Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Is Feminism Hate?





To Russ Lindquist:

Way back, you sent me a message with a link to a video you'd done on why feminism isn't hate. The video is over 2 hours long. I hesitate to think that's a rebuttal. That's more like attrition. More about that in a minute.

You've since made at least one video (perhaps more, since the one a friend just sent me was "round 6"). In it, you claim you've won the debate, reasoning that since I hadn't responded to any of your videos, it's obviously because I "can't" refute any of your points. Well, regarding your follow up videos, I really can't refute points I'm not made aware of, can I?

A handful of friends of mine did watch that first video--remember, the only video of yours on this topic that I was even aware of until just a few days ago. They mentioned a few of the points you make in it (all of which I've rebutted before, in blog posts or other videos, or in general discussions online), but the general consensus among them was that it was not worth the time required for me to watch it. Their characterization of it was that it was rambling, unorganized, meandering and largely irrelevant to the topic. Now, I'm a busy person. I have three kids, a job, two other businesses I run. Even though you claim in your video that I'm making a living from Men's Rights stuff, I'm really not. I have other things on the go, and other responsibilities. So I'm not going to devote any time watching to that first video, and I'm going to address specifically some of the things you said in this latest one. 


Now, you're welcome to think whatever you want of me for not watching your first video, and you're welcome to feel as dismissed and insulted as you like about it. All I can say is that I get regular complaints about the length of my videos, but one thing I do to alleviate that problem is that I almost always script them. Which is, oddly enough, the part you left out of your criticism--you went so far as to cut a clip of me off mid-sentence to do it--to make my decision to not watch or address your video seem arbitrary or cowardly rather than informed, and my criticism of your video's length seem unfair rather than justifiable.

As an aside, this video is indeed scripted.

Also, what you characterized as me "getting a pass because I'm a woman", in other words, that I have yet to prove the resolution, but am seen to be winning (or a shoo-in) by viewers, is premature at best. Your characterization of me as somehow feeling like I've proved the resolution, and that's both misinformed and uncharitable. I wouldn't call it an ad hominem--I'd call it jumping the gun, going off half-cocked, doing a victory dance when the ball's still at the five yard line.

The truth is, scripting, shooting and editing these videos takes a lot of my time. The research takes time, and I do more edits and rewrites on these things than I ever did in my published fiction. I've been working on this particular script since Wednesday, and it's now the following Monday. "Two hours I spend!" you say, "and all I've gotten is ten seconds back from her!" I've spent over 8 hours on this response alone, probably closer to twelve, and I haven't even shot it yet. I spent at least 6 hours on each of my responses to Danielle (which is why I wasn't sure I was going to address any of her other specific points before concluding). I'm sorry you all had to wait, as I've built my case, but it's just the way it is.

And I found it really bizarre that you repeatedly state that my that my video responses to Danielle were irrelevant to the question. The purpose of me addressing the points I addressed in Danielle's video--building a case. Because feminism describes the system--you know The Patriarchy--both historically and presently, as being based on the subjugation and oppression of women as a class, and as inherently misogynistic. If that's not how the system operated or why it operated the way it did, if women's issues were commonly addressed and women's problems alleviated by that system once women could agree on them and what solutions they wanted, and once that became possible, then it's never been a system based on the oppression and subjugation of women, has it?

And then you go on to characterize my entire body of work as that of a "false mommy idol", and mock the people who follow me. You opine on this at some length. That's awesome.

And given that, I find it curious that you took such a huge issue with the tone I used in my video responses to Danielle Paradis. As in, I sounded condescending and dismissive, which I'm sure I did, because I was. You then appeal to consequences, warning me that Danielle is a moderate, but being so poorly treated by someone like me might compel her to become radicalized.

This seems absurd on its face. If she's a moderate, she's one who belongs to feminist groups that have organized efforts to deface and tear down other groups' posters to keep opposing viewpoints from being seen or heard, and is also the kind of moderate feminist who subscribes to the Femitheist's channel. From that (among other things), I'm almost positive her mind is closed to the ideas I presented in my responses to her as the mind of a creationist is to any argument in favor of evolution.

Given that, my strategy was not to convince Danielle Paradis of anything, especially not to rethink her belief system, but to demonstrate to as many people as possible how simplistic, childish and unsupportable her belief system is.

And what I really find curious is that you took issue with me calling her typical. Because she is typical. She even called herself typical, in so many words, in the sense that she--like pretty much every other feminist she's aware of--believes that women have historically had the short end of the stick.

More than that, explain why it should matter to me or to anyone if my tone sends her stomping off to get herself radicalized? In my view, radical and mainstream feminists differ only in their degree of commitment to acting on their shared belief system, and their ability to be identified by the public as people not to be trusted. It's the belief system and its theoretical model I'm interested in dismantling, I'm not that interested in redeeming individual feminists.

That said, you really don't seem to have a lot of respect for Danielle, if you think she's incapable of prioritizing arguments and reason over delivery. You seem to think that she can't separate herself from her belief system in such a way as to differentiate an attack on feminist theory, or on her beliefs, or her arguments, from an attack on her as a person. She's not a defenceless child, Russ. And you're not a hero for treating her that way, or for suggesting that she's so emotionally frail she's likely suffering from stockholm syndrome from a barrage of nasty, trolling comments that she could have easily ignored.

I mean, you even said that what made you want to join her team was that I was mean to her. Not that she was right. Not that what she said was valid. But that she was "respectful" and I was "mean".

Frankly, if you respected her, and you were of the view that she and other feminists were misinformed, misguided or the innocent victims of other people's lies, as you've suggested, repeatedly, you'd have corrected her, rather than defended her. Allowing someone to labor under a misconception because you want to spare their feelings is a dishonor you commit upon them. All you seem to be interested in doing, however, is indulging her ignorance.

You do seem to have a little more respect for me. You're not interested in protecting me from perceived insults--you're actually one of the people flinging them. Thank you for that, sincerely, because at least I know you're not humoring me, or indulging me, or acting out of some assumption that as a woman, I can't handle a little meanness.

The tone argument holds no water with me, nor does any reference by you or anyone to what people say in my comment section. What is below the line is NOT my responsibility. What the individuals who make up my subscribers and viewers do with their own fingers and their own keyboards elsewhere is also NOT my responsibility. I have a pretty strong non-censorship policy at my channel and blog, one that radical feminists like NocturnusLibertus (another buddy of Danielle's) seem happy to take full advantage of. I get regular messages from my subscribers to ban people like them, and I refuse to do it, even when they're being abusive.

Now, are you going to imply that it's Danielle responsible, what her friends, viewers and subscribers say on my channel and elsewhere? More than that, are any of the people crapping on each other in the comments interfering with anyone else's ability to view the videos in question, the way a disruptive audience at a live debate would? Why are viewer comments even a thing to be addressed in this context?

On this same topic, was Danielle actually "respectful" in her response? 

