|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 11:03 AM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I think what Wendy is getting at here is that the strategy MRAs may be taking might not actually solve the underlying problem that we are facing: that gov't has gotten into people's lives to a much greater degree than may be healthy or consitent for a "free people". People of bopth sexes though it seems want the benefits of having a Big Brother (or Sister as the case may be these days) to help them when they want to but want them to stay out of their lives otherwise. I.e., they are looking at gov't like a kid looks at Santa Claus: just gimme what I want but otherwise, leave me alone. When it comes to the gov't (like a lot of other things), you can't have it both ways. Once you accept their patronage, you must also accept their influence as well, like it or not.
I guess the thing I have to ask though is, does she think women will ever be un-victim-class-ized any time soon? If not, then to have women in that category but not men insures that the same stream of laws and prejudices that have men declining rapidly in their well-being as people in society at large will continue unabated. However if the law can be made to recognize the ways men get shafted, there is a chance that at least the tide will slow and in some ways and maybe even, dare I dream it, reverse?
I am fine with her premise that men-as-victims is not generally a desirable mind-set to have. However, until or unless "women-as-victims" is eliminated, what's fair is fair is fair. Alas, the sexes are competing interest classes (currently) whether they like it or not, and to live in denial about it isn't going to help us men. But overall, I see Wendy as a contributor to the cause of men's rights, and while I don't always agree with her on specific issues, I think her heart is in the right place. Besides, I am quite sure no one agrees with me on everything either!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Return of the King on 11:09 AM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The MRA's have decided somewhere along the way that the "if you can't beat them, join 'em" was the right approach to take in fighting VAWA.
VAWA is perhaps one of the most destructive and dangerous Acts ever passed in the U.S. Yet it goes unchallenged on every level within the government, and gets no critisism in main stream media.
Liberals point to the Patriot act as violating civil liberties. VAWA takes this to a whole new level by creating a cottage industry of sexist man haters. Massive abuse of the Constitution that most poeple ignore is the forced, systematic destruction of families and of parents’ rights in the nation’s family courts. This involves much more than "gender bias" against fathers in custody disputes. It represents the logical culmination of the totalitarian tendencies of organized feminism.
Feminists now pose as defenders of motherhood, and their weapons are children. But the aim is not to strengthen motherhood and the family but to turn them over to the care of government.
The feminists want to thoroughly politicize the last bastion of personal life in our society: families." "They want to wrest motherhood from its traditional right-wing associations and make it a left/liberal issue, with 'Mothers Are Victims' writ-large on its banner. These feminists argue for government to economically recognize' motherhood so that women will not be dependent upon husbands. Government replaces the father and the husband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:30 AM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This still sounds like another woman trying to tell me what I am or am not responsible for, what I can or can't do and say, which as a liberated man, I flatly reject.
From the article:
For example, I never seem to hear a call to repeal laws from the men's movement. Even when the Violence Against Women Act was being hotly contested, I had little company in calling for its defeat. Most men's rights advocates called instead for the inclusion of the word "male" into that terrible and fundamentally unjust piece of legislation.
First off, men and children are being beaten, abused and killed by women. I believe in laws and program that provide shelter and treatment for the humans involved, provided they address all supposedly equal human beings, not just women.
As for saying she never hears us call for the repeal of feminst laws, then she's not listening. I've called for the repeal of "shout at your spouse, lose your house" laws, laws which enforce paternity fraud by denying men the right to disprove accusations of paternity at any time, laws which allow female rapists to claim child support from their victims, laws denying reproductive choice to men, laws requiring the mandatory arrest of (almost always) men in cases of domestic violence, "rape sheild" laws that prevent a man from cross-examining his accuser and many others, and I know I'm not alone.
Men's rights activists are wise enough in the ways of Big Sister (as I've come to affectionately call Western governments) to know that we'll never get any law repealed that "benefits women" or "benefits children". It's called experience, and we've got plenty of it. The shrieking and howling from the feminists and women in general is deafening even when we ask for simple inclusiveness in those laws for men and boys, much less when we demand their repeal, which is immediately cast as "attacking women and children". Those demands are lost in a seizure of chivalry and rabid misandry, so we've learned to approach these sexist, androphobic laws with inclusiveness, change and equality in mind. This is not victim thinking, it's practical egalitarian thinking and action, based on experience.
So, with all due respect to one of our rare female supporters, Wendy is way off base here, or hopelessly out of touch with the realities of feminist-controlled governments.
In addition, as much as her support is appreciated in the cause of men's rights and men's liberation, no woman alive today has any authority to tell me how I'm going to stop the feminist juggernaut in our society or counter its grotesque effects on men.
I happen to agree with an individualistic approach to men's liberation and social change, but if the "class" approach that allowed feminists to rob us of our rights and our dignity is the only way to stop and reverse the trend, then it is perfectly acceptable for men to use it as one of the many tools at our disposal to stop and reverse feminism's rampage.
As much as I respect what Wendy has said and done, I resent any woman telling me what I can or can't do, which approach to activism I can take, what I'm responsible for or how I should achieve my goals, particularly when it's a tactic women and feminists have used for years to harm men. That's just plain hypocrisy.
That being said, just so Wendy and others are aware:
I'm no victim.
