. Helen's main point seems to be that men do not even yet recognize the extent of discrimination targeted at them, because it's all just part of the social wallpaper of everyday ordinary male experience.
In other words, misandry is so widespread that it is taken for granted as "they way things are..." and becomes basically invisible.
It is kind of scary to realize that several generations of women and men accept feminist dogma as "natural."
The lengthy reader replies drift off into a tangent about marriage counseling practices, but the early comments show a lot of naive Chivalry-in-action -- defining manliness as the stoic-loner, the guy who would never identify himself as a victim (even if he's been assaulted by his wife!) because he'd be a "wuss." The usual thinly disguised male-shame syndrome.
Little or no mention of the legal tyranny that men face, the pervasive apparatus of feminism, or any need for real political organizing by MRAs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 03:15 PM March 9th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep...
Why does the caged bird sing?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:26 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, don't lose heart. We're starting to approach a critical mass. The penetration of men's and father's rights issues into the MSM, the opening up of more men's eyes when CNN or Fark or MSNBC or a major city daily paper starts to talk about our cause, and the actions and public discussions of men like ourselves carefully fanning the sparks and flames that are starting to catch at the crappy, rapidly fraying edges of the feminist fallacy - all of these things are beginning to work. Visit a "progressive" or knee-jerk, self-proclaimed "liberal" blog and fight the feminists and misandry at its source, with as little hate as you can manage (remember, women aren't our enemy, some of them are even our allies - feminist-driven laws and governments that discriminate against men and the popular culture that results from their lead are our enemy, and verbally "attacking women" will only lose you the support of sleepy, unaware men), and all the facts, statistics and truth you can manage. We can do that right now, and you might even gain some allies in the process. I know I have. Keep deprogramming other men, and waking women up to the situation. Don't use hate, especially of the women who have claimed "victim status" and actually managed to be believed by the culture at large! It just backfires on us.
Consider Kim Gandy rambling on about "children's rights" over the reproductive choices not available to men. Even the queen bee-otch of feminism knows if she starts spouting the ol' misandric Marxist rhetoric, nobody will pay any attention. Now, that's progress.
I was watching TV tonight with several men, none of whom are particularly aware of men's issues, and by the first set of commercials, they were talking openly and without my prodding about the fact that everything on the television and everything even being advertised on the television was either about women, for women and generally demeaning to men, or at least women acting like some kind of bullshit parody of men. They all agreed at one point that they're not so much injured by it, as they are offended that a man has to be the butt of every joke, and that the mass media is training young women like their own daughters to be stupid, spoiled, irresponsible whores with absolutely no respect for men or themselves.
I think the feminists and government have finally pushed things so far that even average men are beginning to sit up and notice that something's just not quite right, and the younger generation that will bring up the rear guard as the last pre-feminist generation fades into retirement and old age is the best informed in history, has the best access to the current state of affairs via the Internet, has grown up under a shadow of pure, misandric culture and the worst sort of man-hating, self-serving feminism. Those young men are the future, and they're starting to smell the bullshit behind the lies and hate they've been fed all their fatherless lives.
I think we're getting somewhere. It's a painfully slow process, but it is finally starting to gather some popular momentum among the men that can and will make the society of tomorrow. It's even becoming too obvious for the boomers to ignore. It'll take a few more years for men who've been subject to feminism all their lives to replace men who grew up and made their lives before it really got its fangs into them, and who therefore suffer the illusion that feminism and misandry can't hurt them, but its coming. Keep the pressure up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:05 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
To borrow a feminist cliche....
At the current rate of female-to-male wage disparity, women who today earn 71-cents for every dollar a man earns... will be "equal" in wages by the year 2047.
By my subjective math, this also means that men can expect a recognition of misandry and a repeal of anti-male laws by around the year 2060.
Unless we elect Hillary as Pres-O-dent!
Then, I figure the mens' REVO will start @ 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:07 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect you're right about the timing, Roy. I never said this would be fast or easy, just that its coming around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:45 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good post R/M. But if we don't fix the people that have manipulated the system, our progeny will see yet another reverse to divide the populace to ensure control. Any bets? I believe the only solution is to govern ourselves, hell the Men on this site for the most part have the intelligence to make proper decisions when given all the facts, and so do the majority of working People on the face of the earth. We don't need an elite governing body, we never did. Just a thought......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:27 PM March 8th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
One must take the time to study the shifts and chnages of society to relize that we are as a People being manipulated. What do we settle for if we "go back" more of the same, but with Women as the under dog. We need to realize that we are the most important commodity that exists, and without us, the ruling factions don't have anything to rule. We need to a as a People "wake up" and take back what is ours, our lives.....Just a thought Folks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:09 AM March 9th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
...is Dr. Helen's solicitude for men.
Why even Glenn Sacks has been the beneficiary:
http://www.glennsacks.com/dr_helen_caldecott.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:20 AM March 9th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong Dr. Helen. This one has something to say.
My apologies. Too quick on the trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 09:01 AM March 9th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Two postings that I thought had a lot to say, though for very different reasons. Here's the first:
Great comments (yet sad) from everyone. I don't read anyone talking about the obvious differences between men and women (biological). For one we are always stronger. The strongest woman can lift more than a weak man, but the average male can lift the average female over his head. It's simply biology, yet has profoundly influenced social norms and gender biases. THe woman is always perceived as the victim, I think rightly so (as another tall 6'0" guy), because usually the guy can fight back. Whether he chooses not to do so or not is another issue. If it came to blows, I could probably crack my beloved wife's (5'4") skull in a few hits. She wouldn't be able to harm me, other than use a gun or knife. I don't know anyone's situation, but if someone was trying to kill me, I'd try to kill them right back. Yet the justice system is solidly against us, but I'd rather sit in jail for a crime I didn't do than lose my life. Just my $.02.
I don't need to offer any analysis of this, other than to say it was written by somebody who knows a big fat nothing. It confirms a view I've had for a while, that there is a strong psychosexual component to men's denial of women's abusive behaviour. All this rubbish about being a 'real man' is founded on anxieties about how big you dick is compared to other men's, and what you do with it.
Anyway, the second posting is written by somebody who thinks with his big head:
Hi,
first time I've come across this site, and I have to thank you for writing this - I fully agree.
I've been watching the way things have been moving for several years, both in the UK and Australia. I have two sons and a daughter, and I'd like to think that none of them would be discriminated against or victimized - just as I'd like to believe that they would all receive all the help and support they'd need, should such victimisation ever occur.
But I don't believe that's the case, for many of the reasons other writers have listed below and you have so eloquently outlined in your article.
However I'd like to broaden this discussion far beyond abuse, and into many other areas, areas where 1962 is dawning anew for many of us and for the future generations of boys. Take for example education. I've seen male teachers leave the teaching profession in droves, often because of their treatment by their female colleagues as - in their words - "potential perverts". Boys are failing in education in ever increasing numbers, yet programs for girls increase every day. Men who rape are (rightly) treated harshly by the couts and by society, women who deliberately falsly accuse of rape, destroying the lives of the men they falsely accuse, are almost always let off the hook. Men who have sex with under-aged girls are (rightly) sent to jail for statutory rape. Women who have sex with under-age boys are slapped over the wrists and usually just lose their jobs.
There are very few areas where I don't see the shadow of 1962. I have a friend who was a male Kissogram - he gave it up because the women were so voilent he ended up bruised and battered most weekends. I've seen a fair few strippograms in my time, but never seen guys lay a hand on a female strippogram. Visit bars and clubs and you generally see women being more sexcually aggressive than the men, nowadays - and the media promotes that. The media shows women they can be everything, anything they want, they can have it all - use and abuse men, kick them when they're down, take the job. Fine, except the reverse could never be seen. I've lost count of the number of ads I've seen where the dumb, stupid one is the male, the female 'saves the day' with a role of the eyes at her clumsy husband, inept husband. How many movies show sexual female-on-male violence - a kick in the groin, say - and show it as a positive, funny, empowering thing? Now how many show the reverse in the same light?
And then you have the divorce situation. My own isn't new or strange, in fact it's repeated so often with guys I talk to I'm thinking of starting a club. Alcoholic, drug-taking, abusive wife who's refused help and staggered her way through years of marriage leaving a trail of destruction and three unhappy kids. And yet, my solicitor says she's STILL almost guarantee'd to get the house and the kids and enough money to support them, even though she'll continue to drive them round the neibhbourhood plastered senseless.