Her tone was, and she didn't use any slurs or bad language. Her points, however, were glib, hackneyed and lacked any real analysis or investigation--just statements to be taken at face value. And then there's the matter of her clear statement that her video should not be viewed as "opening arguments", but as the entirety of her rebuttal, and all she had to say on the matter. A drive-by, as it were. A way of dismissing off-hand Eric's proposition while absolving herself of any duty to empirically or logically back up her own.

That's not "respectful", Russ. That's actually much more dismissive than I've been toward her, and it shows a lack of regard for the debate question, her opponents and the audience. In light of that, her pleasant tone was quite the manipulation. And you fell for it, didn't you? You're here, fighting her battle for her, and taking any downvotes and criticism of her, on her behalf. For a guy who could write the song, "Let her die", you sure seem willing to jump in front of a bullet for a cute girl with a soft, pleasant voice and hurt feelings.

Moving along: you criticize me for making two longish videos that addressed "nothing to do with the resolution that feminism is hate". But here's the thing. Danielle made several points in her video as, I'm guessing, evidence that feminism is NOT hate (which they really weren't evidence of anything). My FIRST job as a debater was to take those points and demonstrate their lack of validity. Demonstrate that they can't be used to prove or refute anything because they're either missing half the picture, or essentially bunk. As an example: say, a creationist claims that the fact that DNA is made out of cotton candy is obvious proof that God created the universe and all life within it. A debate opponent can't just let the "fact" that DNA is made of cotton candy stand--he got to spend some time disproving the assertion upon which the creationist's argument rests. And the more deeply entrenched that creationist's argument is in the public zeitgeist, the harder the opponent has to work to dismantle it.

See how that works? She says, or implies, that Feminism is not hate because of A, B and C. And then I come in and say, but feminism's analysis of A, B, and C are biased at best, completely invalid at worst, therefore you can't use A, B and C as proof of anything. Do you expect someone in a debate to allow invalid arguments made by an opponent to stand as fact? Really? My refutations of points SHE made are "red herrings"? If that's the case, her entire video was one big red herring.

You seem to be really agitated about it, actually going so far as to intersperse clips of my refutations of specific arguments she made, with the text "therefore feminism is hate"? as if that's ANYTHING like what I was saying. David Futrelle, the king of quote-mining and putting words in people's mouths, would be awfully proud.

And then you go on to do the exact same thing you accused me of doing, but with less excuse, since you're not even rebutting an argument I made. Because the question was not the one you saw fit to repeatedly address in your latest video, and which a friend of mine mentioned was a recurring theme in your first: "Are feminists necessarily hateful?"

You and I and everybody else on the planet is going to know, the answer to that is "no", or at least, "no more hateful than anyone else". But by raising the issue that many feminists are likely misguided or misinformed, and therefore not acting out of hate but out of ignorance, you are simultaneously dodging the REAL question, and essentially necessitating I address the sticky business of exactly what feminism is.

Is feminism a belief system, or is it simply a label? Is it a set of theories, or is it a group of individuals? Is it a pursuit of women's rights, or is it a worldview?

One commenter on this last video of yours suggested that the best way to refute my argument would be to convince people that feminism is a movement, rather than an ideology. He said that if one could define feminism as "the movement for the rights of women" rather than as the ideology associated with it, that would be proof that feminism isn't hate. I suppose because not all feminists hate men.

Unfortunately again, the question was not, "are feminists hateful?" nor was it, "Is the feminist movement hate?" nor was it, "Is advocating for women's rights hate?" nor was it, "Has feminism done anything not hateful?" nor was it even "Are hateful feminists misguided in their hate?"

The question was, "Is feminISM hate?"

According to dictionary.com, an ism is a distinctive practice, system or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. Synonyms include "doctrine" and "theory". The Merriam Webster dictionary defines ism in two ways: 1) a distinctive doctrine, cause or theory; and 2) an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.

OMGoodness! Feminism fits all of those!

Unfortunately for me, "cause" and "practice" are not ideologies, theories or belief systems.

Fortunately for me, however, neither of those definitions is relevant in the case of defining feminism, or differentiating it from non-feminism.

Because feminism is NOT the only platform from which to practice advocacy in the cause of the rights of women--there are several other groups and individuals who lobby on behalf of women's rights.

Phyllis Schlafly and her allies, for instance, were instrumental in blocking the ERA, arguing that the ERA would give women no rights they didn't already have, but would take away rights, exemptions and privileges they enjoyed as women. It would have, in fact, removed rights women had, and conservative women's success in blocking the ERA preserved those rights.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive that Phyllis Schlafly and her buddies would never be described as feminist, even though they did as much to protect women's rights as any feminist ever has.

Conversely, it's altogether possible to describe feminists' fairly consistent (at least when people are looking) support for the ERA as advocating an erosion of the rights of women--that is, they are supporting an amendment that would remove rights women currently have, that would make VAWA, and women-only scholarships and affirmative action unconstitutional. So clearly, they're not simply the movement "for the rights" of women.

Moreover, MRAs also fight for women's rights--most commonly women's right to be fully accountable and responsible for their actions and decisions, women's right to be treated as capable of self-sufficiency, their right to be subject to the same legal status as men, and their right to be not be subject to discrimination under the law.

And again, I'm almost positive the MRM is not the same thing as feminism.

Hell, we can't even define feminism as the movement for equal rights for women, since they have a consistent record, in practice if not in rhetoric, of protecting the rights women enjoy that men don't, and interfering with efforts toward equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law.

So what does that leave us with, if not the ideology?

It leaves us with the absurd necessity of considering feminism a label attributable to Phyllis Schlafly since she advocates for women's rights, and anti-feminism a label attributable to the membership of NOW who (claim at least outwardly that they) advocate the removal of rights women currently have. It leaves us with the bizarre necessity of saying Paul Elam is a "better feminist" than the feminists who wrote VAWA, because he advocates equal treatment of men and women under the law.

And it leaves us with the strange conundrum that MRAs are the only "true feminists", as they advocate for full equality of rights between men and women, while feminists themselves focus most of their real-world activism on protecting the rights women have that men don't, and in maintaining a system that treats men and women unequally socially, politically and legally.

Feminism is not a practice. It's not a cause. It's not an idea. It's not a group of individuals who share an idea in common. It's not a handful of ideas or concerns or causes.

It's an ideology, a system of beliefs, a set of theories that includes a model of what society looks like, how it operates, why it operates the way it does, and how men and women coexist within that model. This set of theories is feminism.

By keeping the focus not on feminISM but on individual feminISTS, you're not just deflecting, you're rendering the concept of feminism so murky, it can't even be defined. Even if feminism itself can be defined based on a shared ideology, by framing it in the context of individuals rather than the collective,  or the core beliefs, if even one feminist disagrees with one of the primary and widely accepted tenets of feminist ideology, feminism becomes purely ephemeral and unassailable--attacking it becomes, as someone on reddit once observed, like swordfighting a fart.

