Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Washington Times: Men’s ‘apology’ video to women touching, ‘creepy’
Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2011-06-23 21:34
Article here. [The video this article refers to is here.] Excerpt:
'An eight-minute video on YouTube in which “conscious men” apologize to the women of the world is drawing tears and praise — as well as verbal brickbats — from around the world.
“The response has been extraordinary,” said Arjuna Ardagh, one of the two men behind the “Dear Woman” video, which had more than 280,000 views a few days after it was posted.
Women have been mostly positive, he said, but there has been “aggressive hatred” from many men.
...
But many men were shocked out of their La-Z-Boys.*
“While these hamsters are apologizing for all the bad things men have done, please permit me to take credit for all the good things,” tallentjack told YouTube, listing the Internet, steam engine, printing, penicillin, automobile, periodic table, calculus, fantasy football, astronomy, soft-serve ice cream, television and radio as men’s gifts to women and the world.
...
Some women weren’t receptive either.
“This is so creepy! If my husband acted like this, it would make me sick,” doggletts wrote on YouTube. “This is just sanctimonious pap. The women I know don’t have any wish or need for such patronizing ‘apology,’” wrote chipmunkstew, who described herself as a “pretty hardcore feminist.”'
* An article on this topic just can't seem to avoid taking a swipe at men all at the same time portraying an alternate view, can it?
- Log in to post comments
Comments
The contents of the statement vs. the theme
There are a few observations made in this video that have some value in terms of exposing destructive traits in history, such as warfare and religious systems that insist people (and I stress here, of both sexes) conform to a certain set of standards that are restrictive of the human spirit either in self-expression or the exercise of free will within reasonable bounds. Certainly the situation in the US and in other countries when women lacked fundamental political rights such as the right to own property, etc., required correction. But what the authors of such a video fail to mention is that before the time when these ideas fell out of vogue, many women supported their own exclusion from the set of people who had these rights; it is easy to forget that the suffragettes for example were a minor political faction who got a lot of press simply because they were women on the political scene, a rare thing indeed. And who voted to grant the many rights that women got after the suffragettes lobbied for them? Male politicians, that is who.
Despite bringing up some important topics, these apologists have made the mistake of associating maleness with repression of femaleness. They also try to play the psychologist by attributing their listed 'categorically-masculine' actions as subconsciously motivated, which if what they are saying about men is true, would be an attempt to escape responsibility for what could only be called patently evil behavior. If their anti-male sexist generalizations were not so off the mark, they would be right. But they aren't.
Finally, I wonder when we are going to see a similar video made by women who apologize for the many ways in which women have over the countless millenia used or tried to use their sexuality as a means of exploiting men for many different kinds of personal gain, or have used their position as child-bearers to leverage society's nymphotropism to their own ends. Wonder when we'll see that video...
Certainly the situation in
Certainly the situation in the US and in other countries when women lacked fundamental political rights such as the right to own property, etc., required correction.
When was this?
The women who voted in the first US presidential election did so BECAUSE they owned property.
That video is complete and
That video is complete and utter bullshit.
The response to that video is hilarious.
My mistake
I meant to say they lacked the right to inherit property, unless they were the only possible person to whom it could go, except or unless the woman was a former spouse of a demised man. So for example, if a man died unmarried and intestate but had two sons and two daughters, the property went equally between the two sons. If however he had willed some part of his property to a daughter, then she could inherit it. But unlike her brothers she had no inherent claim to any part of her dead father's property. Some more on the topic is here.
This is a good source on the suffragette movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States
It states that in the US, women got the right to vote in 1920 as a guaranteed right on the federal level and also thus as a fundamental right for all adults regardless of the level of elected office. However it seems that different states granted women the right to vote for electors for the presidential election at different times before then. Most if not all of these seem to have been done in the early 20th century. [To this day we don't vote directly for our president.] As for the women who voted being able to do so only if they owned property, I am not sure I follow you there. I am aware of the 24th amendment abolishing the req't to pay any kind of poll tax or be paid up on taxes in order to vote, but that was passed in 1964.