1962, here we men come...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:06 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
All this rubbish about being a 'real man' is founded on anxieties about how big you dick is compared to other men's, and what you do with it.
Amen, Uberganger. I am absolutely disgusted with the number of women and loudmouthed, insecure, feminist-constructed men, too afraid of women and themselves to accept reality, all of whom just accept the fallacy of "conventional wisdom", and stick their heads in the sand and scream "MISOGYNIST!" or "PUSSY!", respectively, at any man who tries to point out the gross injustices men face, or who tries to seek help for abuse, help that doesn't exist. They're ignorant, brainwashed morons.
The misandry the second comment's author describes seeing all throughout western culture differs significantly from the situation women had in 1962: men weren't advocating violence and the destruction of the other gender, and rapidly trying to deconstruct it, as women are doing to men today, men weren't continuously spewing hatred of women all over the airwaves and society, and shitting all over them at every opportunity as a way to "empower" themselves and entrench ill-gotten and undeserved gender privilege.
Men are in a far worse position than women EVER were - we live in a society that denies the entire problem while actively pushing the open hatred, abuse and destruction of men so women can have a few "giggles" and feel better about themselves, and so insecure men can suck up to them for table scraps.
I say "NO MORE" and "NEVER AGAIN".
I don't put up with women who call MRA's and fathers rights activists "misogynists" to try and shame them into silence anymore, and I sure as HELL won't put up with the REAL male "pussies" and "wimps" living in denial and self-loathing out there, the ones who also try to shame men into silence when they speak up for themselves, the same way feminists and women do.
Why do these men do it, these useless collaborators. Are they trying to get laid? Get votes? Trying to "impress the ladies"? Afraid their Hummer isn't big enough? They need to shut up and wake up. They're the real wimps, too afraid to stand up for themselves out of some sort of twisted insecurity, and terrified that some man might actually resist the misandric mainstream.
Any man courageous and strong enough to seek assistance when he or his children are being abused, in this androphobic culture that will do everything it can to shame him, and everything it can to force him back into abuse, all to support feminist dogma that "all men are abusers", is MY PERSONAL HERO.
Anybody who wants to call me a "pussy" or a "misogynist" for saying so can try saying it to my face sometime. I can guarantee a quick and thoroughly unpleasant reaction.
Don't let these women or these insecure assholes shame you ever again, guys. Men are entitled to equal treatment under the law, equal choice under the law and equal consideration in society. So fuck anyone who gets in the way or tries to shame us into silence when we speak up for our rights or seek help. They're the only wimps and pussies out there, and the feminists can have them.
Sorry about the language, but this stuff really pisses me off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 06:24 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the language, but this stuff really pisses me off.
This is one of the best posts I have ever read on this site!
You make me proud to be an MRA!
Good damn post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:12 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Luek. The feeling of pride is mutual when I see read what other men post here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do these men do it, these useless collaborators.
Male feminist and community college gender studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer explains why in in a recent post on his blog; in it, he asserts a vague, sweeping ideological claim:
I want to help teenage boys and young adult males challenge the destructive dominant messages about what it is to be " a real man." I want to offer them alternatives to the straitjacket of traditional masculinity, based as it is on thinly disguised violence, chronic inarticulateness, and profound disrespect for women. That is not to say that there aren't virtues to be found within traditional sex roles: courage and honesty and determination are seen as classically male virtues, though of course women can manifest them just as well.
Schwyzer, in an intellectually dishonest move, closed the comments to this post witout responding to requests for supporting evidence.
I comment on this here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:09 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
A fellow man of letters, and a mathematician no less? Nice to meet you, and I will be visiting your blog again.
I was told by my female teachers that I'd never amount to anything in math or science, so I went on to publish scholarly work and reach top of the field in both. The same counter-phobic response set the pattern for my activism: overcoming the impossible, as defined by women full of loathing for themselves and men.
Again, nice to meet you!
Your commentary and deconstruction of Schwyzer's argument is excellent, although we disagree on the role of non-violent, "civil disobedience" in resisting unjust laws formulated on the basis of social and moral issues which have been politicized and therefore, are the subject of laws which you claim we are morally bound to obey, even when the pretext used to politicize those issues is invalid or based on a pre-existing agenda of politics, as is the case with the legislation of feminism against the "tyrrany" of masculinity.
Since the question of abortion is morally unresolvable, conditional support of abortion does not create any moral conflict per se. Politicizing a question of conduct effectively removes it from the moral sphere (the duty to obey the law notwithstanding).
Agreed, but you miss a critical issue: the issue of reproductive choice for men remains a "moral" issue as feminists would naturally refuse any attempt to legitimize such claims by debating them, and therefore is presumed to be "decideable" by morality alone, outside the political and legal systems of society. Therefore, in order to ensure choice for men, MRAs cannot oppose the issue of a woman's right to choose abortion, even though resolution of that morally undecideable issue is firmly within the political and legal systems of our culture. To do so would only result in the supposedly moral decision to ignore men's demands for equal choice in matters of reproduction by the culture which has already been demonstrated to be under the influence of feminists, who are naturally opposed on a supposedly "moral" basis to equal reproductive choice for men. The private is political, it seems, only when it suits the needs of feminists.
As you say yourself,
The price for the politicization of a question of conduct is that it can no longer be decided by the informal public system of common morality.
The price for resistance to the political resolution of a morally undecideable issue in favour of feminists is that they will use their considerable influence over the common public morality to harm men. This will be used to shape public perception of the issue of equal choice for men in matters of reproduction to the collective advantage of feminists and women in general, or as a punitive measure, should men resist their attempts to resolve the abortion issue in women's favour. Therefore, it is ultimately unproductive for MRAs to oppose a woman's "right to choose" as a political issue, because there are outstanding issues exclusively affecting men which remain firmly in the common moral arena. Feminists have naturally chosen to ignore these issues as to do so would recognize and validate the humanity and equality of the men they must hate as a pretext for post-modern feminism.
Hence my stance on civil disobedience and passive resistance to unjust laws and the political outcome of feminist ideology and jurisprudence. Only by resisting the outcomes which exclusively affect men as individuals, solely on an individual basis, and only within the legal system, lest women attempt their usual and inevitable prevarication by returning conveniently to the moral arena from the political system as it suits their whims to do so, simply to shame men into silence by accusing them of "attacking women" or "seeking to reduce women's rights", can we influence the feminist successes at politicizing social and moral issues they wish to rigidly define, to their own benefit, in law. If the outcome of the political and legal process which they dictate, operating on a social or moral issue they choose and define, is ultimately unenforceable due to mass civil "disobedience" by men acting individually and within the framework provided for redress in the legal and political systems, they will be forced to either abandon their demands or return issues to the social and moral arena, where most of the issues feminist ideology has wrongly forced into the political and legal systems actually belong.
As for the issue of men acting in a counter-phobic manner in response to both MRAs and abused men seeking care and assistance from the scornful and discriminatory feminist domestic violence industry, I still view these male "collaborators" (as I termed them), in mainstream culture as suffering from the contradictory delusion that feminism, the oppression of men, the criminalization of masculinity and the growing popularity of misandry can't injure them simply because most of them grew up, were socialized and made their way in the world before mainstream feminism turned into a pure hate movement. Ironically, this is the very same delusion that feminists of the 1960's, who mistakenly called it chavinism, realized they could prey on to make their revolution work, along with their reliance on chivlary (see my other discussions on the sociobiological roots of chivalry and female narcississm elsewhere on this blog), although I take the view that this delusion is in fact rooted in insecurity which festers and deepends rapidy in a climate of misandry. It becomes a sort of existential guilt which transforms men socialized before or during the early stages of post-modern feminism into hyper-defensive reactionaries. They respond in a counter-phobic manner by joining women in shaming other men who seek social justice or assistance. Hence my identification of this set of delusions as contradictory: the male delusion that women cannot injure men is contradictory in that it allows women to further the injuries they inflict upon those very same men!
Very crudely put, these collaborators are thinking and talking "with their dicks", because they've been socialized to believe and told continuously that they don't have one, or if they do, they only use it to "rape" women in some figurative or literal sense. Post-modern feminism cannot function without an oppressor and victim class, so naturally that movement seeks to socialize both men and women to fulfill its critically necessary world view. Naturally, men socialized in such a fundamentally self-defeating manner are fearful about their own power, independence and status in society, and react (again quite naturally), in a counter-phobic manner.
I'm referring to the crowd that is presently in their late 40's and beyond, and who escaped the worst ravages of feminist socialization as boys and young men building their careers, if not their families.