I'm not interested in swordfighting your fart, Russ. I'm going to assert that feminism is an ideology, based on a set of theories: its foundation being the unifying (false) paradigm of The Patriarchy, and whose theoretical offshoots include Male Privilege, Female Oppression, Patriarchal Domestic Terrorism  (otherwise known as the Duluth Model) and Rape Culture.

It really doesn't matter what any individual calls themselves--I can call myself a Christian and believe in Odin, and I can call myself a Buddhist and take every word of the Bible as gospel. This does not mean that Christianity is a set of beliefs built around the Norse gods, any more than Buddhism is based on the the New Testament. And while different sects of Christianity might differ on certain aspects of faith, a Catholic is just as much a Christian as a Baptist or a Lutheran, because they subscribe to the core tenets of the ideology.

Feminists will also subscribe to the core tenets of their ideology, which I named above. If they don't, then they're not the people we're discussing in this debate.

Feminism is an ISM. And its core tenets are available for pretty much anyone to learn.

All that aside--you know, the question of defining feminism, clarifying and solidifying the debate question, your objections to my tone, the issue of your fallacious appeal to consequences, you have, in your comment section, placed me in something of a bind.

Any debate with YOU on this topic is going to be muddied by your assertion that, what the Nazis did to the Jews and what they believed about the Jews, could not be necessarily used to prove that nazism is hate.

I assume you would consider that line of reasoning to be valid when applied to feminism, and I'm absolutely prepared to grant you that point.

However, I would argue that regardless of how justified a person might believe something like genocide to be, hate is a necessary ingredient to convince psychologically functional human beings to exterminate an entire population of other human beings. One must not only see the target group as subhuman, one must see them as subhuman and a threat deserving of death. Hate, justified or misguided, is kind of a requisite.

A Nazi or a Hutu or an Islamic Jihadist doesn't kill Jews or Tutsis or westerners because of policy. They do it because they are driven by psychological conditioning to hate the target group. They have to hate, or be convinced to hate, if they're not going to be overburdened with guilt and trauma by their actions. This is why so much of the rhetoric preceding genocides is designed to dehumanize and vilify the target group--they're scum, they're vermin, they're monsters, they're beasts, they're demons, they're dogs, they're rats, they're a disease. Never does or lambs or kittens, mind you--always something both subhuman, and a threat to humans.

Whether that hate is "righteous" in their minds, based on information they've been exposed to information that's been concealed from them, or whether it's purely rational, a psychologically functional human being does not kill masses and masses of other human beings because it seems like a good idea, or because someone tells them to, or because it will benefit them a little bit, or even because they see the other as inferior. They do it because they've been conditioned to hate the target group, and that hate is based on a combination of the perceived threat posed by the target group, and the learned view that the target group are subhuman.

And here, finally, I'm going to address the debate question: Is feminism hate?

And to do that, I'm going to ask that age-old question: WWHD: "What Would Hitler Do?" Because there IS a way to define Nazism as hate--if you can prove that the set of beliefs and ideas, and the antipathy and acts it engenders, persist in the face of solid contrary evidence.

Hell, one could even argue that it is not UNTIL solid contrary evidence is presented, considered and discarded in favor of the now-debunked belief system, that it even becomes primarily an ideology based on hate.

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: It is a common belief that black women often murder, cook and eat children. Black men assist or enable their women in this practice. It's an abomination. It's inhuman. And a danger to everyone around them. Research tells us this is not a practice engaged in by ANY other group of humans. It feels right to hate black people for engaging in such barbary, and to consider them less than human because of it. It's only justifiable to discriminate against them, legally and socially, to preemptively attack them for their historical and future atrocities, and to protect ourselves at any expense, and our children, from this monstrous practice that is unique to black people.

And then we're presented with evidence. Irrefutable evidence. Empirically sound evidence. And that evidence shows either that A) all people of all ethnicities engage in this practice to a similar degree, or that B) black people do not commonly engage in this practice at all, and that the data behind the misconception was biased, falsified or methodologically unsound. Either way, blackness and baby-eating are not connected in any way.

What Would Hitler Do? I don't know.

What I do know is that when feminists, influential or otherwise, are presented with solid evidence demonstrating that domestic violence is NOT, in fact, a sexually directional behavior, that it is NOT consistent with their unifying theory of The Patriarchy, that women are actually MORE likely to be violent toward their partners than men, that men and women abuse their partners for the exact same reasons, that women are MORE likely, in fact, to engage in coercive control of a partner, that women are NOT much more likely to be injured or killed by a partner, that mothers are MORE likely than fathers to abuse children, that unilateral violence is 50% MORE likely to be female-perpetrated than male...

Well, what those with any power--those most invested in the ideology--did, in response to that solid, contrary evidence was to engage in boycotts, censorship, intimidation, terrorism, death threats, blacklisting, information suppression, denial, dismissal, shaming, false accusations, and cover-ups. And the ones who didn't, who said, "hey, wait a minute. We need to look into this," they were excommunicated.

Case 1) In California, feminist-inspired domestic violence mandatory arrest policies enacted in the 1980s led to a 37% increase in arrests of men and a 446% increase in arrests of women. That's some pretty solid evidence right there, especially when taken in conjunction with the then-multiple studies on DV that showed gender symmetry. Within a few years, however, feminist legal experts had written and successfully implemented predominant aggressor policies which prioritized relative height, weight, strength, AND patriarchal/feminist models of domestic violence (Duluth again), over inconvenient matters such as "who is the abusive party?" They essentially adjusted policy to make outcomes conform to their theory, rather than adjusting their theory to conform to reality. And conform the outcomes did--arrest rates returned to normal: at least 85% male, at least 1/3 of which would have been victims.

Case 2) In Ontario, a recently penned feminist report on domestic violence, cited data from Statistics Canada. In her report, the author transformed the data from the StatsCan report to reflect feminist ideology. She reported that about 1.2 million Canadian women had been abused by their partners in the past 5 years, even though the StatsCan report clearly indicates that that 1.2 million refers to "Canadians" including 601k women and 585k men. Not only are this feminist grad student and her feminist supervising professor essentially doubling the number of female victims, they're erasing male ones--portraying domestic violence as sexually directional when it's anything but.

Ignorance is no excuse in either of these examples. These feminists weren't ignorant of the facts--they wanted to keep the public ignorant of them. It's no excuse for the treatment of Erin Pizzey by the feminist establishment in the UK, who were so angered and threatened by her assertion that women are as violent as men in their relationships that they subjected her to a campaign of bomb threats, death threats to her, her children and her grandchildren, and finally killed her family dog when they couldn't get to her. It's no excuse for taking data from tables and not just ignoring the actual numbers, but lying about them, so you can inflate the number of female victims and cast all the perpetrators as male.

