A Dose of Stupid v86

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Lindy West of Jezebel has a problem. For some reason, men seem to think feminists minimizing their experiences is misandry. Men also seem to think that sometimes bad things happen to them because they are men. West disagrees:

Though it is a seductive scapegoat (I understand why it attracts you), none of these terrible, painful problems in your life were caused by the spectre of “misandry.” You can rest easy about that, I promise! In fact, the most powerful proponent of misandry in modern internet discourse is you — specifically, your dogged insistence that misandry is a genuine, systemic, oppressive force on par with misogyny.

It is never good to start off by telling someone that you know more about the causes of their bad experiences than they do. It is really not a good thing to do if you are not part of that group. It is a truly terrible thing to do if your group has a history of marginalizing the other group. It is downright offensive to accuse someone of being the cause of their own misery. But West is not worried about that. As she explains:

This is specious, it hurts women, and it is hurting you. Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

Of course it is. That is why West is on a feminist site telling alienated and marginalized men a) that they are not alienated and marginalized, b) that anything bad that happened to them could never be the result of misandry, c) that the men are the misandrists, and d) that by speaking out about the sexism they face they turn feminists against them.

Many feminists use this retort whenever someone points out feminist misandry. According to those feminists, they would be on men’s side but for all the whining and complaining. Granted, one never sees those feminists reach out to men. One never sees those feminists talk about the problems men face. One never sees those feminists engaging with alienated and marginalized men on any equal level. It is only when those men protest that feminists say they were on their side until men turned them away.

It is not a believable argument, as West proves in her comments. She can barely muster a coherent defensive of her own position. Instead, she resorts to snark and sarcasm, something many feminists mistake for reasoned, rational argument. Perhaps West would have done better promising not to mock the people she wants to take her seriously rather than promising “not to yell.”

West divides her poor argument into five parts. The first defends the “fem” in “feminism”. As she states:

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a “humanist.” Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that “fem” is a part of the word “feminism” is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can’t make problems disappear just by changing “feminism” to “humanism” and declaring the world healed. That won’t work.

West’s argument makes no sense, and she appears to know it, which is why she falls back on the “women have it worse” trope. If feminism were striving for humanism, why is the focus only on women? The very concept of treating everyone as equal implies that one should not focus on one group more than another. At the very least one should not ignore one group’s suffering over another just because some members of that group had or have power.

Treating everybody equally does not deny that there was inequality in the past. Treating people equally tries to prevent that inequality from happening in the future.

West uses a Dr. Seuss analogy, which is much better than the typical, lame Matrix analogy many feminists prefer, to show why men really have no place to complain. Yet her analogy about Fleetches and Flootches shows exactly the bias men complain about. Instead of seeing how the Fleetches can be marginalized, West argues that since Fleetches run everything, they have no real reason to complain. She argues that any harm Fleetches experience happens on an individual level, whereas all Flootches experience the same problems on a broader level.

That illogical argument does not take much effort to disprove. Indeed, West’s own part four lists numerous examples of the ways men are oppressed in our society as men, despite that a handful of them hold positions of power. Likewise, scores of women benefit from their economic, social, and gender status in ways that would not work for other women or men. Or does West actually think a black or latina woman or any man who killed their child and blamed it on a non-existent nanny would walk out of court like Casey Anthony did?

Again, West knows her argument makes no sense, so she tries to put it a different way:

Or, if you didn’t like that one, here’s another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like “misandry isn’t real,” we mean it the same way you might say, “Freddy Krueger isn’t real.” The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it’s almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger.

That would be a valid argument if there were not examples of misandry in our culture and society. Unless West contends that all those examples are in our heads, her analogy fails. It is curious that throughout her piece, West never gives a direct example or counter-example to support her argument. She simply declares misandry a figment of men’s imagination and runs with it. Again, it is really not hard to prove misandry exists in our culture and society.

West moves on to justifying sexism against men by arguing that since men make up the majority of certain industries, there cannot be any sexism against men. This is akin to saying that since black people make up the majority of United States football and basketball players, there cannot be any racism in sports against black people. But if you disagree:

It’s fine (though discouraging) if you legitimately believe that, but you need to own up to the fact that that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view.

Yes, if one conveniently ignores biases against other groups of people in favor of painting one’s group as that most oppressed, that is a self-serving and bigoted point of view. Pity that it appears to be West’s point of view.

Part three gets interesting. West has a huge problem: there are lots of feminists who do not like men. There are lots of feminists who downright hate men. These feminists are fairly easy to find. A few of them — Hugo Schwyzer, Amanda Marcotte, Michael Kimmel, Michael Flood, Jessica Valenti, Jill Filipovic — write pieces for Jezebel. So when it comes time for West to explain why feminists hating men is not misandry, the best she can come up with is:

There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally. Women are allowed to not like you personally, just like you are allowed to not like us personally. It’s not misandry, it’s mis-Kevin-dry. Or, you know, whoever you are. It is not built into our culture or codified into law, and you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t isolated incidents wherein mean women hurt men on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem that results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

West provides no examples to support her argument. However, there is evidence supporting the opposite argument.

Yet there is a greater problem: that is not how misogyny works either. Note the way West phrased her argument, “you can rest assured that most women you encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Kevins that could cost you a job or an apartment or your physical sanctity.” That is true, yet it is also true that most men women encounter are not harboring secret, latent, gendered prejudices against Marcias that could cost them a job or an apartment or their physical sanctity. The vast majority of men do not hurt or harm women. Most men find such acts disgusting.

More so, the vast majority of men lack any power in our society. One man who hates or hurts women does not represent all men. So even though some men hurt women, that does not mean all men do. However, even though all men are not misogynists, that does not make misogyny magically disappear. Likewise, even though all women are not misandrists, that does not make misandry disappear.

Even so, that is a tangent argument because we are actually talking about feminists, not women in general. When it comes to feminists, as a group they unfortunately do have a storied history of misandry. There is no getting around that, as much as West might not like it.

Again, West knows her argument is weak, so she tries to shore it up by claiming that the feminists who do hate men have no power. Yet that is not true either. Not only do they have power, but also have forums like Jezebel to get their message across to millions of people.

West gets particularly muddled in her illogic as she tries to explain the difference of the “reins of power”:

You might not benefit from patriarchy in any measurable way—on an individual level your life might actually be much, much worse than mine—but the fact is that certain disadvantages are absent from your experience (and, likely, invisible to you) because of your gender.

That argument is so stupid on such a fundamental level that West cannot even bring herself to properly defend it. If one does not benefit from some so-called privilege, then any absent disadvantages are irrelevant. There is no reason to even bring those up aside from making the moronic argument that even if a man has a worse life than a woman, he is still somehow better off than her. That is an indefensibly stupid argument that West quickly tries to weasel out of:

Maybe you’re saying, “Hey, but my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle.” I know it wasn’t. I know you have. But that’s not how fairness works. If you present fairness as the goal—that some day everything will be “fair” for everyone—you’re slipping into an unrealistic fantasy land.