As to the remainder of your analysis and comments regarding Dr. Schwyzer's grossly sexist and misandric, feminist diatribe, I'm pleased to see that you're calling him out for accepting the underlying class hatred which defines post-modern feminism, and which characterizes masculinity as an inherent evil, i.e. little more than a corporeal manifestation of violence and sociopathy which feminism has claimed is the root of all female woe in the world. I would posit that Dr. Schwyzer, like the collaborators we've discussed, is in fact suffering from profound self-loathing, and the very sort of existential guilt I've described above as a direct result of his extended exposure to feminist academia, and perhaps a neurotic desire for acceptance originating from a poor or absent relationship with his mother. Of course, I do realize how very presumptuous, western and Freudian that hypothesis is, and I do share your admiration for Morita's "Quiet" techniques. Then again, I'm also very fond of Gestalt therapeutic approaches, in that they recognize the underlying complexity and interplay of socialization, behaviour and environment as irreducibly shaping feeling and response.
From your commentary:
Political rhetoric is no substitute for verifiable, substantive sociological hypothesis. If there is no fact of the matter that would change the opinion of a feminist ideologue that masculinity is inherently "violent", then there is a price: it becomes meaningless to term masculine "violence" as immoral, since questions of masculine conduct become morally undecidable in virtue of having been politicized; since a politicized question must be referred to the legal and political system for resolution, questions of conduct become legal and political questions, but not moral questions, in the absence of a duty to obey the law.
Since the issue of the morality of masculinity has already been presumptuously decided by feminism, and as you've just adroitly shown (i.e. "the price"), it is impossible for an issue which has been politicized to be decided morally, I therefore suggest that men have the exclusive right to reclaim masculinity as a concept with values and features which can only be decided morally, and which they will decide for themselves. Women have already had an opportunity to make moral decisions about the values of masculinity and masculine behaviour, and have absued that right by politicizing their exclusive moral predeterminations, thus forfeiting any right to contribute to a renewed moral discussion of masculinity. Given that legally acceptable civil disobedience within the legal and political systems of society is unlikely to force feminists and politicians to return the issues of masculinity to the moral arena for debate and decisions in the conceivable future, despite recent popular moral discussions of men's issues, only men reclaiming masculinity and returning it unilaterally to the moral arena will allow men and men alone to correct the flawed politicization of masculinity and questions of masculine conduct, which was performed on the basis of unilateral, flawed feminist moral predeterminations about masculinity.
Simultaneously, as a result of the flawed politicization of masculinity and questions of male conduct, men also have the exclusive right to resist the political outcomes and jurisprudence based on the fatally flawed political rendering of masculinity (again, within the existing legal and political system in a legally acceptable fashion: I do not advocate breaking the existing laws for any reason under any circumstances), all while seeking redress and change to correct the underlying, fatal contamination of those outcomes and laws by feminist moral decisions prior to the politicization of masculinity. Such outcomes and laws in their present form are based on a feminist moral pretext and therefore the process by which the present political and legal constructs governing masculinity and male behaviour were formulated were fundamentally and fatally flawed. While we must, of course, comply with our fundamental duty to respect the laws of our societies, we must also resist the outcomes of the tainted politicization of masculinity and masculine behaviour as far as our rights allow.
For greater clarity, basing the political management of a question or issue on a pretext of morality is, as you've stated, an invalid and intellectually dishonest act, so the feminist politicization of masculinity (i.e. that which is "private" to men, rather than women, to use the feminist's own precedents against her), provides men with the absolute right to reclaim masculinity for themselves and return it to the common moral arena, to make decisions about it in the moral arena exclusively, and to seek political change to address the tainted process which has resulted in the current laws regulating and defining masculinity on the basis of feminist moral predeterminiation, always working within existing laws and political systems.
Feminists have forced men into the untenable position of having to fight a political process to correct feminist moral assertions about masculinity which is, as you have noted, completely impossible. Therefore, it is incumbent upon men to work within whichever framework, moral/social or legal/political, best suits their needs and abilities to reach a just and sustainable moral and political definition of masculinity and to demand a reformulation of the laws regulating masculine behaviour to remove the contamination introduced by a feminst moral pretext.
I do not advocate violence, and I do not advocate illegal behaviour. I advocate that the duty of men is to themselves and to society's valid and just laws, and finally that men are the only party in society with a right to make moral decisions about masculinity.
In summary, I suggest a dual approach for MRAs: first, moral decisions about masculinity and masculine behavior are to be reclaimed by men alone as redress for feminists making presumptive moral decisions about masculinity before it was politicized, thus contaminating the political decision-making process. However, the majority of MRAs reject the feminist philosophical assertion that "the private is political" as it is the very tactic used to place men in the untenable, impossible position we find ourselves in today. Therefore, MRAs should also pursue decontamination of laws formulated on the basis of feminist moral dogma without ever releasing their sole right as men to make moral decisions about masculinity and the regulation of masculine behaviour. In that way, men return masculinity to the same arena as femininity: the moral arena, thus depoliticizing the private, as the "private", i.e. masculinity, should never have been politicized in the first place. Secondly, it achieves the goal of reconstructing tainted laws regulating masculinity which are firmly rooted in the fallacious bedrock of feminist morality, all while working legally within the existing laws and political systems and preventing women from blocking our path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:51 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot something (unbelievable, I know):
When I talk about men reclaiming masculinity and repatriating it to the moral arena where it belongs, I do not in any way mean that men should be "reformulating" masculinity in any way, especially to suit whining feminists! If men want to change their ideas of masculinity to suit themselves, so be it, but never, EVER, should men even consider rethinking or reformulating masculinity to suit ANY woman, especially feminists! They've had far too much input already.
Just in case I was unclear on that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply. I may not be able to reply fully in one sitting; I will address the points that I can with the time I have.
Your commentary and deconstruction of Schwyzer's argument is excellent, although we disagree on the role of non-violent, "civil disobedience" in resisting unjust laws formulated on the basis of social and moral issues which have been politicized and therefore, are the subject of laws which you claim we are morally bound to obey, even when the pretext used to politicize those issues is invalid or based on a pre-existing agenda of politics, as is the case with the legislation of feminism against the "tyrrany" of masculinity.
My position on ciivil disobedience coincides with that of Bernard Gert: it is morally controversial, since significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons advocate obeying the law, and oppose civil disobedience (in anygiven case); civil disobedience is at best weakleay justified, if significant numbers of fully-informed, impartial rational persons favor it. Any moral rule can be violated with suffient justification; Gert describes a two-step procedure for doing this. So perhaps I was unclear. I suspect that you would find that not every fully-informed impartial rational person would agree that civil disobedience is justfied. The Planetary Alliance for Fathers In Exile in France, for example, assists men who are (or who consider themselves to be) oppressed by the family courts in their countries to start over in Europe. Escaping judgments of the family court is a form of civil disobedience. It is inevitably controversial and subject to moral judgment.
Agreed, but you miss a critical issue: the issue of reproductive choice for men remains a "moral" issue as feminists would naturally refuse any attempt to legitimize such claims by debating them, and therefore is presumed to be "decideable" by morality alone, outside the political and legal systems of society.
I'm tempted to say that the question of reproductive rights has been "politicized" as a morally decidable issue for men (with the "moral" outcome that men have virtually no reproductive rights), and a political issue for women. Perhaps I could state this, though that post was concerned more specifically with Schwyzer's ideology than with more general questions of reproductive rights. I will address these matters in other posts.
Therefore, in order to ensure choice for men, MRAs cannot oppose the issue of a woman's right to choose abortion, even though resolution of that morally undecideable issue is firmly within the political and legal systems of our culture.
I was suggesting a logical as opposed to political conclusion from the moral undecidability of questions of conduct, when the source of disagreement is ideological. These weren't recommendations--my intention was to point out that such opposition is not immoral (or moral) per se, independently of any political considerations that might hold (even in the state of South Dakota). Of course, you get to decide how you play politics. Perhaps I could be clear that I am drawing conclusions, but not making political recommendations.
I did not anticipate this critical reaction (this late at night) and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. I will attempt to repond more fully later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zenpriest on 10:39 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your commentary and deconstruction of Schwyzer's argument is excellent, although we disagree on the role of non-violent, "civil disobedience" in resisting unjust laws formulated on the basis of social and moral issues which have been politicized and therefore, are the subject of laws which you claim we are morally bound to obey, even when the pretext used to politicize those issues is invalid or based on a pre-existing agenda of politics, as is the case with the legislation of feminism against the "tyrrany" of masculinity."