Why would feminists do this? And keep in mind, it's not like they chose to merely persist in their belief system even when evidence proved it wasn't consistent with reality, they didn't just ignore the evidence and go on their merry way. They actively suppressed the evidence, misrepresented the evidence, attempted to keep that evidence from public and government scrutiny, threatened and blacklisted researchers to prevent them from finding more evidence, and the moment that evidence began being reflected in arrest rates, they actually changed legal procedures so that arrest rates would conform to their theory.

And while I would agree that lots of people cling to indefensible but dearly-held theories despite mountains of contrary evidence, I think it behooves us to examine what specific elements of their theory it was that they went to such arguably criminal lengths to protect from scrutiny or challenge:

Here's what they theorize: Domestic violence is a microcosmic reflection of a system which is based on female subordination and male dominance. Violence, oppression, coercion, domination and abuse are integral aspects of masculinity, and behaviors not just normalized and reinforced by The Patriarchy, but intrinsic to it.

The negative qualities that make people beat up their partners are not human qualities, they are masculine qualities, and they are an integral part of how masculinity and femininity interact under The Patriarchy, a system where men have always held power.

So as you can see, the element of feminist theory feminists were driven to death threats, blacklisting and violence to preserve, was the very element that makes hating men morally justifiable.

Robin Morgan said it herself: Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act--the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them. 

And if men aren't that way--you know, aren't violent, oppressive, coercive, dominating and abusive toward women, at least no more so than women are toward men--then all of a sudden it's no longer justifiable to hate men, is it? Feminists have spent almost 40 years concealing evidence that contradicts the specific misconceptions that give women the right, as a class, to hate men, as a class. They've perpetuated stereotypes that violence, aggression, and abuse--especially of women--are "normal" male behaviors, encouraged and abetted by a culture that is shaped by male-dominance, in the face of evidence that men are no more shitty in their behavior toward women than women are in their behavior toward men.

Why would they do that, if they didn't want people to hate men? Or if their hatred of men didn't inform their attachment to the aspects of their theories that expressly justify it? Why is it that the facets of their theory that directly connect the most harmful behaviors of humans to maleness and maleness alone, why is it those are the very ones they're prepared to engage in terrorism to preserve?

Asking which came first, the theory or the hate, is kind of irrelevant. It was the misandry-engendering parts of the theory feminists were willing to maintain, by threatening and blacklisting researchers, and then rewriting law and policy such that actual victims of domestic violence would be sent to prison if they're male, innocent men would be stripped of their homes and children, and violent female perpetrators would walk--with full custody of their kids, no less. Those facets of the theory are the most adamantly defended by those in control of the narrative.

How about another hypothetical scenario:

Hispanics are known to commonly commit serious assault, especially sexual assault. In fact, 99% of the rapes of all women and 99% of the sexual assaults on all men, are known to be committed by hispanics. Though efforts have been made to integrate hispanics into the culture, to socialize them away from this violent behavior and instil in them the values important to whites, blacks and asians--most notably an ethic of empathy--the problem isn't lessening. In fact, more people than ever are victims of hispanic sexual violence--in the 1970s, 1 in 8 people were victims of hispanic sexual violence, but now the number is 1 in 3. This must be a problem endemic to hispanic culture or genetics. It's either inherent or culturally intractable. They're monsters, when you think of it--violent, cruel and sociopathic, begetting more violent, cruel sociopathy with each generation. It's therefore entirely justifiable to mete out harsher penalties when they commit sexual violence, to arrest them anytime a non-hispanic has ever felt threatened by them, to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases involving hispanics, and even to propose to confine them to certain areas after 9 at night.

And then we're presented with contrary evidence. Empirically sound contrary evidence. That evidence demonstrates that non-hispanics are equally likely to engage in sexual aggression--it's just that the victims of non-hispanics don't report it as often. Hispanics themselves are least likely to report being victimized. We're actually shown that it is non-hispanics who are most likely to self-report having used physical force, threats, intoxication or coercion to get sex from an unwilling partner. The evidence shows that victimization and perpetration rates are virtually identical among ethnic groups--it's only how we view those assaults that differs, depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

What would Hitler do? I don't know.

What do feminists do? They continue to perpetuate the lie that sexual aggression is a masculine behavior--even though women are more likely to report engaging in it. They claim that the number of male victims is tiny, and they cite research that describes forced sex perpetrated on a woman as rape and forced sex perpetrated on a man as not rape, to "prove" it. They ignore the findings that a large percentage of women have reported having forced a man into sex, while a smaller percentage of men report they've repeatedly forced a woman into sex--which actually demonstrates that rape is more common a behavior in women, not men.

They continue to frame rape culture as a social attitude that normalizes sexual violence by men against women, even though the justice system has bent over backwards to make it easier for women to report rape and easier to convict male rapists, even though black men hung like the song said, "strange fruit" from trees in the deep south based on nothing more than a woman's pointed finger, and even though the first response of society to a man's complaint that he's been forced into sex by a woman is, "was she hot?" They blame the rape of women on Patriarchal norms, masculinity and male dominance, even though it was a male-dominated system that enacted marital rape laws to protect only women from sexually aggressive husbands, while the exact same system will force a man to pay punitive damages to his ex-wife for not putting out enough for her liking, and will consider him withholding sex from her a form of domestic violence.

And they say batshit insane things like this, which I'm quoting from a recent article on Feministing:

Rape is absolutely a gendered crime, but the act of rape itself doesn’t necessarily follow those rules.
We need to be able to hold an understanding of rape as a genderless act at the same time that we recognize it as embedded in a gendered culture of violence. No one said feminism was easy.


What exactly is she saying here? Well, she's saying that even though rape is not gendered, it's intrinsic to masculinity. It is, as Brownmiller once said, the means by which all men control all women. It's not a pathology--it's a Patriarchal tool in all men's hands, a tool men have used since the beginning of humanity to terrorize women into remaining subjugated.

So again, what are the exact aspects of feminist theory that feminists are so desperate to protect by attempting to emulsify the oil of narrative and the water of empirical reality? To hold two completely contradictory ideas in their heads at once, and then bemoan that "no one said feminism was easy"? What motivates them to continue to tie a sexual behavior more common among WOMEN, and more likely to be normalized and endorsed by the culture when women are the aggressors, with masculinity?

Surprise! It's the part that, when attributed to masculinity, makes men hate-worthy. It's the part that makes people see maleness as bad, as evil, as deserving of hate and prejudice.

And you know, as much as feminists lie through their teeth about things like the pay gap and old boys' clubs and sexism in employment and education, I haven't EVER heard of anyone sending death threats to a researcher, or screaming, "YOU ARE FUCKING SCUM!!!!" into the face of someone interested in hearing another point of view, over the pay gap or subtle employment sexism.

The ONLY aspects of feminist theory--you know, the theory that IS feminISM--that feminists have engaged in violence, death and bomb threats, intimidation and false accusations to preserve are the aspects of feminist theory that cast men as uniquely subhuman monsters, and therefore worthy of hate.