I'm a proud and extremely angry man who's looking for justice by any means available. The words and actions of women supporting our cause are always appreciated, but no woman is going to tell me how to be a man, or what responsibilities being a man "requires" ever again. I've had 40 years of it, and I'm done listening to women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:36 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
She never seems to hear calls for repealing laws from the men's movement? Is she deaf? A considerable conservative proportion of the men's movement wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. I don't want to see it repealed, but if pro-choice advocates won't support the anti-MGM bill, then I would support efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade. T
here are several reasons: one, if men cannot enjoy the tiniest fraction of reproductive rights that women enjoy, namely, the right to uninterrupted sexual development, which is part and parcel of the right to one's own body, then I see no reason why the right to one's own body should apply at all.
Two, abortion is morally undecidable and must be referred to the legal and political system for resolution--that is, abortion is an intrinsically political issue. It's not moral to be for or against it per se. Allowing abortion promotes the moral ideal of increasing freedom, but there is no moral reuirement to follow moral ideals, and there is no agreement whether morality protects fetusus. So it is not morally wrong to oppose abortion (on the basis of the relatively weak informal public system of common morality that people use--see Bernard Gert, Common Morality: deciding what to do) to oppose abortion.
Have men's rights activists unnecessarily politicized the issue of violence against men, thereby creating a gratuitous victim class? No. The issue was already politicized, thanks to the feminist ideology of VAWA, which operationally villified men as the exclusive perpetrators of domestic violence, and women as the exclusive victims. There already was a perpetrator class. Attempting to reverse this within VAWA itself doesn't create a victim class. There would have had to be a Violence Against Men Act, along with a few mostly marginalized feminist groups lobbying legislators in the hope of getting a few gender neutral words into the Violence Against Men Act for there to be a male victim class. McElroy's analysis is unsophisticated and flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:01 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Many of you are probably familiar with the comic opera that was Wendy McElroy's iFeminist public forum.
When posters started to disagree with Wendy's views, she (and her companion in censorship Brad) created a completely subjective "rule" for banning posters. Basically, if a person posted anything ideologically objectionable, they disappeared.
Not long after imposing this gag rule, the entire forum was divided into public and private domains. Admission to the private "inner sanctum" was soley Wendy's decision.
Wendy's Stalinist tendencies were clearly revealed during this forum circus, but I feel they've been evident all along in her iFeminist modus operandi:
It has always been about DEFINING FOR MEN what their positions, views, strategies, and tactics should be.
Like other posters here at MANN, I'm a tad sensitive about women instructing me as to how I should think, feel, and act.
I'm still waiting for a Wendy McElroy essay in which she suggests that women need to listen to men more closely, or that women have no justification for trying to co-opt the Men's Movement through trojan horse fronts like iFeminists.
If in some utopian nightmare a federal Office for Violence Against Men is created as a counterpart for the existing one in the D.O.J. for women, I have no doubt that Ms. McElroy would see herself as a prime candidate to direct that office on men's behalf.
And "i"-Feminist has clearly declared by taking on that label both their politics as well as their self-absorbed Narcissism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:50 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself Roy - we must think alike since I did say something vaguely similar a moment ago in reply to Yanyan. Wendy's just another female supremacist looking to dictate the terms of our surrender. No thanks.
Great observation about the "i" in "ifeminists". Really, who cares how a feminist labels herself (or himself). They're still the same narcissistic, androphobic female supremacists behind that label, no matter how fashionable it might be. They're just looking to tell us how to act, talk, think, look and feel to suit their own interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 10:29 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"If in some utopian nightmare a federal Office for Violence Against Men is created as a counterpart for the existing one in the D.O.J. for women, I have no doubt that Ms. McElroy would see herself as a prime candidate to direct that office on men's behalf."
Inasmuch as she's a Libertarian, I suspect that not only would she not direct such an office, but that she would whole heartedly oppose its existence as she opposes the VAWA bureaucracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:28 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe Wendy is a real Libertarian, although she hides in that guise.
A true Libertarian has both ideals and tactics.
Wendy has demonstrated over and over, with regard to men's justice, that she only has naive daydreams about "overturning bad laws."
While she is safely inhabiting her canadian farm, all those feminist laws continue to assault real men in real ways in real courts and real families and real marriages are being destroyed.
I appreciate Wendy's Libertarian OZ.
Well, actually... no.
I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 12:44 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy makes a few valid points, but to a large extent this is just more shame and blame.
The fact is: There are victim-groups. Jews, as a group, were victims of the Nazis. American blacks, as a group, were victims of US society. There are numerous other examples. Many fathers have found themselves victims of anti-male prejudice in matters of so-called family law. There should be no shame in calling onself a victim, when one is indeed victimized.
Are men victims of popular culture? I think that "victim" is too strong a word in this case, though men are vilified by popular culture.
Men as a group, however, are most decidedly victims of the government. It's interesting that this essay by Wendy comes out in tandem with the second book by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young in their series on Misandry, "Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men." A few of the points made by Nathanson and Young, judging by their table of contents, include the codification of vague and abusive sexual harassment ideology, the wide scale ignoring within the legal system of violence by women against men, case law discrimination against men in matters of divorce and child custody, the degradation of males in the government funded educational system, and the practice of punishing men far more severely than women for a given crime.
That, of course, is to name just a few examples.