My position on ciivil disobedience coincides with that of Bernard Gert: it is morally controversial, since significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons advocate obeying the law, and oppose civil disobedience (in anygiven case); civil disobedience is at best weakleay justified, if significant numbers of fully-informed, impartial rational persons favor it. Any moral rule can be violated with suffient justification; Gert describes a two-step procedure for doing this. So perhaps I was unclear. I suspect that you would find that not every fully-informed impartial rational person would agree that civil disobedience is justfied. "
The situation men are facing today is so unprecendented that the classic model of civil disobedience does not really apply. Marriage, fatherhood, and even the romantic pursuit of women with those ends in mind have been defacto criminalized. Law and social custom/needs are now directly opposed to each other, so no matter what choice a man makes these days he will be disobeying one or the other.
Everything men do which women depend on them to do has been twisted to make men the bad guys and women the victims. If I make enough money to give a woman the "choice" to not have to work, I have somehow victimized all women by earning more than they do in their low-stress "wummun friendly" jobs. If I stick my neck out and try to get a relationship started with a woman, I have "sexually harassed" her.
When faced with a choice between obeying the laws as they are implemented, and continuing to live up to the social expectations of men which can land me in jail any time some woman gets offended, the only practical choice is to obey the law. If "all sex is rape", and that concept now permeates all interactions between men and women of a sexual nature, then expressing attraction to or interest in a woman is now illegal. As the penalties for doing so have increased, and the rewards have disappeared, the only rational action in this circumstance is to obey the law and disobey social custom.
This, of course, leads to women bashing men because "there are no good men left", when the reality is that there are plenty of good men out there, but they have have simply made the risks of approaching them too great for the average good man to consider it being worth the risk.
Back during my days in the corporate nightmare (trying to earn enough money that some woman would consider me as a good potential mate) I got one of those jokes that circulate in such circles - a cartoon of guy with an anguished look on his face and the caption "OH NO!!! You gave me exactly what I asked for!!!"
It is not up to men to make this screwed up social system, which women have demanded be created, work for women. It is not up to us to take the personal and legal risks to give women what they really want (somewhere deep inside that confusing mish-mash of BS they put out) but flatly refuse to do anything themselves to bring about.
No one can put me in jail for refusing to date, mate with, marry, or have children with, a western woman. Soon, they may attempt to pass such laws, but the pretzel logic they will have to use in order to make it apply to men and not women will result in it being turned around to burn a lot of women. I can be put in jail for attempting to do any of those things, just like I can for selling crack cocaine. The laws against selling crack were created for the purpose of stamping out the target behavior, and the long term result of all the anti-male laws today will be the same.
Personally, I have reached the point where I am so fed up with the behavior and attitudes of women today that I find "civil disobedience" to the cultural expectations placed on me to be easier and far more pleasant and rewarding than trying to live up to them. I'm perfectly happy to let some "strong independent woman" take my old 70-80 hour/week corporate nightmare job and call it a "rewarding career." If telling a woman I find her attractive, or flirting with her, is "sexual harassment", then I am perfectly fine with not doing anything which could be even remotely construed to be that. If "all sex is rape" and women really want me to treat them all like sexless lumps, I can do that - particularly since that is what most of them have become.
The profound shifts in social values and customs which the feminidiots have been working for years to accomplish are well entrenched in western culture. All the forces which used to constrain women also used to constrain men, and destroying them "liberated" both sexes, although that was clearly not the orginal intent - which was to "liberate" women, but still keep men enslaved in their old roles. Of course, that was not possible and we see the results around us every day.
Just like the study of "macro-economics" there needs to be a discipline called "macro-sociology" - looking at the behavior of large numbers of people from a purely statistical viewpoint and consciously eliminating individual variations. Destroying the social value of a role will result in the number of people who fulfill that role diminishing significantly. As the effects of loss of that role begin to affect the culture as a whole, the response of a culture to try to retain or restore that role will spell the difference between cultural viability and cultural extinction.
Western culture has clearly chosen the path of cultural extinction, by creating a legal climate which further destroys any reward at all for continuing to fulfill that role - thus people (men) simply stop doing it. The more draconian anti-male laws which get passed trying to force men to live up to that role, once they have made the mistake of entering into the arena which those laws govern, the more men will refuse to even play the game at all.
A fascinating paradox contained in the whole concept of being a "Men's Rights Activist" is that the anti-male laws don't affect me much except in governing my interactions with women. Thus, if I simply treat all women like they have the plague and avoid them as much as I possibly can, I really have all the rights I need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:03 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
You have illustrated the "untenable position" I describe men being forced into brilliantly. Where we disagree is that while I believe men have the exclusive right to make their own decisions in the moral arena (just as you assert) in response to unjust political structures (laws against normal social behaviour), I also believe we have the exclusive right to resist and demand reform of the flawed laws you describe, which were made only after masculinity was politicized on a feminist moral pretext. Hence the need to reclaim masculinity as a moral issue among men alone, and to resist (without attracting criminal liability!) the unjust laws regarding masculine social behaviour.
Unjust laws can always be resisted without violating morality, but we need to do so in a way that doesn't attract political (i.e. legal or criminal) sanctions or further inflame common morality against us. That's the quagmire I don't see a way out of, and the real battle ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan wrote:
"Your commentary and deconstruction of Schwyzer's argument is excellent, although we disagree on the role of non-violent, "civil disobedience" in resisting unjust laws formulated on the basis of social and moral issues which have been politicized and therefore, are the subject of laws which you claim we are morally bound to obey, even when the pretext used to politicize those issues is invalid or based on a pre-existing agenda of politics, as is the case with the legislation of feminism against the "tyrrany" of masculinity."
Little Lion replied:
My position on ciivil disobedience coincides with that of Bernard Gert: it is morally controversial, since significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons advocate obeying the law, and oppose civil disobedience (in anygiven case); civil disobedience is at best weakleay justified, if significant numbers of fully-informed, impartial rational persons favor it. Any moral rule can be violated with suffient justification; Gert describes a two-step procedure for doing this. So perhaps I was unclear. I suspect that you would find that not every fully-informed impartial rational person would agree that civil disobedience is justfied. "
Zenpriest replied:
The situation men are facing today is so unprecendented that the classic model of civil disobedience does not really apply. Marriage, fatherhood, and even the romantic pursuit of women with those ends in mind have been defacto criminalized. Law and social custom/needs are now directly opposed to each other, so no matter what choice a man makes these days he will be disobeying one or the other.
My remarks on civil disobedience apply only where they are applicable: e.g., to fathers fleeing the country to avoid oppressive judgments by the family court; no doubt you are aware of Dads on the Run, by Candis mcLean. There is (or was) and organization in France, the Planettary Alliance for Fathers in Exile, whose mission was to assist men who were fleeing their countries on account of oppression. Of course there are people who resist the judgment of the family court as well.
Opposition to social custom does not constitute civil disobedience. A decision to avoid relationships that have become politicized is a rational decision (in the sense of not being objectively irrational), as well as a moral decision; however, this is altogether another question that I do not address in my comments on Dr. Schwyzer; the question merits separate treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:09 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
My position on civil disobedience as a nonviolent form of protest is simple: men have every right (a moral decision, based on the common morality of today and long social tradition), to resist unjust laws, within the framework provided for legitimate disobedience. Feminists claim all males are intrinsically violent, and have made masculine "violence" a political issue. Therefore, a political response is approriate on the part of men, and is in fact justified by the politicization of masculine attributes by feminists, even when the issue is in fact a moral issue at its root, even if men simultaneously reclaim masculinity as a purely moral issue.
Civil disobedience by men is therefore fully justified within the political and legal system. Failing to comply with unjust court orders and laws, and forcing the issue into appeals and escalation is not illegal, per se, but it does serve to allow men to challenge and drive reform within the law, and is a valid response in the political arena where women have placed masculinity. This action does not stop men from claiming masculinity as a moral issue exclusively their own at the same time, thanks to the feminist intermixing of morality and politics.
Opposition to social custom is a form of disobedience, and it becomes civil disobedience when it us undertaken in response to the politicization of a "social" issue, which, in the opinion of most men and MRAs, masculinity most certainly is. Therefore, opposition to social custom as it is used to regulate and shape masculinity constitutes effectively "civil" disobedience because feminists have selectively politicized the intrinsically and traditionally moral issue of masculinity.