Was feminism borne of the hatred of men, or was the hatred of men merely a natural consequence of the theories central to feminism? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The question is immaterial. Whether the theories were based in some women's hate of men, or whether they were based on ignorance and only taught women to perpetuate hateful beliefs about men, the relevant question is: What parts of feminist theory do feminist theorists most vehemently, violently shield from any challenge, doubt or scrutiny? What parts do feminists cling to even when they're proved wrong by sound evidence?

The parts that cast masculinity as a pathological victimization of women. The parts that give us all moral permission to hate men and see them as a threat. The parts that, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, cast women as a monolithic victim class and men as a monolithic perpetrator class, that cast women as universally humane and men as universally subhuman.

If the tenets of feminist theory that feminists defend most adamantly--with sociopathic or criminal behavior, no less--are the very tenets that collectively portray men as inhuman monsters and women, collectively, as their victims, the parts that naturally lead society to hate men for the horrible things they, and only they, are prone to do... then yes, I'd say feminism is hate. Because it's the aspects of the theory that lead people to hate men that feminists seem most interested in protecting.

And you might think those aspects are "radical", and I suppose you're right. "Radical" means "pertaining to the root". It does not describe fringe beliefs, it describes core, fundamental ones. Basic ones. Ones that are foundational to an ideology. The equivalent of, "was Christ the son of god, and did he die for our sins?" It's the radical feminists who are "doing it right". The moderates and coffee shop feminists are nothing more than poseurs and pick-and-choosers--Christmas Christians who engage in premarital sex and swipe office supplies from work, but rationalize it away because they like the idea of a Jesus that loves them no matter what.

And it doesn't matter whether some feminists are acting or believing out of ignorance. The ideology, and those who concocted, perpetuate and control it are not.

Individual feminists might not be primarily motivated by a hatred of men, but feminism is, absolutely, hate. It encourages hate, gives people moral permission to hate, condones and endorses that hate, and incites individuals and governments to act on that hate--and it is the specific elements of feminist theory with the least validity and empirical support, and which serve these very purposes, which are the ones most closely nurtured and guarded by feminists invested in them, and most zealously shielded from scrutiny, refutation or challenge. The ideology, and those in control of the narrative, are at their most vehement when it comes to maintaining feminism's most hateful premises.

It might not be hate if it was supported by valid, empirical evidence, or if it adjusted its tenets in the face of contrary evidence. It would just be reality. 

The way to prove that an ideology IS based on hate is to demonstrate that 1) it is false, 2) its falsities engender and promote unjustifiable hate, and 3) those falsities are the most adamantly defended and preserved by its followers.

All the elements of feminist ideology that are most likely to justify and encourage the hate of men rest on lies, half-truths, and censorship of opposing viewpoints and evidence, through a history of boycotts, intimidation and even terrorism. So yes, I'm prepared to say that the ideology of feminism is one of hate. As you quoted in your video, "By their fruits, you shall know the tree."

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Have a nice day.



43 comments:

  1. You just took Russ to the wood shed with this. I felt like a referee watching a fighter get his or her ass kicked. At some point you got to step in and stop the damn fight.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome Karen. As Black Yoda stated an ass kicking!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Phyllis Schlafly and her allies, for instance, were instrumental in blocking the ERA, arguing that the ERA would give women no rights they didn't already have, but would take away rights, exemptions and privileges they enjoyed as women. It would have, in fact, removed rights women had, and conservative women's success in blocking the ERA preserved those rights."

    That's because conservative women wanted to keep women from conscription, keep men paying alimony and keep men from having custody of children. Isn't this basically the entire MRA platform?

    But it was when NOW added gay rights to their agenda that Phyllis Schlafly and her conservative claque went ballistic.

    I signed an ERA petition in 1983, I was 22 years old. The woman passing it around our workplace met one major opposition - nobody wanted to give no homos no rights, gol-dernit! We ain't want no fags gettin' married!

    Also, the ERA would further guarantee a woman's right to abortion. Here are the basic opposition points:
    http://www.arragopwing.com/eraposition.html

    Phyllis Schlafly didn't preserve any rights for women. She blocked rights for MEN.

    In the U.S., the ERA is the cornerstone of feminism. It is feminism stripped down to its essence - equality for all before the law regardless of gender. Very simple.

    If feminists hate men, then why even support something like the ERA. That doesn't make any sense at all. If anyone hates men it's Phyllis Schlafly because she wants to keep men and women chained to gender roles that have outlived their necessity.

    " They ignore the findings that a large percentage of women have reported having forced a man into sex, while a smaller percentage of men report they've repeatedly forced a woman into sex--which actually demonstrates that rape is more common a behavior in women, not men."

    This actually demonstrates nothing. It's simply you saying something with no evidence. You constantly go on about empirical evidence, ok, give us a link.

    "The negative qualities that make people beat up their partners are not human qualities, they are masculine qualities, and they are an integral part of how masculinity and femininity interact under The Patriarchy, a system where men have always held power."

    So is this just a Chinese thing, a cultural thing, not a masculine, patriarchal thing?- http://nyti.ms/YI7u8Y
    "Surveys have found that domestic violence is widespread here [China], occurring in 25 to 35 percent of households. Most victims are women, but children, some men and, increasingly, the elderly, suffer too. Surveys suggest that around 90 percent of offenders are men."

    You also quote Robin Morgan about hating men as a political act. But don't you have another video in which you explain that the harsh language used on MRA sites is ok because when you're fighting for rights your mission isn't to make people comfortable? I've seen enough hateful language on those sites that makes Morgan sound like the Dalai Lama.

    Feminists do not hate men. Feminists don't CATER to men. And that's the problem, isn't it? Men are used to being fed "Man Crack" (I believe your fellow MRA chick dished that one up). You know, where women constantly tell men how great they are, how wonderful they are and how the bad things they do aren't so bad. Men have a big problem with lack of attention from women - Even fat, hairy, spear-chuckin' lezbo feminists.










    Also,



    ReplyDelete
  4. A friend recommended this blog to me. I read a few posts, saw some videos and I have to say I am impressed. I cannot say if your intelligence, structured analysis and above all patience will be rewarded in the sense of making feminist believers stop for a second and think, but I can tell for sure that it is an almost physical refreshing sensation to read something else than the permanent ludicrous noise pointing at men as some kind of biologically fascist creatures.

    Besides, I think feminism imposes a new moral, which is no less than the old reactionary and conservative one, having in common the effort towards a strict gender separation through fear and hate of the opposite sex. Happy, loving and satisfied men and women enjoying mutual understanding and contact seem to be the target of those who cannot bear the sight of people going through a positive relationship. They tend to sabotage and sow the seed of fear and fight, as if life and love weren't already a challenge. A challenge they seem unable to cope with, wishing none is.

    Thanks for your cleverness and thoughtful writings. They are very needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. elf: there is a difference between a public well-known idiot like Robin Morgan and some anonymous idiot that writes anything on a forum. MRA does not encourage hate towards women though obviously you might eventually find some misogynous comment on an MRA forum as much as you can find anything anywhere on the web. Compare a public individual voice to thousands of comments on the web and you will find out that even Hitler might seem the Dalai Lama. For one Robin Morgan you also have a host of feminist hate anonymous that follow her and her gang.