That kind of undermines the whole fairness goal of feminism, but then again:

Feminism isn’t about striving for individual fairness, on a life-by-life basis—it’s about fighting against a systematic removal of opportunity that infringes on women’s basic freedoms.

That kind of undermines the whole “women can have it all” theme feminism has had since the 1960s. Indeed, it undermines feminists’ current effort for equal acquisition across the board. West claims that feminists only want women to have the same opportunities as men, yet during the last election season feminists complained about the lack of women in the Senate and the House. They have also complained about President Obama’s new cabinet being mostly male. If feminists were only concerned with equal opportunity, then it should not bother them if people choose men over women if they think the man is the best qualified person.

Yet it does bother feminists, and that shows that West’s argument is nothing more than rhetorical spin. Feminism is very much about individual fairness, otherwise it would not matter when individual women do not get promotions, get hired, or get picked to lead, and there would be no point to telling individual men how much better their lives are compared to women’s

In part four, West argues that feminists actually support all of men’s concerns. She lists almost two dozen examples, from child custody to suicide, and ends with:

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them.

Really? Where? What feminist organizations are dedicated to addressing male suicide? To making sure women who kill, rape, and abuse face the same sentences as men? To arguing against suspecting men of being pedophiles? To preventing job-related injuries and deaths? To making men responsible for women’s wants and needs? To preventing false accusations? To boycotting commercials that humiliate men? To opposing unfair child custody arrangements? To addressing paternity fraud? To preventing prison rape? To preventing any sexual or physical violence against males? Even the feminist web magazine dedicated to talking about men’s concerns rarely talks about these issues. Why should any man thank feminists for doing nothing?

But that is not really West’s point. This is:

The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

You do not help people solely for them to help you later. You help people because it is the right thing to do.

Likewise, you cannot claim to care about someone’s problems after spending over 1,000 words running them down for talking about their problems. When you mock someone for speaking up and say that their experiences of sexism are comparable to fictional characters, that is not caring. Neither is telling the suffering people that supporting their own group is not as important to them as resenting yours.

That is you being a right jackass.

And it takes a right jackass to in one breath say they care about you while scapegoating you for all their problems and then in the next breath accuse you of scapegoating them, as West does in part five of her poor argument:

To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry”: I totally get it. Humans are not such complicated creatures. All we want is to feel like we’re valued, like we deserve to exist. And I’m sorry if you haven’t found that so far in your life. But it’s not women’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s certainly not feminism’s fault.

One cannot argue that after arguing this:

It’s not easy to swallow your own privilege—to admit that you’re a Fleetch—but once you do, it’s addictive. It feels good to open up to perspectives that are foreign to you, accept your complicity in this shitty system, and work on making the world better for everyone instead of just defending your territory. It’s something I had to do as a privileged white woman, and something I still have to work on every day, because it’s right. [...] Blanket defensiveness isn’t going to get any of us anywhere.

There West is blaming men for the problems in her life. Men who have not touched, talked to, seen, or even been near her. Billions of men worldwide are complicit her oppression. Meanwhile, her ideological group is wholly incapable of expressing even the smallest amount of bias against men, and anyone challenging that is a self-serving bigot.

This kind of pathetic circular logic is precisely why feminists have such a hard time winning people over to their cause. Comments like this also do not help:

Plenty of women know exactly what it feels like to be pushed to the fringe of society, to be rejected so many times that you eventually reject yourself. That alienation is a big part of what feminism is fighting against.

How can feminism against what it is doing? Nowhere in West’s piece does she actually reach out to men. Everything is sarcasm and snark. Even her wrap up — “A lot of those women would be on your side, if you would just let them instead of insisting that they’re the villains. It’s better over here, and we have room for you. So stop trying to convince us that we hate you and I promise we’ll start liking you a whole lot more” — is off-putting.

If feminists want men to believe feminists are on their side, feminists simply need to show they are on men’s side. Writing articles that mock the people you want to listen to you is not going to get them to trust you. It will only make them resent you more because you are showing how little you respect them.

West started her article by claiming that men thinking that feminists “hate men” was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is, but not in the way she thinks. Men do not make feminists hate men. By pointing out the ways feminists and women oppress and marginalize them, men get feminists to reveal their misandry all on their own. No one has to force feminists to do it. Read the comments on the article. With little more than a “let’s bash men” prompt, feminists quickly take to beating men down.

That is why many men think feminist hate them. Not because of some imaginary fear, but because of what feminists actually do.

About these ads

68 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v86

  1. Your reply (fisking?) of her article is the best I’ve read so far. Well done.

    God, but feminists piss me off sometimes.

  2. So feminists don’t hate men? It seems like the writers on Jezebel don’t agree on this topic; not long ago Kate Harding said:

    Your feminist enemies don’t hate men; we only hate men who proudly stand up for the rights of abusers, rapists, and deadbeat dads.

    in an article on Jezebel.
    The group of men who feminist hate (according to Harding) includes every men who proudly stands up for basic human and civil rights (like the prohibition of torture or the right to a fair trial) for everybody.
    Also it is ironic how much of her text seem to be a critique of feminism.

  3. Ginkgo, I think many ideologues are closet narcissists. They simply project their views about themselves onto a broader group of people, so they do not think what they are doing is narcissistic. It is a kind inverted project that you see people like Hugo Schwyzer doing.

  4. I find when dealing with feminists the best defense is a good offense. Just bring up child abuse. The following video by GirlWritesWhat is guaranteed to put feminists on the defensive. I’d love to hear GirlWritesWhat debate the likes of Schwyzer et.al. It’s no wonder they hate her.

  5. ” Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.”

    Why do you make me hit you, honey? Why do you make me do this to you?

    “There might be a lot of women in your life who are mean to you, but that’s just women not liking you personally.”

    Note the trvialization- “mean to you,” the sort of language more typically applied to squabbling between small children.All the phenomena people concerned with men’s rights object to are reduced to the same level of seriousness as a 5-year old pushing in line for the slide. Perhaps l should start referring to men who rape women as “naughty.”

  6. Great rundown of it, the jezebel article is more likely to make me NOT want to be an “ally”, why would I ally myself with people who are too ignorant to understand the reality of misandry?

  7. Thanks for this article, I also appreciate your post in the comments. That post about narcissism really opened up my eyes. I never thought of it that way.

  8. Part Four: A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On
    This part says it all. Women take no accountability, it’s all “the patriarchy’s” fault.
    Show me a child caged, starved, sold into child porn and I’ll show you a woman in the house. Simple as that. But I’m sure somewhere, somehow “the patriarchy” is to blame.

  9. Women are a part of the patriarchy. But I do notice a lack of responsibility in some, eg when people say men start wars when really it’s society, both men n women who start wars. The citizens of the U.S who didn’t stand up against the war in Iraq have resposnibility to some degree for it.