Feminists confounded the moral and the political aspects of masculinity in order to trap men in an impossible bind: the laws are now based on invalid feminist moral pretexts, and are therefore politically and morally invalid, but it is immoral for a man to resist them due to the "moral" qualities of masculinity which feminists have selectively and deliberately not chosen to politicize. A wonderful trick, and the only way out of the trap is to confound morality and political action on the part of men, and to act freely within both arenas as it suits our needs, confounding politics and morality as needed to counter the original feminist tactics.
Simply put, men have every right to use the same "trick" in responding to the dangers and regulations feminists seek to impose on them. Masculinity and male behaviour has always been, and will always be a moral issue, just as femininity and female behaviour are today. This is why women are not sanctioned by our political and legal systems to the same degree as men when they offend society, and it is why feminists needed to politicize masculinity to control it! Indeed, what feminists politicized could be said to BE feminist morality, since it was their distorted image of masculinity which was politicized and removed from the arena of common morality! Common morality would never have let hate-driven feminist morality survive. Such things can only thrive in the moral vacuum of politics. To kill such a thing, it is necessary to either drag it into the light of common morality (as we are all doing here on this site), or drag common morality of our own into politics as a temporary measure (as people like myself are doing at every opportunity), as a disinfectant, if you will, and to resist the moral restrictions society imposes on men who wish to oppose the contaminated, politicized image of masculinity and the resultant laws. Ironically, the "moral" code which demands male obedience to these flawed laws is political in origin. Feminsts not only used false moral pretexts to shape the politicization of masculinity, they continue to use the "fruit" of that intellectually barren and forbidden tree against men in common morality: politicized masculinity declares all men and masculine behaviour criminal, therefore, claim feminists, it is immoral for men to resist the laws, even though they are based on flawed, politicized feminist morality! The web they've woven to trap men morally and politically is indeed complex, as is the path to freedom and safety for men.
As for men forced to flee unjust laws, that is another matter. However, I see no problem with men who do that, at least in a moral sense. The laws are patently unjust, and based on politicized feminist morality. Why should men not exercise their equal right to make moral decisions and seek help from PAFE or other like-minded organizations? I see no difference between going to PAFE for help to escape unjust politics and laws based on feminist morality, or a man going to a domestic abuse shelter - both are morally and socially acceptable ways of escaping abuse or oppression imposed on men by the tainted laws regarding masculinity which resulted from the politicization of feminist morality.
Feminists defied all intellectual, logical and social conventions when they deftly replaced moral issues regarding masculinity with feminist dogma and moral conclusions, then quickly politicized the latter, while claiming to be politicizing the former. I am beginning to realize that what was politicized was in fact NOT masculinity, but false feminst moral conclusions about masculinity, thinly veiled in the guise of masculinity to allow them to "remove" it from the arena of common morality. In other words, men do not need to reclaim masculinity and return it to the moral arena - it never actually left! To "repossess" it, we simply need to get the word out that this is the case and restart moral dicussions about masculinity and male behaviour. To do so would undo the confounding of morality and politics that ensnares men today, and release men from the trap set by feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists defied all intellectual, logical and social conventions when they deftly replaced moral issues regarding masculinity with feminist dogma and moral conclusions, then quickly politicized the latter, while claiming to be politicizing the former. I am beginning to realize that what was politicized was in fact NOT masculinity, but false feminst moral conclusions about masculinity, thinly veiled in the guise of masculinity to allow them to "remove" it from the arena of common morality. In other words, men do not need to reclaim masculinity and return it to the moral arena - it never actually left! To "repossess" it, we simply need to get the word out that this is the case and restart moral dicussions about masculinity and male behaviour. To do so would undo the confounding of morality and politics that ensnares men today, and release men from the trap set by feminists.
This is the outcome I had been hoping for. In these discussions, the strongest argument is the one making the fewest assumptions. Generalizations involving "all women" or "all Western women" are counterproductive and insufficiently visionary, so I part company with Zenpriest on this score. My own reasons for exercising caution in relationships stem from considerations such as: is this person capable of making a false allegation; is an involvement with this person likely to result in my having to change my occupation in order to fulfill a court-ordered judgment based on imputed income--such considerations have more to do with the government and certain kinds of relationships, such as marriage or fatherhood. This is a real concern for me.
I mention it because of a proclivity of some MRAs to focus negatively on women, which makes MRAs an easy target for critics who want to dismiss men's rights activists as misogynists; and who lack the intellectual discipline, which I am willing to extend to them, even if they are unwilling to extend it to us, to see past the ad hominem remarks to the substantive issues. Concision has its editorial advantages. It's more productive to follow the procedure of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men.
My thinking along these lines has been strongly influenced by Bernard Gert's Common Morality: Deciding what to Do. I suggest that MRAs read this volume in particular. They might find that Gert is a more sympathetic figure than they might have anticipated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 04:17 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Little Lion, I have always advocated the avoidance of misogyny; popular misandry resulting from feminism has provided the world with more than enough hate to last generations. I love and respect the women in my life, and I consider other women (in the absence of cause) to be my legal and societal equal at all times, even if it is sometimes a struggle when they seem so happy to consume the ill-gotten "goodies" handed to them on the platter of gender feminism, even when they seem so mindlessly ignorant of the reality of the injustices men suffer. Sometimes, it's nearly impossible, but I know now that they are not my enemy and I do not hate them. The fact that I do not hate them does absolutely nothing to reduce my anger or rage at them, sometimes a huge percentage of them, and I will express it as such.
Women, too, have been socialized under feminism. Stopping the feminist hate machine (and the laws men make to support it), is the only way to turn the tide, and that can only be accomplished through the means we've been discussing. Expressing outrage at the things many women in the West do and say from time to time (never forgetting that India is a bastion of radical feminism where men pay higher taxes on the same incomes), is therapeutic in that it allows a safe "venting" of frustration and anger, which many men and most MRAs regularly feel for perfectly justifiable reasons. Venting this anger here, among men, is a healthy way to dispel it, see it for what it is, "bond" with other men undergoing the same struggles and feeling the same way, all to relieve ourselves of what is ultimately a handicap in our activism and reinvigorate us for the real fight and real enemies ahead, so I strongly encourage it!
This venting, which often includes blanket statements about many or all women is not misogyny, despite the paranoia of feminists and their undeniable desire to see us silenced: it is a valuable psychological overflow outlet for us, and an excellent way to turn unfocused anger and outrage into a strong sense of brotherhood, a healthy pride in masculinity, and a sense of purpose, all while discussing our feelings on such matters and analyzing the causes and solutions for the injustices we fight. It allows men like myself to focus our rage, get it out in the open for all to see (one of the masculine ways to express one's self), and to determine why we're so angry while educating one another about the injustices and causes we need to focus on. In so doing, men who might otherwise simply become misogynists sometimes learn that what they hate is injustice, not women. What I fight is an ideology, not women. I love women, and the world is a far better place for their presence. I may restrict my interaction with them out of a healthy sense of self-preservation because I am aware of the very real risks men face today, but that is just common sense, not misogyny.
Most men don't vent or talk about their feelings the way women do, so women will naturally regard us as "attacking" or "hating" them when we work through the perfectly natural progression from anger and outrage to awareness and more focused activism. When they first start talking about it, new MRAs may very well believe they hate all women for the injustice being done to them, and the misandry feminism spews at ALL men as a class - hate is the very basis of feminism so it is hardly realistic to expect men to react to it with love or understanding without some serious discussion first! Also, many men seem to come to this site and others like it after repressing years of unarticulated rage at the misandry and injustices they've seen, heard and experienced, so it is only natural that being men, we will express ourselves in a fashion which women cannot understand as valid from time to time. Remember that most women deny the existence of the underpinnings of misandry which support post-modern feminism, and truly believe that they are victims in some ethereal way, and that men truly are oppressing them somehow at all times: it is understandable, given that this is what they are told from birth by our culture!
I am no exception, and I fully endorse venting here, in a controlled (i.e. legal) way; let's not give the feminists ammunition to silence us again now that we have found our voices. It's healthy for men to do this in an environment where other men can help us to rationalize our outrage and focus it on activism without requiring us to become virtual "women" to do so, all while dispelling any misplaced anger and indeed, occasional hatred of "women in general" that results when we feel wronged. I for one have learned greatly from my fellow participants here, and what I have learned has focused my thinking, freed me of some of my rage (some of it is perfectly valid), and taught me that women are not my enemies, but fellow humans who deserve my respect, even if their actions do also deserve my scorn and derision from time to time.