    In other words, you have to compare Robin Morgan to a whole forum in order to find enough hate to put on both sides of the balance, which proves the author's point.

    And you cannot imagine how desperately eager I am to get attention from fat, hairy, spear-chukin' lezbo feminists. In fact all my life is devoted to that, especially if they are blurry-minded, full of hate and unable to make a honest, intelligent statement.

    In fact that's why I'm addressing you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You missed my point.

      In another vid blog, GWW chastised women who complained about the harsh language on MRA sites. She claimed when people are fighting for their rights it's not their responsibility to make anyone feel comfortable.

      My point being, why is harsh language on MRA sites OK while harsh language from feminists is defined as "hate?"

      Delete
    3. I saw the video you are mentioning, you certainly refer to this one:

      http://owningyourshit.blogspot.dk/2012/03/transcript-of-all-those-dangerous-woman.html

      Now here the author aknowledges that in some MRA forums harsh or colorful language can be detected, as this can happen in any internet open forum dealing with people's rights or controversial issues. But if you read carefully, the author points out that:

      Despite the fact that on most MRA blogs, any kind of incitement to violent action, either against isolated women or against the system, is swiftly and sternly rebuffed,

      Now please kindly pay attention to the examples extracted from radical feminist forums in the same post, which cause nausea to any mentally sane person.

      So comparing forum with forum, where crowds have access and as a logical consequence harsh language will be expected, MRA ones appear as more civilized by far.

      Now Robin Morgan is not an anonymous forum, she is someone whose speech equals that of the most barbarians and idiotic bigots you can find after a long search in internet. She clearly praises hate against all men as a virtue, something that you will hardly find in any MRA forum, and something that certainly is not part of any MRA agenda.

      In fact Robin Morgan's is not "harsh language", it is an articulate, meditated and intended apology for hate. That's what makes it despicable.

      Delete
    4. "So comparing forum with forum, where crowds have access and as a logical consequence harsh language will be expected, MRA ones appear as more civilized by far."

      Apparently you haven't been to The Spearhead.

      I hang around rad fem blogs and while the language is harsh it doesn't even come close to the nasty, hateful shit I've seen on MRA sites.

      Delete
    5. The Spearhead: "Let those entitled bitches change their own tires and mine their own coal for a while, the self-centered cunts! Western women are all whores! They'd appreciate us if we weren't around for a week, they're that stupid and deluded, the cunts."

      RadfemHub: "I think it behooves us revolutionary women to consider reducing the male population to 10%. How best can we achieve this laudable goal? Perhaps through manipulation of male hormones through spiking the water supply? Or maybe through genetic recombination? I see mass extermination as a last resort. What say you good ladies?"

      Yes, the radfem rhetoric is MUCH nicer.

      Delete
    6. It doesn't contain "cunt", "whore" and "bitch", so obviously it's civilized and scholarly.

      BTW when reading material like this post I feel
      1) Slightly intimidated by the sheer effort you can put into proving someone very, very wrong
      2) Slightly puzzled by this kind of quality in response to something not even remotely up to the standard

      Delete
  6. @elf: Feminists hate men because they block all attempts to get funding and recognition for men's issues. Warren Farrell's White House Council for Boys is a perfect example. Men are only 40% of college grads now. That means the rest of the men are going ignored and increases the chance they will end up in jail and we will all be paying. Take off the blinders please. It is not just about laws. Also look at Obamacare. It is a feminist pay off with very little in there for men's health!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do feminists block this legislation? There are 50 seats in the Senate, 20 of them are held by women. There are 435 seats in the House, 78 are held by women.

      Since men hold the majority of seats in the House and Senate, how is it that feminists block all attempts to fund men's issues? Give me one instance where feminists have actually blocked a bill through the house or senate that dealt with men's issues.

      Are you claiming a majority of people in the House and Senate are feminist, regardless of gender? I don't buy it, but who knows.

      Obamacare is a feminist payoff? I'm a feminist an I can guarantee you there is no payoff for me with Obamacare. Fill me in on these feminists who get all the Obamacare payoffs. I'm interested to hear the facts about that.

      Delete
    2. “How do feminists block this legislation? There are 50 seats in the Senate, 20 of them are held by women. There are 435 seats in the House, 78 are held by women”

      That is a fallacious argument, since “feminist” and “women” describe two different kinds of groups. And politicians are just public servants whose job is to please their constituents, and those constituents don’t have to be a majority, they just need to be energized and organized. So the sex of these office holders means very little.

      Delete
    3. while i have issue with men being underrepresented in college and over represented in jail - the fact that they still have a majority representation in careers that do not require a college education hardly leaves them "ignored."

      how is obamacare a feminist pay off?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. "while i have issue with men being underrepresented in college and over represented in jail - the fact that they still have a majority representation in careers that do not require a college education hardly leaves them "ignored.""

      If by "careers that do not require a college education" you mean 'physical labor that women refuse to do' then yes.

      Delete
  7. Paul Elam, A Voice for Men- the biggest conjob in the MRA and disinfo agent

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/107/postid/4658/scope/posts/Default.aspx

    A short commentary on MRA leaders
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ElZzB4P2D4

    The so called "Leaders" of the MRA area are lying to you all. They are telling you that governments make legislation that you HAVE to obey and that they can FORCE you to obey using the police FORCE. This is a lie. They know it is a lie. And they are telling you lies that they know are lies.

    The TRUTH is that legislation is NOT LAW and you do not have to obey ANY legislation. Here are links to videos that go into this in detail. This is not a new idea. Many people KNOW that legislation is not law and have been telling you so for a long time.

    The excuse offered is usually "well the guvment can hurt you if you do not obey" is just that. An excuse. The only reason that guvments do hurt men who do not obey is because men have TOLERATED these crimes and not formed new courts to put criminals in guvment on trial. Men only have themselves to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I see Glen Sacks as the biggest con job in the whole MRA/Fathers rights area. I have often denounced Glen Sacks as an Illuminati agent. Glen has never bothered to deny these claims despite the fact I have made them quite widely and quite openly in my own name."

      LOLOLOLOL

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "The only reason that guvments do hurt men who do not obey is because men have TOLERATED these crimes and not formed new courts to put criminals in guvment on trial. Men only have themselves to blame."

      So what you're saying is that if the government hurts a man it's his fault for not staging a coup d'état? By that logic, isn't patriarchy feminism's fault?

      Delete
    4. Legislation is not the law?
      Stands to reason, right? :D

      Delete
    5. This is the perspective of a subgenre of American conspiritainment culture called "Sovereign Citizens Movement". They think there is "secret (actual) legal system", and that evil forces in control of the Government have lied their way into power by "duping" people into misunderstanding imagined archaic distinctions in legal terminology. They think the American Civil War instituted some kind of "Admiralty Law" regime alongside the "Founder's Law" in the Constitution, and if you just stamp your feet and repeatedly invoke your "real rights" the courts will have to relent, because they are secretly bound by the "true law" and fear breaking it.