  10. Agreed Archy. That’s why I say it’s time for women to “Man Up” about child abuse. In guyville we have a saying, “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” The PA Coalition Against Rape states clearly on their website:
    “Although the anti-sexual violence and feminist movements have done tremendous work and education around sexism and how harmful it is to women and girls, men and boys have not historically been part of this conversation.”
    They, like all feminist organizations, knowingly CHOSE to exclude boys from the “conversation” (i.e. federal money) for decades. It seems as if they were playing some kind of sick collateral damage strategy. They know men are abused as children and the majority of male victims will internalize the abuse. Taking just sexual abuse as an example, 1 in 6 boys are abused yet only 6% of men will ever rape and even fewer will become violent and/or serial rapists. The vast majority of men abused as children will suffer from substance abuse, emotional damage, suicide…. A minority will rape. The women they assault are collateral damage.
    I wonder if they actually see this as an “advantage” to women. All those broken men and their subsequent lack of achievement, or incarceration, will provide more “opportunities” for women. Meanwhile women kill the same number of children on a daily basis, as women die as a result of domestic violence.
    They don’t want to talk about the children they don’t kill, but just sadistically malign. That’s why the GirlWritesWhat Anders Breivik video is so relevant. It’s all about accountability.

  11. At least there are dissenting comments in there, even if they’re drowned out by the vapid, merciless harpings of bigots.

  12. I…deconstructed this post on my tumblr.

    http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/46621351440/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop

    I refuse to read Jez, so I didn’t see the prelude or whatever. And now I feel ill.

    Naturally, the tumblrfems are quoting that “patriarchy dood it” list like it’s the Great White Hope. You can’t logically go “If you keep talking about misandry, you’re going to make people hate you” and then say that you actually really, really care about men’s concerns, really.

  13. Wapp, you can the rawness blog has lots of good stuff about narcissism and codependence. To me it seems like the relationship between feminist men, of the type that are really involved with it, and activist feminist women is very much like that between narcissists and codependents.

  14. SYABM, I just want to say:

    You just laid the greatest smackdown on that Jezebel tripe. Congratulations! I commend you!

  15. 1) I’ve never heard anyone defending the rights of rapists, only the right to a free trial of alleged rapists. of course, to certain people, those are pretty much the same thing.
    2) In what sense is defending the rights of “deadbeat dads” anything like defending the rights of rapists? that is extremely manipulative and almost sociopathic reasoning and I would be pissed off if I was a survivor of rape, with them conflating the two like that. also, I wasn’t aware that people lost their human rights when they did something bad, like refusing to pay child support. sounds like blatant coercion to me.
    3) How many of those “deadbeat dads” are really selfish and irresponsible, and how many are just incapable of affording to pay what they’re being asked? these people are either manipulating society’s knee-jerk reaction to deadbeats, or they are just that sexist that they can’t tell how blatantly biased they are being.

  16. Maybe feminists don’t hate men. Maybe it isn’t hate that makes them push an ideology which holds that all men are potential rapists and just a drop or two of testosterone away from becoming a sex criminal. Perhaps they lump all men in with husbands who abuse their wives without malice in their hearts, and disappear male victims of abuse for reasons other than misandry. Maybe feminism doesn’t hate men–but how in the world would it be different if it did?

  17. Something else from the article jumped out at me:

    “The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades “

    I had previously been under the impression that it was considered bad form in feminist/social justice circles for someone who identifies as an “ally” of a group to set herself up as the authority on that group’s experiences and problems, angrily tell actual members of the group trying to speak about them to shut up, and then lecture those actual members of the group about what their experiences and problems, as defined by the “ally,” REALLY are. Have I been misinformed?

  18. I’m sure that these people, for the most part, are not mainly schemers and intentionally trying to be hateful. they probably see themselves as the hero of their own story – the righteous heroes waging a war of good vs evil, where everything is black and white. this may be why they seemingly paradoxically can “see” male on male sexual violence, yet female on female sexual violence is practically invisible, to the point where they can defend a play where a girl is abused by a woman, and it’s portrayed as harmless. I think what is happening is that male on male violence fits into their worldview, so they accept it, and female on female violence (and female on male) doesn’t, so they subconciously distort the reality of these forms of violence in their mind, leading to erasure or minimization of victims. I don’t think it’s intentional, so I don’t hold this against them, but what is unforgivable is the refusal to take responsibility for their own biases, or to listen to criticism.

  19. I had previously been under the impression that it was considered bad form in feminist/social justice circles for someone who identifies as an “ally” of a group to set herself up as the authority on that group’s experiences and problems, angrily tell actual members of the group trying to speak about them to shut up, and then lecture those actual members of the group about what their experiences and problems, as defined by the “ally,” REALLY are. Have I been misinformed?

    No, but you are mistaken in assuming that feminists like West think they should follow their own rules.

  20. Misogyny doesn’t mean hatred of women by men, but simply hatred of women.

    Misandry doesn’t mean hatred of men by women, but simply hatred of men.

    It would be rather easy to show that the 1%, the deciders, mostly male as they are, are misandrists and blind to it (and not caring about it, because votes don’t go with male issues).

  21. I’m not too fond of Tumbler, I don’t know how to reply, the comments are weird and in apparent random order, just one line. I prefer forums, blogs, preferably with open comments and not requiring registration (except forums I guess).

    And note that the feminism definition of misandry is apparently “the hatred of men by women”, because their marxism-applied-to-sex-classes ideology says that it can only ever be team A oppressing team B or the reverse, and not system oppressing Team A and B (as is actually the case).

  22. Pingback: An Homage To Alternative Points of View: An Exercise in Objectivity | The Narcissistic Anthropologist

  23. I also am easily confused by tumblr in terms of posting, which is a little worrying, but not for reading…..that said, seeing as they’ve made a post here, props to SYABM for doing a bang-up job confronting some of the nonsense that gets posted by SJW types on tumblr.

    Extreme cases perhaps, but I simply see such behaviour as a more pronounced manifestation of some fairly typical feminist mentalities.

  24. And if anyone from Team B is oppressing other members of Team B, they don’t have responsibility for it because they learned it from Team A. Meanwhile, if Team A members are oppressing Team A, it doesn’t count.

    Almost as if people in Team B were more concerned with blaming Team A and avoiding responsibility than identifying and fixing the problems.

  25. I was in the middle of typing out a very long, point by point counter argument, but then I realised something…I need to thank you. Your entertaining rebuttal has reminded me of all the reasons I am proud to call myself a man and a feminist. Thanks for that!

    Oh, and btw, you’re not actually helping. But I suppose you’re trying at least, so that’s something.

  26. Roupen, I am sure what you wrote was something of special magnificence. I assume it would have made more sense that your above “quip”.