I agree that government intrusion into private matters is a serious and rapidly growing problem. But to claim or even insinuate that males as a group are not victims is at best grotesquely misleading.
Men are victims of the government.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yanyan on 12:54 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to Matt for pointing out this post.
I've also admired Wendy McElroy's posts for a long time and this confessional post gives us some insight into where Wendy is coming from.
I humbly propose that she's saying that women want strong (emotionally,intellectually) men but if they misread the signs they end up with violent men. She blames herself for making a bad choice but she also blames 'society' for not producing the right kind of men, i.e. the ones she can admire.
It's only my pet theory. Anybody else have a view?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:41 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Why should "society" be producing only the "kind of men women want"? Or even worse, the kind of men feminists like dear Wendy want! Why should men be subject to socialization designed to custom-fit them to women's needs? If anyone were to suggest that society should be producing women that suit men's needs more closely, he'd be tarred and feathered!
As a man, I have to say, Yanyan, that I don't give a shit what women want from men. Men should worry about what they want from themselves, and what they they can do for themselves and eventually, what they can do for society. Leave the greed and self-obsession to the women.
Wendy is just another misguided feminist trying to tell me how to be, trying to maintain the feminst status quo, i.e. control over government, education and socialization of men to suit women's interests. I don't care what variety of feminist a feminist claims to be. They're all self-obsessed female supremacists who see men as disposable objects that should suit their image of the world and their own needs. Roy has posted some excellent material lately on narcissism - it's worth a read. Then go read something by Chuck Palahniuk and rent Fight Club. To quote a line about the fact that we're raised by women, socialized by women and educated by women, "maybe another woman isn't what we need".
These female supremacists and their objectification of men is exactly the sort of bullshit I mean when I talk about "liberating" men, and I have yet to meet or hear any woman talk about the men's rights or men's liberation movements in any terms except about how they affect women, benefit women or harm women.
Women have nothing to do with this. Men's rights and the liberation of men have absolutely nothing to do with women. It's long past the time where men should have stopped listening to what women claim to want, and should have started worrying about what men want from themselves, about fulfulling their own destiny, becoming the kind of men they want to be.
All that being said, I appreciate the fact that at least Wendy advocates that women should have some nominal level of responsibility for themselves, but as usual, it's all in terms of what women need/want/think/feel, and has nothing to do with men. She's still a feminist, and feminists are narcissists who wish to run the world according to their own needs. The only way they can neutralize MRAs is to pretend to be involved so they can dictate the terms to us. Not on my watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:53 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, Yanyan, I was being rhetorical in my comment - I realize that you weren't saying that you agree that society should produce the "right kind of men". That may not have come across in my comment, since I was typing while angry...anyhow, didn't want you to take offense!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:41 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
You know RandomMan, I'm starting to believe in your conspiracy theories....
The one that I'm most concerned about is that you and I were siamese twins who were separated at birth because our mother could not deal with two MRA's in her future.
So, which one of us got adopted by the Narcissistic Bitch we know as "Mom?"
And which one got raised by the auntie Narcissistic Bitch we know as "Mom?"
I personally believe it was ... ummmm ???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 10:53 AM February 24th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
We'll have to get together and compare scars to see who's the sinister left twin...
My conspiracy theories are simple (pick and choose as you please):
- Feminism is now simple greed as women achieved full legal equality in the 60's: it makes biological and evolutionary sense that women are hardwired to make endless material demands
- The current incarnation of feminism is nothing more than women insisting that every one of their responsibilities is a choice, while they insist that men have no choices of their own: the birth control pill kick-started that trend in feminism by giving women a "choice" over reproductive responsibilities
- Feminism is also narcissism, which is just a shorthand for "insatiable greed, privilege, self-obsession and the misandric objectification of men as hate objects"
- Feminism is the last vestige of Marxism in the West: women have claimed status as a "victim class" and labeled (libeled?) men as an "opppressor class" to suit their goals
- Most average women don't care if feminism is damaging men while gaining them privilege, and the few that do care are outnumbered substantially by the ones that are actively androphobic: you can't sell what people don't want
- Men are expected to "shut up and take it" and we're socialized that way by women, who exploit our own biological hardwiring to their advantage: this is why it is so critical that feminists maintain control of our primary education/socializtion and dominate academia
- Feminism makes most of its political gains by exploiting the innate paternal instincts of men and the "chivalry" that women socialize into us from an early age
- Women who claim to support men's rights and men's liberation are, in some cases, actually trying to retain control of the situation by telling men what to think and what to do
- Society as a whole values men far less than it values women, as evidenced by criminal sanctions, popular misandry, workplace deaths, the "glass cellar" and the life expectancy gap
So, Roy, I'm glad to see you might agree with me on some parts of this...it means I might be angry, but at least I'm not imaginging things (yet)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:42 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan you have entirely missed the fundamental requirement of conspiracy theories --by stating only documented FACTS above.
A credible conspiracy theory has to have an element of outrageous speculation, supported by facts, but lacking 100% proof.
For example, one might suggest that average women understand fully and well the value of feminism, if only so they can enjoy all of its legally imposed gender privileges while still being able to tearfully proclaim to their next male prey -- "But I'm NOT like THEM, honey!"
The essence of my conspiracy theory is the need to prove that average women are quite consciously in alliance with the feminazis, all the while claiming their exceptionality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:48 AM February 25th, 2006 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on a second, let me give this another try.