      There are different versions of Sovereign Citizens, so some may agree or disagree on the particulars, but all of them seem convinced that if they angrily rant about "true law" in front of courts they'll be exempt from taxes, having to drive with licenses, etc, etc.

      Delete
  8. Top Ten PTC Sites Ever which you can make money online with just clicking, Best upgrade plans to make upto 10 to 15 Dollars daily without any Registration or MemberShip Charges
    You can join any time from your home, just visit the website and start earning from home
    Probux.Com(Best PTC Site)

    ReplyDelete
  9. An excerpt from my essay on the writings of Angela Carter:

    I would suggest it is fruitful to acknowledge our shadows; it affords us our sanity. Aidan Day comments on this in his perceptive book Angela Carter – The Rational Glass. He argues that a ‘rational and ethical self is central to Carter’s programme in The Bloody Chamber collection, and it cannot sustain itself by evasion and repression’. This non-evasive ethic is something that Carter seems to promote at all times, even when such an agency might appear on the surface latent or collusive with the 'patriarchy' it attempts to subvert. Lucie Armitt suggests this when she comments at the end of her essay: ‘Taking a leaf out of her own protagonist’s book, Carter flirts with textual danger on her own untamed terms, refusing to give us clearly defined answers’.

    In The Bloody Chamber the female subject encounters all the alluring and horrid phallocentric myths that constitute 'patriarchal' social shamanism, and the reader is geared with some insight as to why these myths were perhaps so alluring even when they clearly restrained and limited her. We can see this vividly expressed in the title story, in part a reworking of Charles Perrault’s version of the Bluebeard tale. During a contentious scene in Carter’s version the young heroine notices her attractions to the Marquis that she has recently wed. After leading her to his garish mirrored bedroom he strips her naked without any tenderness, approaching his ‘familiar treat with a weary appetite’, and she notes:

    He in his London tailoring; she, bare as a lamb chop. Most pornographic of all confrontations. And, as at the opera, when I had first seen my flesh in his eyes, I was aghast to feel myself stirring. […] And I began to shudder, like a racehorse before a race, yet also with a kind of fear, for I felt both a strange, impersonal arousal at the thought of love and at the same time a repugnance I could not stifle for his white, heavy flesh

    She notices her arousal and that it is impersonal, fulfilling some interior mythical dimension, rather than a simply passive response to the Sadeian unpleasantness of the Marquis. She does not evade herself and is perhaps rewarded with insight. Here we might argue that the heroine intuits that her husband is merely a vehicle, one that excites a dark interconnection of signs and motifs within her own psyche. As she informs us earlier in the tale when she is given a ‘cruel necklace’ by the Marquis: ‘And, for the first time in my innocent and confined life, I sensed in myself a potentiality for corruption that took my breath away. The next day we were married’.

    This seems to be a very important though misunderstood key in unlocking Carter’s work and the power it possesses. To be a genuine female subject, where genuine is synonymous with self-made and active, one must understand the horrors and allures of feminine identities created by 'patriarchal' coercion. One must understand the allure of passivity, or sado-masochism, or the possible masculine architect of such ‘feminine’ images. One must also comprehend that such a melancholy femininity cannot exist without its demonic counterpart; the very phallic masculinity that appears so powerful and controlling. Both are fictions that live primarily within, and only through this binary can they exist unnoticed. If women sometimes collude with supposedly patriarchal scripting of female desire, then men do it also with a counterpart scripting of male desire – in these instances both sexes are flirting with a polarised phallocentric mythology. Since they are internal polarities, unveiling the actions of one must necessarily destabilise the actions of the other. As Marianne informs her barbarian lover Jewel in Carter’s post-apocalyptic novel Heroes and Villains, ‘You, you’re nothing but the furious invention of my virgin nights.’

    ReplyDelete
  10. *Continued*

    The Bloody Chamber is largely concerned with exposing the supposedly ‘natural’ wisdom and codes of canonical fairytales as false, as mediated social constructions with purpose, whether that purpose is sinisterly conscious or blithely unconscious. Without this exposure heterosexual women and men might be liable to feel corrupted, coded in ways they do not fully understand, entrapped by their dark psychic content, by their sexual fantasies, by their own will-to-power. The interlocking nature of The Bloody Chamber can help to off-set this entrapment by bringing us face to face with some of the reasons why it occurs and how we might unknowingly collude with our own psychic slavery. Lucie Armitt utilises Julia Kristeva’s conceptions of the abject when she suggests that abjection is ‘a particularly useful concept to apply to any metaphoric narrative, and especially to a mode of writing which, like these tales, prides itself on the interrogation of apparently impenetrable limits’.

    The interlinked frames in The Bloody Chamber, as well as the repetition of motifs and the reoccurrence of character-types, is a beautiful method that Carter uses to signify the relationship between ideas of the self and the other, between violence and desire, or freedom and control. Perception is a shifting, indeterminate process. Therefore, can the female subject ever really be contained within 'patriarchy', or within the interconnected lenses of the book itself? The logic of the book is not phallic or linear, and while its goals include self-knowledge and the ability to reason it is not the reason of an apollonian day-world sort. It is a reflexive non-linear reason that holds the tales together, a tissue of poetic associations that could be described as a gyroscope of shifting lenses. Or as Armitt elaborates:

    In other words, images, symbols and motifs from one story turn up in another in a way that reiterates and reworks the concerns of a previous vignette. As a whole, this multiplicity of interconnecting frames is, like the contents of the coffin, only precariously encased within the larger frame of the whole.

    It is this arrangement that allows us to see themes deconstructed, decentred and revivified in ways that are disturbing and perhaps useful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *Continued*

    One of the key themes in The Bloody Chamber concerns the female subject courageously confronting the horror of the ‘rape-scenario’ that is perhaps implicit in fairytales and supposedly patriarchal masculine-feminine discourse. Sarah Gamble reiterates Margaret Atwood’s essay ‘Running with Tigers’ when she suggests that The Bloody Chamber is ‘best understood as a kind of fictional companion volume to The Sadeian Woman, for it constitutes an exploration of the same predator/prey equation that preoccupies the de Sade study’. It is the little-girl-in-peril motif, the ‘heterosexual fucking as rape’ implications, that Angela Carter finds so interestingly abhorrent.

    Perhaps it is the presence of these themes that so disquiet critics like Dunker, Clark and Palmer. These unquestioned violent motifs serve to terrify both female and male subjects into intellectual passivity, Carter would claim, and create the monolithic fiction of the masculine as an almost supernaturally-sexualised predator. Discussions concerning the actual fragility of the male phallus and problems of impotency only serve to furnish us with intellectual insight, but to undercut the power of such a pathological myth we must return to the canvas of stories, for it is there that the myth gains or loses its power to entrance. By demystifying the Marquis or the Wolf in fictional terms Carter is thus able to destabilise their power-centre at the source, so to speak. To put it another way, if we fear or detest certain stories then we must question them and re-imagine them at ‘ground zero’, at the level of storytelling itself. We must return to old texts and read them with contextual differences, and create new texts that borrow whatever is needed from the old myths to provide elucidation.