  27. Oh, for sure, but I figured why bother really…I mean, if no one else here was going to make the effort of a reasoned, logical and fact based argument, why start now?

  28. @Roupen Agnerian

    Do you agree with this from my post:

    “And note that the feminism definition of misandry is apparently “the hatred of men by women”, because their marxism-applied-to-sex-classes ideology says that it can only ever be team A oppressing team B or the reverse, and not system oppressing Team A and B (as is actually the case).”

    Because feminist theory is not self-evidently true. Women could be worse off overall, or men could be, or it could be roughly equal, but it’s not class warfare.

    It seems sex categories are more used to define an out-group than an in-group, and as such, there is no real cohesion within the group, only a “not like us” definition.

    Defining your identity for yourself is what a child does, pretty young. We put huge emphasis on sex identity (of kids) because of our own (society)’s insecurity about our identity. Hence it goes from midly important (in a “can sort it later, why not play now” way) to The Most Important Thing, and it becomes prescriptive and divisive, and sexism rears its ugly head in an attempt to distance from The Other.

    Both boys who insist on avoiding everything girly, and girls who insist on getting girl-only stuff (so off-limits to boys) are indulging in this. Disney Princess comes from there. And a disdain for the feminine, by boys, comes from there (since there is no positive guy-only stuff, it has to be identified by negation).

    Kids, helped by parents, are all too eager to build their cage around them, based on mostly rigid notions of what ‘ought’ to be someone of their sex. I’m certain this was happening less in the past. Just look at the early 1900s, everyone wore dresses until a certain age, and little boys only got their first haircut that ‘rite of passage’ of wearing breeches. Toddlerhood was unisex, and on the feminine side even (although it probably wasn’t considered that way then).

    Normally, as you grow into adulthood, you begin to question the accepted wisdom of prescribed roles, and make your own path, based on your own unique desires. You develop critical thinking skills and decide wether the path laid before you is similar to what you want, or way off the mark. This skill has been neglected in recent times. So we end up with way more conformists who don’t know any better than try to fit in as uniformly as possible.

    Do you think this system was designed by men to oppress women? I think it’s designed by society as a whole, is ever evolving, and self-perpetuating based on insecurity and prescriptiveness of the day. Men as a class aren’t out to oppress women as a class, even unconsciously, and neither the reverse. We all oppress each other, even members of our own sex, in different ways. Because it’s the low-hanging fruit to bully others into conformity to feel better about your own mediocrity. It’s harder to create from nothing and become great for doing.

  29. Oh, for sure, but I figured why bother really…I mean, if no one else here was going to make the effort of a reasoned, logical and fact based argument, why start now?

    Roupen, that is called arguing in bad faith. It also suggests that you do not think your arguments would be all that convincing. If they were are reasoned, logical, and fact-based as you imply, then there is no reason not to present them.

  30. Toysoldier, you advocate for men’s rights, and you are using Lindy’s article as a vehicle for your message. Lindy’s article may have had a few words that could be misconstrued, however, the message was defending the idea of feminism, much in the way that your site defends marginalized men. Yes, she could have fought more strongly in the name of men, but so too could you fight in the name of women. The world is hard, and you can only do so much. Yours is the fight against the mistreatment of men. You can do this without fighting against the ideals of feminism. They are both about creating a fairer world. Are they not?

  31. Redthorn, I am not a men’s rights activist. I simply want the issues that affect men addressed. I have no agenda beyond that. As for West, her defense of feminism is much different than my concern for men. I present evidence to support my positions, I take feminist critiques about men seriously, and I do not mock the people I want to listen to me. West, on the other hand, cannot even take men’s complaints seriously. Instead of listening to their positions and critiquing them, West chooses to poke fun at them and blame them for feminists not liking them. That does not build bridges; it destroys foundations before they are laid.

    It is not fighting against the ideals of feminism to note that those ideals are flawed, sexist, and self-serving. If a group of people puts themselves in the way, it is only reasonable to ask them to move. Few feminists support addressing men’s issues. Of those who do, most only want to do it from a feminist perspective, even to the point of excluding the very men they claim they want to help from the process. That will not do.

    I would love to believe that feminism and feminists are about creating a fairer world. However, their track records says they are only concerned about pushing their own agenda. That is why West chose to write her article the way she did. It is an attack, and I think it is fair criticize that attack.

  32. @redthorn…
    “the message was defending the idea of feminism”.

    No it is not. It is written as a justification for and a threat of hatred.

  33. “Roupen, that is called arguing in bad faith.” Not really, no. You seem to have confused trolling with arguing. It’s a pretty common mistake, but seeing as I’m in a great mood, I’ll offer an example of the latter so you can tell the difference.

    “If they were are reasoned, logical, and fact-based as you imply, then there is no reason not to present them.” First off, that’s just not true. There’s plenty of reasons to not present them. The one I chose to go with was being a jackass, but another would be a lack of interest in wasting my time. Most of what I had to say originally was to point out the epic levels of irony dripping from nearly every sentence of your rebuttal, and to reiterate the very valid and factual based points West laid out in a less combative manner…but frankly, the fact that you apparently read through her entire entry and failed so miserably to grasp what she’s saying, why she’s saying it, and why she said it the way she did, it’s painfully obvious that you aren’t interested in entertaining either of our points of view. This is the internet. It’d be pretty awesome if people could come into a heated argument about hot button issues like this and get someone to look at the thing that gets them all fired up in a totally new light and actually understand it…but that’s just not the world we live in. You have your reasons to believe what you do about feminists. I’m sure they make perfect sense to you. Unfortunately it is pretty clear that those hangups about feminists have coloured your objectivity rather a lot. So rather than waste time and energy on trying to get you to understand how off base you are, and how tragically ironic nearly everything you wrote in an effort to deconstruct her argument was, I chose to get some amusement out of it. Because the former is a path I’ve been down so many times before, and it’s tiring.

    Second, a word on feminists, feminism, and these mean women who you like going on about. Feminism is about equality. You’re welcome to disagree with that statement all you like, but that’s kind of irrelevant since it’s a statement based in fact. However, some feminists are selfish, loudmouthed assholes. This would be because some people (male and female) are selfish loudmouthed assholes. Using that as a basis to argue that the whole movement is suspect is the sort of logic I would expect from a 5 year old, not grown men. I’m a feminist. I know a lot of feminists, of both genders. I could say that I likely know a lot more feminists than you do, but I don’t know you so that’s moot. Suffice it to say it’s a sizable number, and made up of a wide variety of personality types, many of which do not agree with each other. And not a single one of them hates men as a group. Not a single one thinks men don’t suffer at all in our society. Not a single one thinks that men who struggle in their lives emotionally deserve less support than women, or that supporting one comes at the expense of the other. In thirty five years, I have not met a single human being that believes any of those things, or any of the other things you seem content to paint feminism with, and called themselves a feminist. While I have to entertain the possibility that I’ve just gotten very lucky, it seems a little unlikely.