If you read most "activist" literature these days, it's all about how "white men are evil", and it's extended to cover ALL white men, even if they've never said, thought or done anything inherently evil in their entire lives. While it is true enough that there has been a great deal of evil done by "whites" and a great deal of that evil has been done by "men", there has also been a great deal of evil done by other races and the other gender, and a majority of "white men" have never said or done anything inherently evil in their entire lives. But, according to the activists' code of ethics, being innocent or unaware of the evil done in your name or the evil done by people who happen to look like you in the distant past is no excuse.
Therefore, let's (erroneously) use the common (non-MRA) activist's indiscriminant approach for a moment and apply it to females for a change:
---- WARNING - CONSPIRACY THEORY ----
While many women aren't "consciously" or "actively" supporting feminism, they certainly are unconsciously supporting it, either through cognitive dissonance (i.e. subconsciously thinking along the lines of "it harms men and society, but I'll ignore it because it gives me power and privilege"), or through their use of these unearned privileges without a care as to who they were stolen from.
While this does have an element of speculation to it, the fact remains that you cannot sell people what they don't want, and the majority of women don't say a damned thing about the damage being done by feminism or its naked greed as they take that job offer based on discrimination (when they've never suffered it for a moment of their own, privileged lives), or accept that government perk, or watch the wholesale vilification of men in the media.
Ergo, using the logic of leftist activists everywhere as it is constantly used to assassinate the character of men as a whole as a bunch of evil, objectifying oppressors, we can draw out this conspiracy theory (oh, how I do love hanging people with their own rope): through their silence and inaction, or their mass consumption of unearned privilege, the so-called "silent majority" of women are actually actively supporting feminism as they continue to receive, acknowledge, demand and use an endless supply of unearned privileges from it, and do not question the misandric, androphobic basis of the feminist ideologues in positions of power. They therefore share fully in the guilt for the harm it has done to men and society.
---- END - CONSPIRACY THEORY ----
That sound conspiratorial enough for you, Roy? ;)
The only problem I have with that theory is that I'm an MRA, so I don't subscribe to the "everyone but me is guilty" approach of feminists and leftist-activists everywhere. Unlike feminists and most leftist-activist types, I share in my society's collective guilt for our past and present misconduct, and I don't honestly believe that if every woman were informed of the true nature of feminism that they would all actively support it going forward. A small fraction of those open-minded women might even reject feminism's "perks" and support our cause for justice.
But then again, I'm a man, and I actually believe in accepting responsibility for myself and my society, so I can't be entirely sure that women as a group would think the same way, although I speculate that they would, if properly informed - hence the need for a misandric media to carry feminist thought to the masses (OK, I admit it, that's one conspiracy theory I certainly do subscribe to - hang on a second, that's a proven fact!). That's what I believe differentiates MRAs from other activists - we carry the sense of personal responsibility for our thoughts and deeds (thanks largely to having it burnt into us by our female-dominated socialization - oops, another one I believe in...no, wait, that's been proven too!), whereas other activists happily reject those notions and point fingers only at others, never at themselves.
So, I guess I'm not terribly big on conspiracy theories, either Roy. Was there one in particular that I've stated in the past that you were thinking of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:19 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan continues to debunk his own conspiracy theories while he educates and it's all done with finesse, excellent writing, and even ironic humor!
You can't ask for more than that unless MANN decides to pull a "Wendy" and go inner sanctum.
Of course, I have to interrogate assumptions... that's my job ---
RM wrote: "the fact remains that you cannot sell people what they don't want...."
Oh really? Here I must disagree...
People buy what they don’t want every day, thousands of times every year.
* The Iraq war -- bought and paid by increasingly unsupportive U.S. taxpayers.
* VAWA 2005 -- bought and paid by ....
* Globalization: the decline of the American Middle Class --- bought and paid by ...
Feminism is maybe the best example of this mass social psychosis. Most women (and many men) accept – have "bought into" – the main premises of feminism. After all, what right-minded person could argue against "equality?"
Yet, very few people who have taken the time to investigate the consequences of pervasive feminism would "buy" into these outcomes:
- destruction of marriage and family
- the DV Industry
- criminalization of heterosexuality
- women being drafted into the military and being assigned combat roles
- minor-aged girls having multiple abortions without parental notification
- corruption of once-great universities through imposition of diversity codes
- restriction of free speech and expression under "hate crime" legislation
- drugging of adolescent boys in feminized schools that see boys as ADHD "unruly"
- degrading motherhood as a form of slavery for unliberated women
- etc. etc. ( please add your own items to the list)
America has not only "bought" feminism, it is remaking itself in feminism’s image.
Do most Americans "want" what they’ve bought?
Clearly they have been sold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 04:36 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
* The Iraq war -- bought and paid by increasingly unsupportive U.S. taxpayers.
* VAWA 2005 -- bought and paid by ....
* Globalization: the decline of the American Middle Class --- bought and paid by ...
These are government initiatives (and wrong on all three counts, I might add), carried out by a popularly elected government, even if the election was close. They only need to "sell" the ideas to Congress and the Senate, which the President's political party controls. Hardly an uphill battle. Again, I maintain that you can't sell what people don't want - the people elected the President and those representatives who made those laws and executed those policies. Caveat emptor.