    This is what Carter is doing, I feel, she is borrowing as much from patriarchy as she needs to make her ideas intelligible and engaging. To expose Bluebeard or the Wolf, Carter must first have them present in some identifiable form. It is the same with apparently passive female characters. These images dwell within the psyche, nurtured or questioned by our imaginations. This does not necessarily mean that Carter is re-inscribing female disempowerment or adding to the 'phallocentric mythology', even if she senses in herself a gothic attraction and interest in such ideas. Is it unacceptable to be attracted to Bluebeard or the Wolf, or to the fiction of the passive feminine? Is it unacceptable to explore this attraction, its reasons and limits, through fiction? I would suggest that it is not, especially when the manifesto is one of general emancipation.

    *I see some resonance here between your thoughts and my own, GWW, though I may be wrong*

    Thought-provoking stuff. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just found your blog and I must say it's very insightful. The core of feminism is not "rights", but "greed". I'm quite capitalistic, so I tend to prescribe to Gordon Gekko's idea of "greed is good". What pisses me off is that feminists don't admit that they are greedy for their own selfish reasons, but claim to be righteous and believe that they are moral authorities.
    Everyone has a right to their own opinions and greed, but do not claim your opinion and selfishness as justice. And when true justice puts you mercilessly in your place, don't complain that it's "oppression". Any attempt to gain minor advantages while claiming that you're doing it for "human rights" while refusing to take any risks is an insult to the people who actually made real sacrifices for real human rights.
    Feminism = 60% greed + 35% logical fallacies + 5% reasonable stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Im against capitalist 'feminism'. Women should just think for themselves. IF this is not a patriarchy, then... Who has all the power? Why is it white affluent men? I dont care if it's Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton or George Bush, they belong to the Patriarchal Club and they benefit from it. What neoliberalism delivers is female tokenism but no real access to power.

    Because women have no real control over economics, politics or religlon they have no real control over the policies that effect their
    lives, so they are second class people like the working class, like the blacks, the emigrants, the disabled, the youth etc et

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me. Rich and middle class women are not working class and I find this insulting to all my fellow working class co-workers and friends that struggle to make ends meet, pay check to pay check.
      You'd do well to read some more GWW and MRA arguments and commentary on women not having any power. Here's one link: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2645/hypoagency-hypoagency-and-blaming-everything-on-men/

      Delete
  14. tbh I don't think I would call feminism an ideology.

    It PRETENDS to be one, and to have a scholarly basis, and chucks around a few misunderstood (and frequently misrepresented) stats and some Foucault/Lacan inspired rubbish. As you show, their arguments do not stand up to a moments critical examination.

    Your point about "swordfighting the fart", the slipperiness of feminism's arguments, can be extended: when I argue with feminists, they will change the goalposts, pretend they 'never said that', that they meant something different, that different rules apply for men and women (because equality is so important to them). Anything, ANYTHING, to win the current debate.

    Why? Because the logic and ideas simply don't matter to them. What matters is a visceral belief that women have to work together against men, and only by a war of attrition (winning every little battle) can they achieve "freedom" and "choice" etc

    The ideas are only there to serve a purpose. Maybe that still constitutes an ideology for some, but to me it feels like the wrong word :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well isn't this exactly what marks the transition from ideas to ideologies - the actual ideas are no longer themselves, they become dogmas. And the dogmas themselves are not the ultimate asset - it's the power they help to acquire and keep.

      Delete
  15. GWW: I've seen you advertise places like the National Coalition For Men, A Voice For Men, etc. I don't get how an organization formed to advance the cause of a specific gender can possibly result in gender equality. Shouldn't an organization truly interested in equality not be biased in either direction? How is that any different than feminism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main difference is that those organizations have absolutely no interest in lobbying for different laws, rights and obligations for different genders.

      These organizations are trying to make the same laws, rights and obligations apply to everybody.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't know if you would find this relevant but here:

    http://eseld.tumblr.com/post/54513348574/an-anthropologist-on-girlwriteswhat-and-male

    It's funny how the anthropologist decided to keep anonymous, I can't think of a reason why but I guess it must be a person who values its privacy a lot or something. Also, why do they keep thinking you are part of MRA's?

    ReplyDelete
  18. If I had a lifetime to "script" something that can remotely compete with your eloquence, objectivity and unbiased honesty, then I am going to need one more lifetime. I/We love you Karen!
    You are a voice for us that are not allowed a voice anymore. You must not stop! . . . Angel face! (sorry! Couldn't help it)
    Thank you for Typhoonblue by the way! Hi Alison!!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. was there Wed afternoon and laying in the salt sauna when a guy came in and laid near me. He started to fondle his crotch area and saw that I was getting hard and before I knew it, he came over and sucked me. Wow! This place is great!
    dirty panties phone sex

    ReplyDelete
  20. I watched your video Feminism and the Disposable Male. I am normally not the kind of person to say this sort of thing (being well schooled in the school of the stoic male), but I can't thank you enough for saying what you said. I never thought I would hear a woman articulate sympathetically all the things that I have been bothering me lately about feminism as it currently exists and the assumptions embedded in our societal institutions and our approach to social problems (including what we perceive as problems). I really felt moved to the point of tears to hear what you had to say. I was despairing of every seeing a woman who is big enough to say what you have said. I have grown up as a feminist but have recently begun to question much of the values I have been raised with. Now that I work as a criminal defense attorney, I see the spectacle of the problematic male and it causes me to feel the questions harder: what is wrong with men? Roughly 15 times as many men as women are in prison, 4 times as many die by suicide. Women outnumber men in almost every university department. They go to college in greater numbers, they graduate in greater numbers, and they get better grades. Any sociologist examining this disparity ought to be alarmed and indeed they are....but only if those disparities are racial or if women were on the worst end of it. It seems to be accepted as a matter of routine that men act out more and end up in jail more. But why? In any other demographical disparity we would view that as indicative of maladaptedness. If people are going to prison, something has gone wrong somewhere. Men take more risks and behave more destructively. We know where the risk taking behavior came from of course. But what do we do with it now? It seems the solution is to pathologize maleness as such. I have always grown up with a sense of shame at my own natural impulses, particularly sexual ones. I know the public policy reasons behind it but we are NOT TAKING CARE OF MEN. These disparities are immensely disturbing. Most of my clients are men obviously. And now a great portion of the workers in the prison system are women who shake their head at the behavior of men which derive from impulses that are essentially alien to women. But the response is that they should just "grow up." Well that admonishment does not appear to be getting us anywhere.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!