    Third…the truly hilarious part of all this is that we actually have a lot in common. I 100% agree with you that guys have a whole lot of toxic shit that we have to deal with, and there’s barely any attention paid to it and even fewer support structures in place. That’s not sad, it’s horrifying. Nobody seems to like talking about it, and that needs to change. The key difference though, is perspective. Feminism isn’t the problem, or the enemy of men. The crap that so many men suffer through every day didn’t start with the feminist movement, and if feminism just up and vanished off the face of the earth, those very same problems would still be right there, staring you in the face. Only then you wouldn’t have a convenient target. Us men are still holding most of the proverbial cards, just as we always have been. As such, the fact that there’s still horrifying statistics of things like suicide rates, prison rape, physical and mental abuse that goes unreported or unhelped, all of which seems to have barely been discussed let alone addressed, begs the question…what the hell have WE been doing about it? Oh sure, go take the feminists to task for saying it’s all about equality yet they aren’t helping OUR issues, but its a cry that falls flat if we’re not doing much about it either. Why the hell SHOULD women give a shit about our damage when we’re the ones holding the bulk of the tools to do something about it AND NOTHING CHANGES. Do you imagine that is their fault? So many men are still tied up in archaic stereotypes of masculinity that even the idea of talking about their pain is something to balk at because anything that smells of “weakness” is abhorrent. Until the majority of men let go of that (and so much other stereotypical masculine crap that, btw, are tied to and the flip side of everything feminists are trying to break down involving women) then men and boys will just go on suffering in silence and you and I will despair at the idiocy of it all. But at least I’m not going to go call a bunch of people trying to get half the population to not get shit on, man haters. Because that would be silly.

  34. Second, a word on feminists, feminism, and these mean women who you like going on about. Feminism is about equality. You’re welcome to disagree with that statement all you like, but that’s kind of irrelevant since it’s a statement based in fact.

    Feminism used to be for equality, back when being female meant being disenfranchised by the law, without disguise or misapplication of law, but outright bigotry. You couldn’t have accounts under your name, own property, vote and number of other things. Those have been remedied, and the issues left are more subtle, more cultural.

    Back then feminism as a movement only for the good of women, made sense in a way. There was blatant spit-in-the-face recorded in law about women, even if some women supported it (conservative women mainly), it needed to go. And go it did.

    Now to be for equality in today’s world means looking at more than just one sex and saying “we want to be equal to that other sex we haven’t examined”. More than just saying “once we destroy patriarchy, men’s problems will also vanish by magic, without going on their issues directly”. Because it won’t work.

    A true patriarchy would have no problem for men, or very very few. They would be masters to slaves, with all the recourse, all the help, and the government bending over backwards to give more to them. There would be a Violence Against Men Act, the rape of men would mean harsher sentences and would be taken dozens of times more seriously than the rape of women, men would get a bonus just for having a penis in wages, and they’d keep all their money upon divorce, while getting defacto custody.

    That’s not sad, it’s horrifying. Nobody seems to like talking about it, and that needs to change. The key difference though, is perspective. Feminism isn’t the problem, or the enemy of men. The crap that so many men suffer through every day didn’t start with the feminist movement, and if feminism just up and vanished off the face of the earth, those very same problems would still be right there, staring you in the face.

    The problem?

    Feminism claims to be for equality and solving men’s problems too.

    Feminism doesn’t solve men’s problems.

    Feminism claims they do.

    Feminism claims they are attacked by people who care about the rights of all (not just men or women), unjustly, and they are ‘the only one’ fighting patriarchy.

    Feminsm still doesn’t fight men’s problems.

    Lots of egalitarians drop out of feminism because it’s “for women” only, and doesn’t help others who might not fit so neatly into female-as-victim narratives.

    Feminism claims to be vilified by extremists and blames MRAs for being douches who want 1950s gender roles back (while most don’t).

    By the way, I’m a trans woman, and an egalitarian. I questioned feminism due to its pattern regarding transphobia within the movement. And then regarding helping men. It also forgets every people not identifying as female (genderqueer, agender, etc), should they not be regarded as female by society.

    And about men having all the power? Apex fallacy. Most men at the top are less than 0.01% of men, and DONT CARE ONE BIT about other men. No Violence Against Men Act voted by a majority male congress. No DV shelters for men. If men don’t care about men, and feminism doesn’t, who does?? No one.

  35. Not really, no. You seem to have confused trolling with arguing.

    No, I am fairly sure of the usage I meant:

    At its core, bad faith implies malice or ill will. A decision made in bad faith is grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons …

    If you are confused about a person’s meaning, it is best to ask rather than assume or make snarky comments that ironically demonstrate the very behavior you are attempting to explain.

    There’s plenty of reasons to not present them. The one I chose to go with was being a jackass, but another would be a lack of interest in wasting my time.

    I am aware that you chose the jackass route. While I never stop people from making fools of themselves, I do try to provide them with an out so they can save face. But you seem so intent on further embarrassing yourself:

    Most of what I had to say originally was to point out the epic levels of irony dripping from nearly every sentence of your rebuttal, and to reiterate the very valid and factual based points West laid out in a less combative manner…but frankly, the fact that you apparently read through her entire entry and failed so miserably to grasp what she’s saying, why she’s saying it, and why she said it the way she did, it’s painfully obvious that you aren’t interested in entertaining either of our points of view.

    It seems many feminists have the same problem, so let me explain this to you: disagreeing with you is not the same as not listening to you. I read West’s piece and found it juvenile, bigoted, and completely self-serving. It was meant to make people like you enjoy themselves. No one who takes men’s issues and concerns seriously would be swayed by such a hateful article. Of course, that was never the intent.

    I understand how this is supposed to work. West writes the piece, “teh angry menz” rail against it in pure misogynistic fashion, and then feminists get to “prove” their point. I am not interested in playing that game, so I took West’s article seriously and picked apart every flawed argument. I understand that as a feminist that may bother you, yet I consider that a fair trade for the payoff: it shows that when given the chance to have a reasoned, civil discussion about men’s issues, feminist would rather resort to snark, bias, and anger.

    So rather than waste time and energy on trying to get you to understand how off base you are, and how tragically ironic nearly everything you wrote in an effort to deconstruct her argument was, I chose to get some amusement out of it. Because the former is a path I’ve been down so many times before, and it’s tiring.

    Ironically, it is you providing the amusement. I assume from the beginning that feminists will not take my comments seriously, so your attempt at mockery fails. You cannot mock someone who is not bothered by what you do. And I am more than content to point out the irony of you accusing me of proving West’s point as you prove mine.

    Second, a word on feminists, feminism, and these mean women who you like going on about. Feminism is about equality.

    Yes, and Christianity is about universal love, which is why Christians are currently trying to block gay people from getting married. Many movements and ideologies have snappy catchphrases that are contradicted by the actions, policies, and opinions of their followers.