There's a big difference between those and a popular ideological campaign, where the average citizen can "just say no", and isn't forced to "buy" by proxy.
I would argue that clearly most Americans have been sold feminism, and that they do want what they think they're buying into. Maybe not what they're actually buying, but most haven't looked under the hood long enough to see the mess. Again, caveat emptor applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:05 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of the old joke ---
"Want to buy a cat in a bag?"
Sorry, I forgot the punchline....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post RandomMan. Very good point that women's "choices" (divorce, abortion, reproductive rights, etc) are often related to their responsibilities. I had never thought of it quite that way and it is very revealing when framed in that manner.
SYG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yanyan on 01:47 AM February 24th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
No offence taken. I agree with your points, whether written in anger or not!!
I was just musing that some insight into Wendy's motivation might give us ammunition for the nexr wave of 'revisionist feminists'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 02:09 AM February 24th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that several years ago, the iFeminists sites was listed among the Mensactivism.org partners (or supporters). Now, the iFeminist logo and the link is gone! What happened?
Perhaps Wendy put the "imaginary" in "iFeminist..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 01:45 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't the hard-won inclusion of a few lines of gender inclusive language in the overwhelmingly anti-male VAWA be taken as pragmatic political compromise? If the government is supporting women's shelters, and they are excluding men who could use help, does including them consitute the creation of an entire victim class? Of course not; tro assert this can fairly be called fatuous.
It may be that the effect of inserting the gender-neutral language is a step toward the repeal of VAWA in the long run, and that this was correctly sensed by VAWA advocates. After all, we saw in Sweden that the establishment of gay marriage was a step toward the elimination of marriage altogether (see yeterday's interesting National Review article on the rise and collapse of the Feminist Initiative party in Sweden).
In any case, adding a few lines of gender neutral language didn't satisfy most MRAs. It could be seen as a political compromise, given that VAWA isn't going away soon. I wouldn't take the bullying and shaming of Wendy McElroy seriously. It's childish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 03:23 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to think she's right: that we should (and don't want to, anyway) create yet another victim class. But we don't have a lot of good choices.
On VAWA, we can scream for repeal and altruistically, that would be the right answer. But the more achievable position is that VAWA is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment, and that men are equally entitled to help. I think we have a much stronger case in the short run to make that claim because it can be shown in court to violate the Constitution. Maybe, just maybe, once the money in VAWA is being doled-out equally, then maybe the politicians will see the light and recognize that this is not a federal problem, that there is no unique victim class that's being helped above the line, and they'll come to their senses and repeal it. Not likely, though.
Let me point out one other thing that Wendy probably misses: it's not so much about funding shelters for men and creating another victim class. It's about rolling-back the discriminatory counseling models and law enforcement practices that were borne of women's advocates trying hard to prove their value through performance. If VAWA demands that male DV victims be treated equally with female ones, then the one-sided counseling and arrest guidelines are not longer practical, and will likely change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roger on 08:16 AM February 24th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Both Wendy and Frank are right: we need to avoid painting ourselves as another victim group, and, we don't have a lot of good choices.
From the earliest history of our species, women have had greater license to complain, even in cases where, objectively viewed, cause for complaint is minimal. When you put that in the context of mating and reporductive strategies, it makes evolutionary sense that that should be the case. Complaining, coupled with techniques for shaming, are ways of garnering male support and protection, and we men regularly fall for that. Who knows, maybe there's even some "hardwiring" supporting such behavioral patterns. At any rate, a complaining woman will always be taken more seriously than a complaining man--by other men as well as by society at large. Through much of the history of our species, those patterns more or less worked to keep men and women in each other's orbits. Now, however, they are working against men.
This creates a PR nightmare for the men's movement. Even in cases (like the family court system) where men most decidedly ARE victims, we have to be very careful about presenting ourselves as a victim group. We are much more liable to the charge of "whining" than women are. They are the teflon sex, and that's just a fact we have to live with. Perhaps we can avoid being dismissed as whiners by sticking to cool, razor-sharp style of argumentation, avoiding emotionally overwrought rhetoric. Sometimes, too, turning the charge of whining around at unfounded female complaining might work. But in any case, we have to be even more careful than women about how we present ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 12:41 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares about the charge of whining? This is a profoundly ignorant concern. It's childish to consider, when there are rights to be won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roger on 08:23 AM February 25th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
We would be foolish to ignore the PR aspects of the gender war. It is through manipultaion of the media (i.e. public image) that the feminists have gained so much control. It is not "profoundly ignorant," nor is it "childish." Slinging such petulant invectives at each other hardly helps our cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 09:01 AM February 25th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
What we should be taking like men is the stigma of "whining" directed at men who point out iinequity towards men. You would do well to let the evolutionary biologists handle evolutionary bbiology, rather than inncorporating it into some fanciful theory of the relation of "whining" to public relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:38 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
When I hear an MRA proclaiming that men just have to adapt and accept that "that's just the way things are" regarding female entitlements and social excuses for bad female behaviors...
I start to appreciate feminism and its theories about "social construction of gender."
Women were not always like this.
Anyone with a grandmother knows that what we have come to accept as "the way things are..." with modern American women's toxic Narcissism and predatory aggression just ain't so and doesn't have to be that way.
The men's movement is challenged to closely examine "the way things are" and to go its own way rather than accepting pathology as normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lord Chesterfield on 05:28 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
A journalistic, facile account of male behavior on putatively scientific principles, in which men are programed to respond to the whining of females, but stoically refrain from it themselves, or else live in abject terror (rationalized as a level-headed concern with public relations) that anything they say might be construed, even in the remotest contexts, as whining, would be undermined by the presence of hordes of whining men's rights activists.
Indeed, we may profitably call feminists on their oft-repeated expostulations with males to remake themselves in the feminist image, beginning with a heightened and refined capacity for whining as an acceptable and even admirable masculine characteristic, modeled on its feminine counterpart, dutifully and enthusiastically adopted in the service of a feminist-inspired re-definition of masculinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:11 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe, loosely translated, Lord C. has said beware of becoming a girlie man.
He also suggested that any journalistic depiction of men as victims will be subverted by men themselves.
Did I get it at all bang-on, my Lord?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lord Chesterfield on 01:51 AM February 26th, 2006 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that any man who rightfully points out institutionalized anti-male bias, and who is accused on that account of whining, should inform his acccusers that while it may seem inappropriate and unbecoming for a pre-feminist man, it achieves the level of heroism in the post-feminist man, who has followed the feminist exhortation to redefine masculinity itself--along feminist lines. Whining is among the first traits to be adopted into the transformed masculine persona; accordingly, far from being shameful, it must now be considered heroic. The structuralists, who believe that language is reality, will be forced to agree with their own drivel.
Yes, an attempt to portray men as victims will be subverted by men themselves. If the great majority of them were to whine in unison, the shaming tactic will have had no force. Men will have the moral high ground, for permitting themselves a transformation of so-called toxic maleness, in which whining is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. The feminists themselves asked for it.
So instead of shying away from the unmasculine, when this interferes with political gain, it would be better to exaggerate it. If feminists say they want sensitive men, give them morbidly sensitive men who would shudder at the slightest imagined danger; or who would rather have nothing to do with women, than risk the remotest possibility of offending their sensibilities or violating their rights, and so on. The alternative is to care so much about their opinion of us, that we become politically ineffective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:10 AM February 26th, 2006 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, LC - a liberated, post-feminist man should indeed see male complaints about the gross injustices of feminist dogma and legislation as heroic, not effeminate or shameful. Such a man is employing the feminist's own tools against her, and pre-feminist male stocism can no longer be expected of men in a society reconstructed by and for gender feminists.
Pre-feminist man was required by convention to respect the boundaries of "maleness" imposed by a largely masculine culture wherein men were socialized by women who respected that maleness as a desireable virtue. Now we need only respect the boundaries that men themselves choose to impose upon themselves within the framework of a post-feminist society. Women have lost the moral authority to socialize men or judge their masculinity. In a post-feminist society, only men can do so with any sort of objectivity.
As you say, this by-product (i.e. toxic maleness), is feminism's own creation. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
As a liberated man and MRA, I'm sowing a new crop as fast as I can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 01:33 PM February 26th, 2006 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
LC wrote -- "it achieves the level of heroism in the post-feminist man, who has followed the feminist exhortation to redefine masculinity itself--along feminist lines."
This is a very clever ironic play-on-words, inasmuch as the initial comment was about men "whining."
LC delights in word play.
He has said very plainly, in dense, facile language, that if men become whiners, then they have played directly into the feminists' designs to re-create masculinity.
Did I miss that sleight-of-hand, Lord C?
What do you actually believe, when you're not dealing from the bottom of the linguistic deck for your own amusement? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lord Chesterfield on 03:42 PM February 26th, 2006 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Which do I believe? I am a diplomat: I believe both! Taking the feminist lead, I would be loathe to impose any condition on male behavior and masculinity whatsoever. If men have no say in what it means to be a woman, according to feminists, then they have no say in what it means to be a man. The feminist notion of men as intrinsically violent oppressors is therefore completely undermined by symmetry--they can't have it both ways. Similarly, if it suits you not to whine, because it means falling into a feminist trap, then avoid any semblance of whining at all costs.
Alternatively, if you wish to dignify the feminist call a redefinition of masculinity, then the more independent among us may justify the whining nagging man as the apotheosis of radicalized feminist redefinition of masculinity. For the liberated post-feminist man (I thank Random Man for graciously employing the correct phrase in his response without drawing attention to my omission of the crucial adjective), whining not only takes on the pre-feminist stoic masculine attribute of heroism, but serves as the vehicle of rapprochement between feminists and men's rights activists, in the sense that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. This philosophical underpinnning must be explained, ad nauseum, if necessary, to feminists who might misinterpret the earnest intentions of the liberated post-feminist man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lord Chesterfield on 04:15 PM February 26th, 2006 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to excuse my grammatical and typographical lapses on my extensive, world correspondence, which invariably forces me to type in haste, until it dawned on me that my errors owe themselves to the general deterioration of age, which, I like to humor myself, is nature's way of preparing us for the end. I will reward your indulgence with an additional paragraph.
Taking the feminist lead, I would be loathe to impose any condition on male behavior and masculinity whatsoever. If men have no say in what it means to be a woman, according to feminists, then women have no say in what it means to be a man. The feminist notion of men as intrinsically violent oppressors is therefore completely undermined by symmetry--they can't have it both ways. Similarly, if it suits you not to whine, because it means falling into a feminist trap, then avoid any semblance of whining at all costs.