This venting and occasional bursts of things women will find offensive is a component of two areas I have said are critical to the success of our movement: first, it allows men to have open, unambiguous moral discussions about masculinity and men's issues. Second, it helps us "wake up" others to the injustices being done to men. If the language is sometimes a bit harsh around here, or seems directed at all women, that's just too damned bad. Men have every right to be angry at a society and a movement which hates them with unchecked intensity, and we have every right to express that anger in a way which we and we alone choose, not the way that women or feminists tell us is appropriate. Women (all women, or even "most" women), do not deserve our hate, and hate is never productive, but women have no authority to tell a man how to express himself on such matters given that ALL western women have benefitted directly or indirectly from a political movement which uses the unapologetic hatred of men as its primary goal and justification. Women's contributions to the cause we fight are valuable, and their support is always appreciated, but men will express themselves as men see fit on masculinity and men's issues, and I for one will not self-censor to avoid someone erroneously labelling me a misogynist, especially while fighting a popular movement of hate against men.
Talking with men like you (and women in some cases), has led me to understand the roots of our anger while providing an outlet for its safe and productive dispersal, and to reshape it into a healthy, productive form of activism. But the perfectly legitimate anger on the part of men at the injustices and hate they suffer is NOT misogyny, and it is not hate, despite the best efforts of feminism to characterize it as such. Women in general, and feminists in particular, have no moral authority whatsoever to judge the feelings or reactions of men to 40 years of unchecked misandry which has served their interests and gained them privilege at our expense.
Consider this: women are in fact doing themselves an immense disservice by denying men the right to talk privately amongst themselves in men's clubs, sports, workplaces and so forth when they claim we are "excluding" them or "harassing" them simply by seeking space to express ourselves freely. They don't function the same way many men do, and we need those spaces to express ourselves as we see fit, without worry about some woman suing us for intruding on her "feelings" when we do so. One of the strongest relationships among humans is that of "brothers in arms". There is a reason we never discuss "sisters in arms'! If you truly want to reduce misogyny, bring back mens-only clubs, spaces and events, and teach women that many men need those spaces to be free of women in order to function in a perfectly healthy, masculine manner. Naturally feminism fights this, on the basis of the fallacy that ALL masculinity is unhealthy.
We cannot defeat a hate movement driven by a small number of politically active feminists and a large number of foolish men in government (the anti-male laws were, after all, passed by predominantly male governments) with more hate, and not simply because it allows women to make the moral determination that MRAs are misogynists and shame men into silence. I suggest that all MRAs read some of Gandhi's work in particular on this point.
It may be very hard to do sometimes, but I try to remember never to hate women as a class. Hate is, to quote a phrase, "baggage", and can do us no good. Justifiable anger and scorn born of an experience of injustice is one thing. Hate is another. If feminists can no longer see through the myopia of their own hate to understand this, that would be their problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 01:02 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan, I will not try to be as eloquent as the posts that precede my statement, as I could not. But, in an attempt to be brief and to the point, perhaps it is time we sacked the castle? When we are in such a state as we are historically speaking it seems that it is time for "action". For when one is sinking in a quagmire action is necessary for survival. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:22 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Davidadelong, see my comments under the piece posted today about Rutger's for what I think we should do in terms of reclaiming what's ours and forcing the hateful feminist movement's head underwater for the last time. Fortunately, they're busy jumping in the water wearing concrete loafers, so there's scare little action we need to take. The old guard of bitter, hard-core sexist bitches in their 50s and 60s is finally retiring and dropping dead, and the men of today are finally starting to wake up.
This is not directed at you or anyone else on this site, Davidadelong, it's just a general statement of position, and you can quote me on it:
If some feminist or a collaborator wants to mistakenly characterize me as a misogynist, or mistakenly characterizes my remarks as indicative of some kind of inherent "violence" in my masculinity in an effort to advance feminist dogma and shame me into silence, I don't give a flying fuck. They've told me for 40 years that I'm flawed, evil, violent, oppressive and a whole list of other self-serving things actual men are not, despite the paranoid fantasies of greedy feminists. Their voices will fall on deaf ears, and they have lost all moral authority to tell me what to say and think.
As to action, I agree that some action is required, but storming the castle will only get us killed. I'm going to stick to Gandhi's incredibly successful approach, which is almost universally applicable in cases of government oppression outside of war: let their own hate become self-evident and consume them, resulting in the restoration of our rights, and the return to men of what is rightfully ours. Feminists are so busy making fools of themselves and giving up moral ground that we need only wait while gently reminding the public of the dangers of too much "kool-aid" and helping our fellow man through his struggles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This venting, which often includes blanket statements about many or all women is not misogyny, despite the paranoia of feminists and their undeniable desire to see us silenced: it is a valuable psychological overflow outlet for us, and an excellent way to turn unfocused anger and outrage into a strong sense of brotherhood, a healthy pride in masculinity, and a sense of purpose, all while discussing our feelings on such matters and analyzing the causes and solutions for the injustices we fight.
Ok, if we make allowances for our own venting--we could "excuse" this by (perhaps cynically) assigning it to a "post-feminist radicalized masculinity" which allows for the uncensoored expression of "feelings"--then it's fair to discount some of their misandry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:27 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
That "shit-on-a-stick" Zenpriest always has to insert his version of the truth into every MRA thread, eventually.
His integrity is hanging by a thread....
The same one all MRA's are counting on... ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what this means. Apart from the often cited "Shut up and shovel the gravel" story, what is compelling about generalized ad hominem attacks on women when the focus is on the legal and political reform?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:11 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but men generally don't claim that femininity is evil, or advocate the eradication of women. Feminists are well known to do so when talking about us - their entire movement is based on those ideas. The comparison sort of fails at that level, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:46 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Let me make one other observation, LL. If misandry is the hatred of men as a class, it is a certainty that post-modern feminists are fully and deliberately engaged in a campaign of misandry, correct? After all, the fundamental basis of their entire system of morality (and politics) is the definition of men as an oppressor class, and hatred of that class.
While I agree that misogyny is ultimately self-destructive, would this not grant men the moral right to reply in kind, or at least excuse periodic moments of overly-broad hate in return? I'm interested to hear you argue that men have no moral right to hate a group that has largely (i.e. by an overwhelming majority), embraced and accepted the privileges and rights taken from men, all facilitated by a movement of immensely popular misandry.
Also, consider that misogyny is the hatred of all women as a class. I think what you mistake for misogyny on the part of many MRAs is in fact hatred for feminists, the women who actively or passively support or believe in the feminist cause, and women who willingly and knowingly use feminism to abuse men, escape responsibility and gain privilege. While this might be a substantial proportion of women (a majority, even), for hatred of these women to be considered "misogyny", it would be necessary to a) define women as a class, and b) hate the entire class, which is clearly not the case here. I reject misogyny and will attempt to make that clear in the diction I choose, but do men not have the moral right to return the favour after nearly five decades of uninterrupted and unrestrained hate directed at them? While I reject hate at a fundamental level (it is a form of negative nationalism or false populism when it occurs in politics), many people do not, and the hatred of the women I have described above may, to many men who have endured the ravages of feminism, seem not only morally justifiable, but also not qualify as misogyny for the reason that they do not hate all women as a class.
You could argue that the corollary to this argument is that many women who benefit from feminism, even knowingly but innocently (i.e. they take no action to achieve their benefit, it simply accrues to them as a result of societal norms in the age of post-modern feminism, a movement most cannot help but be aware of), do not hate men as a class. In that regard, you would be correct in that some "popular misandry" on behalf of women or even on the part of women may in fact be little more than anger at fathers, an individual or group of men who have wronged them, employers or whomever a particular woman is angry at. As a direct and readily attributable result of feminism, there is absolutely no political or commonly accepted moral reason that misandry is inappropriate in our societies (see my question about whether men are justified in assuming the moral right to hate above and compare the two situations). This is the very conundrum that feminism has created, and which I discussed in one of my other comments: it imposes a moral and political duty to hate men on women, and provides an absolute moral and political right for women to do so, while simultaneously restricting the moral decisions and political responses available to men and morally prohibiting them from responding by hating women. As a result of feminism, there is shame in misogyny, but not in misandry, and men are limited in their ability to respond.
Furthermore, consider that because feminism is by definition the hatred of men as a class, any participation in or benefit from that movement is, by definition, an act of misandry, even if the woman does not realize she is benefitting from feminism. How many western women alive today have not realized an advantage, privilege or "benefit" from feminism's hatred of men?