    However, some feminists are selfish, loudmouthed assholes.

    I think you are being too hard on yourself.

    I’m a feminist. I know a lot of feminists, of both genders.

    Your personal knowledge of feminists is completely irrelevant. It is entirely possible (albeit improbable) that all the feminists you know have only positive opinions of men. That would in no way change the actions of feminists as group. It would not change the policies, opinions, theories, and doctrine purported by feminists as a group.

    Feminism isn’t the problem, or the enemy of men. The crap that so many men suffer through every day didn’t start with the feminist movement, and if feminism just up and vanished off the face of the earth, those very same problems would still be right there, staring you in the face.

    That is called a “straw man argument.” It is a logical fallacy in which a person creates a false argument in order to knock down. If you have some example from my post where I stated that men’s problems started with the feminist movement or that if feminism vanished that those problems would disappear, please indulge me.

    Us men are still holding most of the proverbial cards, just as we always have been.

    That is feminist spin. I deal in real world situations, not silly conspiracy theories that purport all men everyone have power.

    As such, the fact that there’s still horrifying statistics of things like suicide rates, prison rape, physical and mental abuse that goes unreported or unhelped, all of which seems to have barely been discussed let alone addressed, begs the question…what the hell have WE been doing about it?

    Do you have any evidence to show that before second wave feminism no one ever talked about or attempted to address issues like suicide or abuse? Better yet, do you have any evidence showing that before feminism no men ever attempted to assist people in need? If you do not, you have answered your own question.

    Oh sure, go take the feminists to task for saying it’s all about equality yet they aren’t helping OUR issues, but its a cry that falls flat if we’re not doing much about it either.

    People take feminists to task because feminists claim to want equality, but seem to conveniently miss inequalities against men. This would be akin to a Catholic hospital stating that they want to help everyone, but refusing to treat a gay person. Whether men help themselves (and they do) is irrelevant. If feminists say they want to help everyone, we should hold them to their word.

    But at least I’m not going to go call a bunch of people trying to get half the population to not get shit on, man haters. Because that would be silly.

    No, it would not if that bunch of people hold misandrous views. Many feminists do indeed hold such views. That they only want to help half the population, as you admit above, is a symptom of that. And that is why I responded to West’s article.

  36. Roupen, I’m going to give you a very personal example of what Feminism has done for me.

    Back in the dark ages, when I was becoming fully of aware of the insidious damage done to me by women and girls alongside boys and men, I sought support and understanding. Like a naive fool, I looked to feminism.

    Here’s what I got for my trouble:

    “You still benefit from oppressive systems”

    “You’re a white, heterosexual male. Check your priveledge.”

    “What you went through, while troubling, is nothing compared to what women go through.”

    “Your story is an anomoly and not worth worrying about.”

    Overall, my experiences were denied and minimised. If there’s one thing I don’t like, regardless of whether it’s femininists or men’s rights advocates doing it, is to have my traumatic experiences DENIED!

    That’s what a certain subset of feminism did. And since feminism is one giant tent with varied philsophies, these bigots are allowed to exist in it.

    This is the reason why I don’t support feminism fully. You want to classify your movement as non-monolithic? You want to pull the “Varied feminisms” card on me? Then you won’t mind if don’t come within 30 yards of those idiots who minimised my experiences who have their place in your tent. It’s not good for my sanity and, frankly, time wasting to even entertain their presence.

    Secondly, the only people who even bothered to give me the acknowledgement I desperately needed were the Men’s Rights side and people like Toy Soldier here. You can’t say that for feminism since this strand of yours that treated me like crap is sheltered with all the comforts of home in your tent.

    As far as your “Men have all the cards” excuse. You won’t mind if I flat out call BULLSHIT in this insinuation as a survivor of abuse from women and girls.

    And that’s all I’m going to say. Feel free to respond but if you go the jackass route, don’t expect a response back because I’m sick and tired of feminists and their jackass routine.

  37. Massive number of words here but still no answer from Roupen Agnerian to my simple question.

    ““Not actually helping” what?”

    This individual is a blow-in who knows absolutely nothing about Toysoldier or his goals. The assertion that “you’re not actually helping” is a complete non-sequitur. How would they know?

  38. Wow, is it me, or is her argument basically, “you’re asking for it?”

    By the way, I absolutely love your blog. You have a beautiful mind, maa shaa Allah!

  39. Man, if what some feminist says about men in general is “a case in point” as you say of something “mind-boggling[ly] mentally inept,” then you have just have an axe to grind. It’s just words, as compared for example to gas chambers.
    There are some women calling themselves feminists who blame men as a group and exhonerate women as a group and yes, THEY ARE ANNOYING. But that really doesn’t compare to the shit women go through. That’s where the saying “It’s a man’s world,” came from, or as John Lennon put it, “woman is the nigger of the world.”
    For example, in parts of India women aren’t allowed to urinate during daylight hours. Imagine that. In parts of Africa, they cut off girls’ clitorises. “We’re more evolved.” Yes, but women were literally men’s property in Roman times. According to Wikipedia, “Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems accepted wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband’s authority over his wife” and when did they get the vote? Not until 1949 in some parts of Canada. That the tradition and LEGAL inertia to be overcome.
    I was having fun reminding women they are responsible for some of the attitudes, and that’s true. But in all honesty I can’t compare my feelings of annoyance to shit like that described in this video, Killing Us Softly. And this is just advertising. There is also a whole legal aspect to this as well.

    I find as a result of reflecting on that video almost for the first time ever, I’m thinking what it might be like to be a woman. Just imagine being a woman. Being scared to be in an elevator with a guy, etc. etc. etc. What also emerges in this video is that these attitudes hurt us as men too.
    Some aspects of feminism are annoying. It’s like accessbility, to make buildings more accessible for people with disabilities is more expensive. But it’s because of the accessibility movement that we now have curbs that go to pavement level for wheelchairs, and I find I benefit from that when I’m riding a bike. There are lots of examples of how we all benefit from the call to bring more awareness to our society. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water brothers.

    Kind regards.

  40. There are some women calling themselves feminists who blame men as a group and exhonerate women as a group and yes, THEY ARE ANNOYING.

    They do not call themselves feminists. They are feminists. Let us not play this game where anytime a feminist says something stupid we immediately deny her feminist status. Secondly, the point of the post was to highlight the way feminists respond to men’s rights activists. The red-haired woman in the video claimed that feminists already addressed men’s issues. Yet she provided no examples of that. Instead, she read from a list Lindy West wrote on Jezebel. That is unfortunately a common response from feminists.

    But that really doesn’t compare to the shit women go through.