Alternatively, if you wish to dignify the feminist call [for] a redefinition of masculinity, then the more independent among us may justify the whining, nagging man as the apotheosis of radicalized, feminist masculinity. For the liberated post-feminist man (I thank Random Man for graciously employing the correct phrase in his response without drawing attention to my omission of the crucial adjective), whining not only takes on the pre-feminist stoic masculine attribute of heroism, but serves as the vehicle of rapprochement between feminists and men's rights activists, in the sense that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. This philosophical underpinnning must be explained, ad nauseum, if necessary, to feminists who might misinterpret the earnest intentions of the liberated post-feminist man.
Consider the example of the Tucker Carlson interview with Commissioner Michael Geanoulis of the NH Commission on the Status of Men. Carlson accused Geanoulis of whining and that men should take their fate as men; Geanoulis repeated the facts: men were dying earlier, they were dropping out of school faster, they were more likely to commit suicide, and so on. Carlson virtually ate his words. But, someone might point out that feminists have challenged men to redefine mmasculinity, now that men are 30 years behind women in this regard. Accordingly, what might have appeared as whining is now heroic. The rules have changed, Carlson. Accusing us of whining is passe. And we have 30 years of whining to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:20 PM February 26th, 2006 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Lord C. wrote --
"... which invariably forces me to type in haste, until it dawned on me that my errors owe themselves to the general deterioration of age, which, I like to humor myself, is nature's way of preparing us for the end."
Oh no, sir.
You can't cop out now on feeble alibis like two-finger typing or early onset of senility.
You have staked out (credibly!) your identity as the ultimate ironic rhetorician and logistician, yes?
So, please refrain from further dissembling.
What precisely are your theoretical, strategic, and pragmatic recommendations for the Men's Rights Movement?
Alternatively ( I always like to give a good comrade a face-saving way out...) ---
What beverage do you believe MRA's should endorse during the future Superbowl commercials when we are victorious? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lord Chesterfield on 12:56 AM March 2nd, 2006 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
What precisely are your theoretical, strategic, and pragmatic recommendations for the Men's Rights Movement?
Elaborating on this is a project spanning several decades, involving the publication of researcch articles and texts for a general readership, in addition to my other projects, each spanning decades, and involving the publication of research articles (though probably not more general texts).
You want to know how I can be helpful to the Men's Rights Movement. Is this counting access to a national repository of statistical data on virtually every subject of interest to MRAs (not to mention many other subjects), including the raw data for most of the studies we read about in the media? Or an entire research computing facility, along with access to profesional statisticians and sociologists (not to mention computational physicial scientists), who just might be willing to assist with the kinds of studies that, so far, haven't been funded, largely for politicsl reasons? Or should we disregard such advantages, on the grounds that they are unfair to our opponents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 10:46 PM February 23rd, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I just received a letter from Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday, in which he gives details of VAWA III.
Page 1 (Showing letterhead)
Page 1 (More readable format)
Page 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 08:31 AM February 24th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
My principal arguement is that Nanny Government and the Corrupt Family Court system is the issue. Knock out Uncle Sam holding a gun to the head of Fathers, Stop subsidizing women who cash out in divorce and alot of this crap will end. We must also stop the Gender Equity Movement that is waging war against Boys and segregate the genders in school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:36 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen to that, khankrumthebulgar! Up here, every woman is "holding a gun" to her date/live-in/spouse's head via "shout at your spouse, lose your house" laws. Sure, the language of the laws is gender-neutral, but what do you think the outcome will be with a feminist-dominated judiciary and feminist-trained police enforcing said laws? You get three guesses, and the first two don't count...
They've taken it from the government level all the way down to the individual here. I understand some states in Australia are the same, along with some jurisdictions in Europe. We need to disarm the feminists ASAP. Ending no-fault divorce, introducting presumed shared custody laws (Italy recently did so, I think), and debunking the gender-specific "men victimizers, women victims" Duluth Model as an approach to domestic violence would be a real good start. Fortunately, some of that is already happening.
As for the idea of a skills-based intervention program for DV (most are based on the feminist model right now, of course), I believe in the validity of skills-based interventions over punishment-based approaches, regardless of the gender of the perpatrator, so I think these folks are on the right track with their revisions to the androphobic feminist approach to suit the realities of DV (sorry, their links don't seem to work, but you can get an idea what they're doing from the abstracts). Imagine that: people "in the know" admitting that the Duluth Model is "demonstrably worse than useless" in some cases, but might be a useful starting point to create useful skills-based intervention programs. I'm doubtful that anything good can come of a feminist ideological construct (i.e. that there was a baby in that bathwater to begin with), but I'll leave that to the professionals who are finally beginning to understand that DV is a gender-nonspecific issue to sort out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 02:12 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I've plenty of problems with the Duluth model and similar constructs, but I come up against something a little less theoretical.
It seems plain enough that government help is not going to be readily forthcoming for DV shelters for men. Are shelters for men desireable? If so, how can we get one going? What is needed, what hoops must be jumped thorough, what pre-conditions must be met?