Therefore, it follows that a woman engaging in morally and politically acceptable (even desirable, in the current state of society), hatred of any man for any reason is necessarily engaged in an act of misandry, but only because feminism has eroded a woman's moral and political responsibilities not to hate men, while leaving those same responsibilities, which you yourself assert, in place for men. By politicizing the moral right to hate all men as a class and removing the culpability of women who do so, feminism has made any act of hate by a woman towards any man or group thereof an act of overt misandry. However, because no such moral or political cause exists to benefit men or relieve them of their responsibilities for making moral decisions to hate or not hate women, it is certainly not automatically an act of misogyny for a man to hate a woman, or even a large number of women. This does not preclude the possibility that a man who hates some women for a legitimate reason is also a misogynist, but it does not guarantee it as it would for a woman in the same position, as at this time, there is no equivalent to feminism acting to relieve men of their moral duty not to hate, or their political liability for doing so as there is for women.
I realize the "slippery slope" this kind of reasoning creates, and personally, I reject the notion that all women, even western women, are conscious of the meaning of feminism, much less the benefits that they have realized from it. For example, how does a female child of six realize her special "rights" and better treatment in school have resulted from the hatred of men for decades? How does a woman who loves and respects men and masculinity attract liability, simply because she obtains better care for her breast cancer than a man would for his prostate cancer in the local hospital? Therefore, I reject misogyny as an invalid response to the misandry of feminism, even though it may very well be morally justifiable as a reply in kind, in the minds of some men. Morally, I feel it is wrong, not only because my own understanding of paternalism, a large component of masculinity as I practice it, requires more of me as a man, but also because a) I love and respect many women; b) I truly believe that there are many "innocent" women; to believe that all women are "guilty" of feminism would require me to use feminism's own twisted marxist "logic" and c) as an MRA, I hold myself to a higher standard of morality and human decency than any feminist could ever realize, not for their benefit, but for my own.
Returning to the logic and the situation at hand for a moment, considering that the notion that hatred of an entire class of people is required for something to qualify as either misandry or misogyny, it would be difficult to accurately call the "hate" you observe among MRAs misogyny. Men may vent angrily about "all women", but they are doing so out of anger in most cases, in my experience. They do not hold that women as a class deserve nothing but hate, and therefore they cannot accurately be described as misogynists, even if they make comments which seem hateful or seem to encompass all women, whereas a woman doing the same can certainly be described as a misandrist for the reasons I laid out above. Are there misogynists in the men's movement? Certainly. Is it common? No. But it is inevitable, I am sad to say.
Dismissing the gender issues for a moment to examine the relationship between anger and hate, I also feel the need to point out once again that anger at injustice is not hate. They are separate emotions, although they can occur in concert. I can be angry at someone I love, but it would be unusual for me to be happy with someone I hate. Therefore, male anger at the injustices they experience is an entirely different "animal" from the misandry inherent to all feminism. I do agree that misogyny is inappropriate, because not all women are committing offences against men, or causing them to suffer injustice, but I believe that true misogyny among MRAs is in fact far less common than you suppose.
Misandry, however, is never justified when it is committed on a feminist moral or political basis, which is ultimately flawed and self-serving in its hatred of all men as a class, regardless of the non-existence of intent or guilt among those men. Feminists contend that men have all power in society as a class, and that they use this power as a class (the patriarchy) to oppress women. Therefore, feminists and women who believe in their moral analysis are not "angry" with men, they hate men, as a class, by definition, as that definition is central to the thesis of post-modern feminism. Therefore, to engage in, knowingly support or benefit from that feminism or to hate even a single man in a post-feminist society is to engage in misandry by definition.
I would therefore like to return you to my original question. If men are angry at women rather than hating them, and this does not qualify as misogyny, which requires the hatred of women as a class, even when blanket statements about women or "all women" are made, are men not entitled to make moral decisions for themselves about whether or not to hate all women as a class, and are those decisions not just as valid as feminism's hatred of all men as a class? Is this validity not increased by the feminist attempt to leave men with responsibility for such moral decisions while relieving women of that very responsibility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree that misogyny is ultimately self-destructive, would this not grant men the moral right to reply in kind, or at least excuse periodic moments of overly-broad hate in return? I'm interested to hear you argue that men have no moral right to hate a group that has largely (i.e. by an overwhelming majority), embraced and accepted the privileges and rights taken from men, all facilitated by a movement of immensely popular misandry.
I wouldn't argue that it is morally wrong to hate, because I follow the Morita Therapists (and Zen masters) on the subject of emotions: emotions (or feelings) are internal, involuntary states and beyond conscious control; they are outside of morality. Behavior is within the moral sphere. I can't tell people either to hate or not to hate or what to hate. I might as well be talking to a wall. I can say that feelings shouldn't determine behavior (they inform your experience). The question of expressing them in writing involves bbehavior: if one has feelings of hatred, then, well, one ought to consider how well they support substantive sociological hypothesis. Probably not that far. On account of my fondness for Morita's ideas, I'm disinclined to believe that expressing feelings necessarily dissipates them to some beneficial effect, or that they have to be "worked through" or "processed"--whatever that means. I don't pretend to understand what it means to work on a feeling. Expressing them tends to rekindle them, and possibly intensify them.
Furthermore, consider that because feminism is by definition the hatred of men as a class, any participation in or benefit from that movement is, by definition, an act of misandry, even if the woman does not realize she is benefitting from feminism. How many western women alive today have not realized an advantage, privilege or "benefit" from feminism's hatred of men?
Certain extremists are hostile to men, but I phrase this in terms of observable behavior (e.g., hostility ) as opposed to any internal emotions they might or might not actually feel. Not every feminist is going to agree with this definition of feminism. A feminist once told me that the basic thesis of feminism is that the oppresion of women transcends cultural, geographical and historical boundaries. That could be taken to mean: if you're a woman, you're oppressed. Some would agree with this. I think it's a faulty definition, since it seems to leave no room for progress. But perhaps this more accurately describes the behavior one observes: that no matter how great the gains are (in the direction of equality or otherwise), they aren't good enough; moreover, it seems that there is no fact of the matter that would falsify it. How could anything falsify a thesis that maintains that no matter where you are, what period of history you are in, or what culture (even one in which men are eradicated, such is the power and scope of the universal quantifier), if you are a woman, then you are oppressed? This is what I mean by in-principle unverifiable feminism.
I can't say if its adherents feel hatred per se; some people might hold this view entirely without rancor. I don't want to second guess the internal feelings of persons who hold these views--I think their feelings are their own private business, and I am more interested in theeir observable behavior and what they think, as opposed to what they happen to feel.
A substantive sociological hypothesis should be testable and refutable. One should be able to state a null hypothesis for the proposed alternative hypothesis: something assumed true until there is statistical evidence otherwise.
What is the null-hypothesis for the alternative hypothesis that feminists believe that the opression of women transcends time, space and culture? That they believe that there is or will be a time, place and a culture in which women will not be oppressed. [Of course, one needs a definition of oppression if one is to evaluate this as a factual proposition, and not a proposition about beliefs].
What is the null hypothesis for the alternative hyptothesis that feminism is a hate movement? That there are significant numbers of feminists who seek legal and political reform, and who are not motivated by hatred of men.
I could be wrong about these. My point is that I would like substantive sociological assertions to have some intellectual standing. I would like to see them stated in the form of a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis, and some statistical evidence one way or the other.
These things seem hard to pin down. Naturally, I vote in favor of my own alternative hypothesis. I think the ideological alternative hypothesis has some merit, but it's probably pretty crude and limited. Prima facie, it predicts behaviors consistent with the view that no matter what gains women achieve, they will still believe they are oppressed. It's also a weaker alternative hypothesis than the alternative hypothesis that holds that feminism is a hate movement. Depending on how you define hate movement (following Marcus Aurelius, it better be defined), that could mean that feminism involves acts of overt terrorism among its adherents. But the evidence would tend to support the null hypothesis, on that interpretation.
The in-principle ideological alternative hypothesis would predict that a significant proportion of persons would believe that women are an underclass (or will always constitute an underclass). Arguably, it is consistent with observed effects, such as apathy towards men's health vis a vis women's health.