    It is a bad idea to play the “who has it worse game.” Of the items you listed, similar problems exist for men. In various African countries, men and boys are circumcised solely to prevent HIV infections in women. This has resulted in numerous medical issues and even deaths in the last two years. In India, a woman cannot be charged with raping adults or children. In Afghanistan, thousands of boys are sold into sexual slavery by the warlords Coalition forces fund in order to fight the Taliban. In various African countries, men and boys who are raped during war conflicts are refused medical and support services. And none of that takes into account the scores of men and boys who are horrifically tortured and murdered throughout the world in ways that does not prompt a batted eye with any human rights organizations.

    Bad things happen to both groups, and pretending that the bad things that happen to women are inherently worse is just playing politics.

  41. Hi Toysoldier,
    When you say, “feminists are like this,” you’re painting thousands or maybe millions of people with the same brush. That is not only unfair but illogical.
    Of course bad things happen to both men and women. The difference is that historically and still today women are systemically at a disadvantage. By that I mean in terms of law and institutions. I gave a few examples of that.
    “Who has it worse” is not a game but rather an appraisal of the relative scale of the discrimination. Again, this is necessary if you want not only to be fair but logical, and I find your position to be neither. If you’re talking about “men’s rights” then logically that is as opposed to women’s rights, and by comparison men have more rights, and/or the mindset from the historical inequity still persists. Although please correct me if I’m wrong on that. The circumcision vs. clitorectomy example, no. Please be serious.
    You basically seem to be investing more energy into what you are against than what you are for, at least in this forum.
    By the way, did you watch the video? Check it out. Sex-based adverstising is pollution that affects us all not only psychologically but physically, as it’s intended to do. Feminism is addressing this poisonous stuff. What other group is?
    And finally, please try this thought experiment. Go through your day and imagine you are a woman. Get on the bus, go to your job, go jogging, whatever you normally do, and imagine what it’s like just to be just that much more vulnerable, everywhere, all the time. I find it somewhat scary, compared to being me as a guy. Try it and let us know how it goes.
    Kind regards.

  42. “And finally, please try this thought experiment. Go through your day and imagine you are a woman. Get on the bus, go to your job, go jogging, whatever you normally do, and imagine what it’s like just to be just that much more vulnerable, everywhere, all the time. I find it somewhat scary, compared to being me as a guy. Try it and let us know how it goes.
    Kind regards.”
    Men die 4-6x more from violence than women, fullfuckingstop. Men are FAR FAR more at risk than women are of violence, especially in stranger based situations. So maybe it is women who should start taking notice of what it’s like to be a man, taking notice that men’s only benefit is to be raised ignorant of this fact mostly whilst women get the stranger-danger-omgrapistseverywhere shit rammed down their throat making them far more afraid than they should be.

    A man and a woman goto a nightclub, the man is the one far more likely to be beaten up and seriously injured whilst she is more likely to be sexually assaulted. Open your eyes to the world and you might not ignore the extreme level of risk men have compared to women when out n about.

  43. When you say, “feminists are like this,” you’re painting thousands or maybe millions of people with the same brush. That is not only unfair but illogical.

    Not necessarily. It depends on the argument. In this particular case, it is rather easy to prove that there are feminists who are hostile towards discussing any men’s issues.

    The difference is that historically and still today women are systemically at a disadvantage. By that I mean in terms of law and institutions.

    That depends on what one looks at. When one looks at the prison system, combat, and violence in general, men are at a disadvantage.

    If you’re talking about “men’s rights” then logically that is as opposed to women’s rights

    No, it is not. Men’s rights and women’s rights are two separate issues. In order for them to be opposed, one must argue that in order for women to have rights men must lose some. If that is the argument, the opposition would make logical sense. No one wants their rights taken away. However, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that there are some ways that women are disadvantaged and some ways that men are disadvantaged.

    The circumcision vs. clitorectomy example, no. Please be serious.

    I am being serious. That kind of response is precisely the reason I wrote the post. If you think cutting off part of the most sensitive organ on the male body is a trivial issue compared to doing the same thing to a female body, that speaks volumes. There are far more male circumcisions than female circumcisions, meaning that even if the rate of complications in the former is low, it is still possible that there are just as many or more boys who experience problems from circumcision as girls.

    You basically seem to be investing more energy into what you are against than what you are for, at least in this forum.

    I think being against raping men and boys is an important issue worth discussing. If you do not, that is unfortunate.

    Get on the bus, go to your job, go jogging, whatever you normally do, and imagine what it’s like just to be just that much more vulnerable, everywhere, all the time.

    I do not have to imagine what it is like to be more vulnerable. I am a 29-year-old man. I am three times more likely to be a victim of violence, particularly random violence, and six times more likely to be murdered compared to any woman.

  44. Michael: “Go through your day and imagine you are a woman. Get on the bus, go to your job, go jogging, whatever you normally do, and imagine what it’s like just to be just that much more vulnerable, everywhere, all the time.”

    Um, Michael, Toy Soldier happens to be a rape survivor you’re talking too, raped as a child by a woman. He doesn’t have to imagine what it’s like to be venerable, HE LIVES IT!

    So kindly quit with the insensitive remarks.

  45. Eagle, it is fine. I want Michael to respond as he normally would. If it never occurred to him that I could have suffered any kind of harm, that simply speaks to his bias and lack of forethought.

  46. Gentlemen, just not sure how inviting someone to imagine someone else’s experience is insensitive. Also not sure how one person’s experience (or even one thousand people for that matter) at the hand of a woman or more than one woman could be evidence for “how women are” or indeed “how feminists are.” I’m just not seeing the logic to support this kind of generalization.

    And I note that so far no one has accepted the invitation.
    Thx and kind regards,

  47. Gentlemen, just not sure how inviting someone to imagine someone else’s experience is insensitive.

    Let us be fair. You did not ask me to imagine what women experience. You stated, “Get on the bus, go to your job, go jogging, whatever you normally do, and imagine what it’s like just to be just that much more vulnerable, everywhere, all the time.” That implies that I do not already know what that feels like. As I noted, men experience more random violence and violence in general than women, so this not something I honestly have to imagine. I already live it. What you are really asking is for me to imagine what it is like to feel like I am under constant threat. As Eagle mentioned, that is something I have experienced a survivor of abuse, and I freely admit it is not fun.

    Also not sure how one person’s experience (or even one thousand people for that matter) at the hand of a woman or more than one woman could be evidence for “how women are” or indeed “how feminists are.”

    Do you realize that your argument undermines the general feminist argument about men’s oppression of women? If the experiences of thousands of people cannot be used as evidence of how people are, that logic should apply to everyone.

  48. 1. I did say, “Imagine you are a woman” (please see above). Are you willing to try imagining you are a woman and try commenting on that, yes or no?
    2. I’m a 5’5″, 51-year old guy, I weigh about 130. I don’t carry a gun and I don’t have a black belt. But I don’t feel particularly vulnerable, especially not about being physically attacked, verbally abused, flashed, groped, raped or killed by a woman. What is different between me and you? Would you respond specifically to this, yes or no?
    3. Since you seem very invested in this, maybe you could supply some data? What are actual, verifiable numbers concerning:
    a. Rapes of women by men vs. of men by women?
    b. Murders of women by men vs. of men by women?
    c. Murders of women by women vs. of men by men?
    I mention these because I assume the data would show men attack other men and men attack women, more than the reverse. Can you provide these numbers as a basis for continuing this conversation, yes or no?

    All the best.

  49. Michael, speaking of logic, and you mention it often, which wave of feminism do you conscribe to. The second wave “all men are potential rapists” kind? Because you realize a logical extrapolation of that slogan is “all women are potential whores.” But then again, that’s Socratic logic, and Socrates is afterall, a dead white male.

    So tell me, do you believe all men, including yourself, are potential rapists? If so, do you think it is therefore appropriate to consider all women potential whores?

    I’ll look forward to your logical response.

  50. Hi revspinnaker,
    I don’t subscribe to any version or wave of feminism, or anything else. In my view, the habit we have of falling into polarized positions is a fundamental conceptual problem humanity has, “us vs. them.” I can see valid points in feminism and invalid points as well. If among rabid man-haters I challenge them as well. I’m not a Christian either, but I see valid points there as well, and so on.
    I would add that this habit of polarization serves the elite who control the power structures, because while we Hatfields are battling with you McCoys, the banksters move in during the diversion and democracy gets weaker and weaker. Now it seems to be on its death-bed.
    Whereas if we placed value on finding points of agreement, we could move beyond the gridlock of entrenched positions into exploring and co-creating innovative ways forward, and call our “leaders” to account. But to actually engage with the opposition takes some discipline and perspective, and I’m not sure we’re ready for that as a species, unfortunately…

    : )
    Hope this message finds you well, regards

  51. Michael, and Roupen as well, let me be more succinct. Do you believe the ideology of “patriarchal oppression,” male privilege” and “rape culture” are the basis of violence and sexual abuse of women?

  52. Hi,
    Like roupen above, I’m not going to get drawn further into this conversation. It seems the whole purpose of this site is to oppose feminism. That’s not a cause I am interested in. I think he said it well, you have your reasons and it’s not my business to try to change your mind. I have nothing further to add and it looks like no one else does either, so I’m going to move ahead with other things now.

  53. Well every person you meet is a potential predator, rapist, violent, abusive person but it doesn’t do too much good if you let that fear go too wild. As someone who has a social anxiety disorder, every person I meet is a potential threat but I choose to try get past that so I can lead a somewhat normal life. I think there is danger in teaching statistics too much where we end up having people afraid of interacting because of fear of being harmed, and media n culture teaches women to feel far weaker than they really are, and far more vulnerable than they really are whilst also teaching that men are less vulnerable and more stronger than they really are compared to women.

  54. 1. I did say, “Imagine you are a woman” (please see above). Are you willing to try imagining you are a woman and try commenting on that, yes or no?

    Your argument is that women are more vulnerable than men. That statistically is untrue. As a man, I face a far greater risk of assault and murder went getting on a bus, jogging, or doing whatever I normally do than women. All I could imagine is what my perception of that would be if I were a woman, and I would assume that I would think my situation was worse than any man or boy.

    2. I’m a 5’5″, 51-year old guy, I weigh about 130. I don’t carry a gun and I don’t have a black belt. But I don’t feel particularly vulnerable, especially not about being physically attacked, verbally abused, flashed, groped, raped or killed by a woman.

    As I noted, what you are actually talking about is the fear of vulnerability, and that too is something I have already experienced. I would agree that women are generally more fearful of danger than men, but that has nothing to do with the threats against them. That is a result of social norms and memes that teach women that danger is around every corner.

    That would also explain your lack of fear of women harming. It is not that no women could harm you, only that our society teaches people that women do not and cannot hurt anyone, particularly men. Likewise, you were likely taught that as a man you can always protect yourself, particularly from women. Those two social norms will affect how vulnerable you consider yourself.

    What is different between me and you? Would you respond specifically to this, yes or no?

    I was abused for the first 14 years of my life, which is about half my life minus a year. This was done by both men and women, so my perception of who can harm me is likely different from yours. Likewise, as a male victim advocate and someone who worked with and currently lives with foster kids, I am most aware of women’s violence against people.

    3. Since you seem very invested in this, maybe you could supply some data? What are actual, verifiable numbers concerning: a. Rapes of women by men vs. of men by women? b. Murders of women by men vs. of men by women? c. Murders of women by women vs. of men by men? I mention these because I assume the data would show men attack other men and men attack women, more than the reverse. Can you provide these numbers as a basis for continuing this conversation, yes or no?

    The Bureau of Justice lists the crime statistics every year. Statistically speaking, there are more reports of men assaulting and killing other men than men assaulting and killing women. There are more reports of men assaulting and killing women than the reverse. However, when women commit violence, they tend to target males. This is particularly true when it comes to sexual violence. While women are more likely to report being victims of sexual violence, when men do report sexual violence, they tend to report women as the primary offender. According to the recent CDC survey, women commit over 60% of the sexual violence against males.

    I realize the trick you are trying to play, and that is why I phrased my response as I did. What we know is based on reported cases. Given that people are less likely to believe a woman would commit a violent crime and more likely to allow them to walk or get a much lower sentence than a man would, many victims of female-perpetrated violence simply do not report their assaults. Likewise, when women want someone dead, they are more likely to poison someone or hire someone to kill that person, therein taking the interest off them.

    Like roupen above, I’m not going to get drawn further into this conversation. It seems the whole purpose of this site is to oppose feminism.

    Right. Of the 13 posts I have written this month, nine of them are specifically about sexual violence, two are lists of articles, and two are about feminists or feminism. I understand that some feminists take issue with anyone who questions their views, but I think it is a stretch to claim that the whole purpose of my blog is to oppose feminism. Even if it were, there are valid reasons to oppose an ideology like feminism, starting with level of misandry and bias inherent in much of its theories.

  55. So sometimes in a state of fear because of your past experiences, and you see the activism you’re doing now as a way to bring some level of security and decency into your own personal space. Also, you’re a survivor and there’s a feeling of hope, and you want to make a connection and a contribution through this activity. Is that how it is?

  56. So sometimes in a state of fear because of your past experiences, and you see the activism you’re doing now as a way to bring some level of security and decency into your own personal space.

    What happened to me happened and could not have happened any other way. But it does not have to be that way for others. I want to make sure no one goes through what I went through when I first spoke about my experiences.

  57. Pingback: …links… | stonerwithaboner

  58. Pingback: Comedian versus Feminist: are rape jokes okay? | Toy Soldiers

  59. Pingback: When Ideologies Teach Hate | Toy Soldiers

  60. Pingback: Top Posts of 2013 | Toy Soldiers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s