I'm not talking about something that uses government as a crutch. Government won't help us, women won't help us, the DV industries DAMN sure won't help us. We need to help ourselves. So - what do we need to get started? Anybody got an outline? Practical ideas gratefully accepted, and should probably be put in the Wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:44 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
An Irish woman started a movement and an agency to provide help to abused men. It's called Amen, and it sounds promising:
AMEN has encountered denial of the existence and the experiences of male victims. Recent research carried out for the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service (MRCS) found that women are more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence. This report, based on a survey of 530 clients of MRCS, found that, where domestic violence occurs, mutual violence accounts for 33% of cases, female perpetrated violence accounts for 41% and male perpetrated violence for 26%.
Maybe that's a place to start for ideas or someone to contact for advice?
Until the California DV lawsuit is settled, I wouldn't count on government funding, at least at the federal level.
So, the federal government is probably out in Canada or the US. What about municipal or state/provincial agencies or Departments/Ministries of Health? Religious charitable groups? Many of these are responsible for funding homeless shelters for men. Why not a DV shelter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 01:12 AM February 25th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, RandomMan. I will use it, hopefully.
I do not really expect any governmental assistance. I think men will have to do this for themselves. And I think it's about time we did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:39 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
...I just want what the CONSTITUTION of the U.S. and U.S. bill of rights GUARANTEES ALL of us.
And we can't even seem to get THAT, let alone "victim status".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't label me a troll for saying this, but after reading her article, she's definitely showing her true colors and becoming like another Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan, Valerie Solanas, and others. She's right for one thing, we fellas shouldn't be like them and use our victim-status just to get by...it did work for them, and look what result it yielded...broken families, suicidal fathers and sons, misled mothers and daughters, and the most important...irreversible hypocrisy! Given that we males are the main victims of any kind of violence...I feel that Wendy is trying to silence us and follow popular opinion. She [like the other feminists] never really cared about us and our welfare...anyway.
Guys, trust your heart and conscience; don't listen to her or them anymore...and Wendy, give it up and go home, you've done enough damage! We're not going to trust you and the other feminists anymore...regardless of what your status is or what you choose to do!
Emmanuel Matteer Jr.
Emma.noelle.blay@hotmail.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 08:27 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
The childish attempt to suggest that legitimate political action (the inclusion of a few gender neutral words buried in VAWA) is the work of whiners and members of a would-be "victim calss", rather than persons attempting to promote moral ideals, has necessitated the invention of a slogan forever to be associated with iFeminism:
iFeminism is imaginary Feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:47 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I've got to say, I'm more than a bit disappointed in Wendy, here.
Are there NO women we can trust?
It's strange, isn't it? There were a lot of men feminists could trust in the early days of feminism, and now there are SCORES of (wussie-poopie) men that modern feminists can trust, but there seems to be a VAST shortage of WOMEN that M.R.A.s can trust.
Makes me wonder WHO is REALLY for "equality"?
Ladies..., the ball is in YOUR court...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:50 PM February 25th, 2006 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has been enlightening, raucous, funny, and rambling ... like all good cigar joints and what used to be men's private clubs.
Always under the surface and between-the-lines are honorable men desperately pondering -- "What do women want?"
I think I've found the answer!
They want to redesign their vaginas.
The newest craze among the terminally self-infatuated fairer sex is VAGINOPLASTY!
RandomMan’s earlier reference to female Narcissism reminded me of this expanding (pun intended) cosmetic surgery craze being embraced by women – vaginoplasty.
Basically it’s a surgical procedure to give a woman the perfect pretty pussy she’s always wanted. Just like with a facelift, they reshape lips (although unlike facial fashion, women want them made smaller), tighten saggy cheeks, and do a little nip ‘n tuck to make the whole area look virginal again.
Of course, in the original myth of Narcissus, he died from too much obsessive gazing at a reflection of his face in a pool, not from holding a mirror in front of his crotch.
So --- "Why should men be subject to socialization designed to custom-fit them to women's needs? If anyone were to suggest that society should be producing women that suit men's needs more closely, he'd be tarred and feathered!"
Well, forget the tarring and feathering, because women themselves are demanding that they have every right to subject themselves to a pervasive social aesthetic of male approval and unrestricted libido!
Isn’t this what every misogynistic man has fantasized about --- a world of whores and strippers masquerading as mothers and businesswomen? (Check out – Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
by Ariel Levy.)
As for the Design-a-Vagina Industry, inspect this link at the Liberty Women’s Health Care for a full menu of gyno-consumer options! –
http://www.libertywomenshealth.com/services.php?id =4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:59 AM February 27th, 2006 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
It's strange, isn't it? There were a lot of men feminists could trust in the early days of feminism, and now there are SCORES of (wussie-poopie) men that modern feminists can trust, but there seems to be a VAST shortage of WOMEN that M.R.A.s can trust.
It's because women are so wrapped up in themselves that they barely know there is an external physical reality, let alone that there are other people living in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:10 PM February 24th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the posters seem to agree that we have to address the government. Most agree that we are being played in some way. I would like to share a quote from the Goebells Diary, a Man who had experience in manipulating a whole country. "There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the the stronger, and this will always be the man in the street. Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology. Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals." Anyone see a correlation between the previous statement, and what is happening in our own country? As a matter of fact, even in some of the themes of some regular posters? Just a thought Folks.......
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "Wendy McElroy 