Anyway, I only wish to point out that these ideas have to be understood in terms that sociologists tend to understand them (my work frequently brings me in contact with statistical sociologists).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 09:20 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
We disagree somewhat on the need to externalize and rationalize feelings. As to the questions of hate, you're contradicting yourself. You claim that writing is a behaviour, and that only behaviour can constitute hate, ergo men writing in a way which may appear misogynistic is hate. Consider then, that this demonstrates that women are engaged in hate at all times when practicing feminism, a behaviour. You go on to say that feminists (as your alternative hypothesis) cannot be satisfied. Ergo, you are asserting de facto that their actions are alwayshateful.
I understand statistical analysis perfectly well. I would like to see the factors and levels involved in testing the null hypothesis that feminism is hate as it is a constant state of "oppression" regardless of objective evidence to the contrary (together with feminism's own self-proclaimed class hatred of men), and the alternative hypothesis that feminism may be hate, but is not necessarily so depending on individual actions (predicated on individual feelings). I'll happily work up the ANOVA and hypothesis test for you. I hope that phrasing makes my point clearer in the terms you've requested.
I simply make the point that as a moral concept, feminism is pure and constant hate (which is ultimately driven by a feeling of inferiority, i.e. fear), and that by politicizing it while denying men the same effective responses for themselves as "morally wrong" or "oppressive", feminists are by their own definitions of misogyny and patriarchy (both of which are held to be "hateful"), engaged actively in hate at all times, regardless of individual actions, because of membership in a class or a social structure. I suppose this is my null hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:53 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but Ghandi wasn't truly successful. He did bring world attention to the brutish ways of the British empire, but he didn't stop the control. India is still being greened, and at a very fast pace as well. Storming the castle doesn't always lead to death, nor is storming the castle necessarily a violent act, just an expression that we should take control of our government so that it serves the People that it was supposed to. Being a wage slave, being discounted as a Human Being, being denied the opportunity to live ones life with dignity has to stop if we as Human Beings can see a brighter future for our progeny. Resistance comes in many forms, but resistance is neccessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. You claim that writing is a behaviour,
Yes
and that only behaviour can constitute hate,
No, I don't see where I said that. If I did, it was wrong. Hate is an internal emotion, outside the moral sphere...as an emotion. If it is manifested in behavior somehow, then it's hateful behavior.
ergo men writing in a way which may appear misogynistic is hate.
The expression thereof is a behavior--I don't like to confuse the internal emotion with the behavior. They are different things, as far as I can tell.
Consider then, that this demonstrates that women are engaged in hate at all times when practicing feminism, a behaviour. You go on to say that feminists (as your alternative hypothesis) cannot be satisfied. Ergo, you are asserting de facto that their actions are alwayshateful.
There is a little leap of logic. What is the connection with a believe that no matter what happens, women are oppressed (that no fact of the matter would prove otherwise) and hateful behaviors? The ergo is what Bernard Gert would call the fallacy of assumed equivalence. What do you mean by hate?
It's another matter to establish a correlation between the belief that no matter what happens, women are oppressed, and hateful behaviors. I don't want to beg the question that such a belief is founded in hate, if it has an emotional component. It could be associated with exposure to a certain culture...but first I would have to know why a belief that women are oppressed no matter what state of affairs actually obtains is hateful per se. There could be other alternatives. It remains to be seen what aditional predictive power the adjective yields.
I think its unnecesary to delve into the psychology, really. It's probably unnecessary to say that it's hateful. It's probably enough to say, if one is going to make the claim, that there are in principle ideological beliefs such that no fact of the matter would count against them. That tends to force the issue of the moral undecidability of behaviors whose morally relevant features are described in ideological terms--provided enough people think this way. That could be sufficiently destructive in some ways, without imputing a particular feeing to the persons who hold those views.
I simply make the point that as a moral concept, feminism is pure and constant hate (which is ultimately driven by a feeling of inferiority, i.e. fear), and that by politicizing it while denying men the same effective responses for themselves as "morally wrong" or "oppressive", feminists are by their own definitions of misogyny and patriarchy (both of which are held to be "hateful"), engaged actively in hate at all times, regardless of individual actions, because of membership in a class or a social structure. I suppose this is my null hypothesis.
I that would be your alternative hypothesis. Your null hypothesis is that persons who are feminists believe they are "in a constant state of state of oppression" no matter what happens. Then you need statistical indications that this is accompanied by feelings of hatred, or class hatred. I'm not even sure how to make this precise.
You need to separate the emotional motivational component from the intellectual ideological component, and then establish some statistical correlation. The ANOVA test would be useful. You could say, "hatred" accounts for "60% of the variance." Establishing that people held an in-principle unverifiable belief is hard enough; I don't see why that has to be identified with hatred. It could be a genuine feeling of being oppressed. It could be that class hatred motivated some recent legislation. I think though that the factors can and should be separated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:58 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I would have to know why a belief that women are oppressed no matter what state of affairs actually obtains is hateful per se
It is hateful because feminists assert that women are "oppressed no matter what state of affairs actually obtains" because of "the patriarchy", which consists of men, who are masculine, and to be masculine is to be "violent" towards women, to oppress them. In short, because they feel constantly oppressed, and they blame men for their oppression, the feeling of oppression becomes the hatred of men as feminists blame men's essential nature for that oppression. That is the reasoning.
However, Little Lion, I understand that not all women feel this way, even the ones who earnestly believe (and happily ignore reality to accept) that women "are treated unfairly" or are "oppressed", and that there are a continuum of causes for the injustice men suffer today. However, to counter the political strength of feminism, I feel it is necessary to invalidate it on a moral basis. It cannot be invalidated or "proven" wrong on a political basis, because the basis of the feminist political construct is a set of feminist moral assertions about men and masculinity. We must "storm the gates" by convincing the public at large that the femininsts have no right to be in the castle, and that their castle was built with bricks of hatred and fear!
This, of course, is a critical component of my reason for rejecting hate: hate cannot fight or neutralize hate. Only love can do that. And since we aren't about to fall in love with feminists (ever seen a picture of Andrea Dworkin? I know, I know, how childish and ad hominem of me...), we must convince the public, the population of "normal" women to fall back "in love" with masculinity, and to reject feminism's open hatred of men. This will remove the "moral" validation that laws like VAWA need to survive in legislatures, and will neutralize the need for male politicians to be "chivalrous" in order to attract votes.
How's that for storming the castle and taking action, Davidadelong ? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the outcome of the political and legal process which they dictate, operating on a social or moral issue they choose and define, is ultimately unenforceable due to mass civil "disobedience" by men acting individually and within the framework provided for redress in the legal and political systems, they will be forced to either abandon their demands or return issues to the social and moral arena, where most of the issues feminist ideology has wrongly forced into the political and legal systems actually belong.
There are several things to say about this.
First, the morally undecidable issue of abortion must be referred to the legal and political system for resolution. This is not an issue which must be referred due to ideological disagreement.
Other issues, however, are politicized on account of ideological accounts of masculine nature; e.g., the ideological thesis that men are inherently violent, and must be regulated by the legal and political system. The family court is rife with ideological bias.
Rather than return politicized men's issues to the moral sphere, I think that the men's movement has little choice (aside from acquiesence or abandoning civilization and starting over) other than to seek legal and political reform. This is the ultimate intention of civil disobedience. Recovering politicized issues into the moral sphere (a possibility I hadn't envisioned) would be a relatively short-lived occurrence during periods of civil disobedience; either this succeeds, in which case MRAs have their day in court, or else it fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:10 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
There are several things to say about this.
First, the morally undecidable issue of abortion must be referred to the legal and political system for resolution. This is not an issue which must be referred due to ideological disagreement.
I agree fully, I was not saying that abortion needed to become a "moral" issue, I was claiming that masculinity did.
Rather than return politicized men's issues to the moral sphere, I think that the men's movement has little choice (aside from acquiesence or abandoning civilization and starting over) other than to seek legal and political reform. This is the ultimate intention of civil disobedience. Recovering politicized issues into the moral sphere (a possibility I hadn't envisioned) would be a relatively short-lived occurrence during periods of civil disobedience; either this succeeds, in which case MRAs have their day in court, or else it fails.
I disagree, as I just told zenpriest: men have a duty (to other men and themselves first and foremost), to seek legal and political reform through civil disobedience and political activism as a result of flawed and morally contaminated laws regulating their behaviour, but I firmly believe that women have proven too greedy and irresponsible to be trusted with the ideological aspects of masculinity, and have defaulted on their right to politicize or criminalize it. Therefore, men have gained the exclusive right to return or repatriate masculinity to the moral arena, and to define it as they alone see fit, both during and after a period of progressive political activism regarding men's issues and the flawed laws regulating masculinity.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "