Standards and Such

On another thread, SolNiger questioned the role feminists and feminism plays in perpetuating the myths about female sexual violence against males. The thread was about Mary Kay Letourneau hosting a “Hot For Teacher” night at a bar. Several people commented on the thread, but SolNiger specifically seemed to question a remark made by Chester Malone:

I think the fact that were the genders in this instance reversed, and a male predator was the one trying to cash in on their crime, women’s groups (not just femeists, but ALL of them) would be rising up to put a stop to it (if not actually lynch the male in question), bothers me just as much as what Letourneau is doing.

Yet, there is nothing like that in the case of Letourneau. It makes a disgusting situation all the more sickening and shows the hypocrisy in so called “gender equality” arguments.

SolNiger objected to the notion that feminists play any role in what happened, stating:

Of course this is disgusting but don’t blame feminists for shit like this. Its the patriarchy that high fives young boys for ‘getting some’ from older women. A system feminists have been fighting for ages without any help from you.

What MRAs don’t get is that feminism is not a zero-sum game. Dignity for all?

I responded to SolNiger’s comment, and she (I assume she is female) defended her position.

In order to keep the other thread from being derailed, I am moving the discussion here. I think that this is an important issue to the extent that feminists, despite presenting themselves as authorities on sexual violence, rarely mention or acknowledge female rapists. There is no discussion of them, no attempt to raise awareness about or to address the stigmas and stereotypes their victims, particularly their male victims, face. Feminists generally ignore the issue altogether or engage in the shifting tactics SolNiger deployed, claiming first that it is not feminists fault such things happen, then that they have been fighting against it without any help from men, then that feminists are too busy to help male victims and finally that feminists have no responsibility to address the issue at all.

However, SolNiger begins by stating:

Lolita anyone? That ‘classic’ piece of literature extols male pedophilia more than any stupid theme night at a dive bar could.

The difference is that society as a whole does not applaud the rape of 12-year-old girls. No one pats girls on the back and tells them they are lucky for it. No one accuses them of being gay if they did not enjoy it. No one treats their rape as a joke. A novel that may be read by a handful of people does less harm than a theme night at a bar because the theme night is inspired by the sentiment that already exists in society.

Perpetuating the myth by not speaking up against it often enough or actively encouraging it? I don’t think the latter is true. The former however, maybe. A case of having too much on our plates already and being called shrill harpies all the time?

Feminists often state that men who do speak out against the rape of women tacitly encourage it. There are organizations like NOMAS that are built around that idea. So to the extent that feminists believe this to be true, the same logic ought to apply in the reverse, which is to say that feminists’ silence on the issue of female sexual violence against males is no different than them tacitly encouraging it.

Secondly, feminists purport themselves as authorities on sexual violence and on women, so when one sees sexual violence committed by women one would expect a response. To find that they have nothing to say seems odd and to find that they consider themselves too busy to address the issue at all seems odder. This would be akin to human rights groups ignoring violence in Sri Lanka because they are too busy with Darfur.Would not people say that their silence was tantamount to encouraging the violence? Did we not say such things about the lack of aid to Rwanda?

No feminist will stand in your way if you try to fight for male victims of sexual abuse

I actively advocate for male victims of sexual abuse and can attest that feminists represent the largest obstacle to providing help to boys and men. They do not support organizations that offer services to male victims, they actively fight against having existing services extend access to male victims and very few of them even acknowledge male victimization occur. There are plenty of people who can attest to experiencing the same thing in regards to helping male victims, just as there are many recent examples of feminists actively fighting against efforts to help male victims.

but try not to make male perpetrators look like the victims. (as one of your commenters does above).

No one made male perpetrators look like the victims. I would not tolerate anything remotely close to that. What was stated was that if the roles were reversed there would be an uproar from feminists.

I think that sentiment is often expressed in these types of arguments and makes most feminists walk away in frustration. What would be wrong if the genders were reversed and women’s groups were banning such a theme night? Are you saying they shouldn’t be? Or are you saying it is their responsibility to ban this as well (most probably would if twas brought to their attention).

I found out about this on MSN’s website, so information is available to feminists. That said, the issue is not whether it is wrong to decry these kinds of things. It is feminists’ hypocrisy, i.e they only decry these things when the offender is male and the victim female. For a group of people supposedly dedicated to stopping sexual violence, they seem to have little problem ignoring half the victims or nearly half the perpetrators. Likewise, for a group that claims to speak on behalf of women, they seem to be unwilling to address female violence of any sort. Feminists want men to address female victimization, yet when it comes to themselves they seem to find an excuse as to why their own standards should not apply to them.

I completely fail to see how women’s group fighting against female sexual abuse diminishes your rights in the least.

They do not diminish my rights per se, but they do diminish my and other male’s access to services by actively fighting against efforts to grant access and create services dedicated to our needs, they perpetuate the stigmas and stereotypes I and other males face and they unfairly frame sexual violence as something that only happens to females, in effect denying my and other males’ experiences outright. This does not make feminists evil or bad people, but it does make them hypocrites.

It is a curious thing as it makes no sense for anyone who wishes to help people to downplay, deny or ignore the troubles of others or pretend that one has done those people a favor by simply saying such acts are bad. It is a hostile reaction that seems to stem primarily from an attempt to defend the contradiction rather than any logical reason.

Of course, there is a great irony in this whole thing, one which is cynically predictable: feminists attempt to maintain their privilege and power by perpetuating the disenfranchisement of male victims, a clearly less privileged group. If not for the horrendous effect the irony has on male victims, the situation would be quite humorous.

19 thoughts on “Standards and Such

  1. As the one who obviously got SolNiger’s dander up, I feel I should say something here.

    Firstly, I did not paint male sexual predators as victims. Personally, I find them to be heprehsible human beings. The fact that there are stiff legal penalties put on them for their crimes is something I support and applaud (and in some case, I think they still aren’t stiff enough). I think SolNiger’s attempt to obfuscate what I said in this manner, plays right at the heart of the hypocrasy I noted. Rather then deal with the actual point and what was said, (s)he attempts to take one line and twist it into a point they feel they can easily rebuff, even if that isn’t what was actually said.

    Secondly, The “too much on our plates” excuse is another lame bit of reasoning. No one is saying to do a 1960’s style march on Washington over this case. But to see femeists actually discuss the matter, to see them engaging with others like TS and seeing what can be done to assist in stopping such attempts at profiteering by female sexual predators, doesn’t seem like a lot of effort. And as TS noted, this wasn’t something that was hidden on some small-time site no one ever heard of. So, to claim that the ingorance of the issue by femeists is somehow justified, simply smacks of the same kind of dismissal and arrogance they always lay on males and “the Patriarchy.” An irony that should be blatantly obvious to femeist, as it is to the rest of us.

    Lastly, I have to disagree, to some extent, with TS, in that given the pervasive mindset of many modern-day femeists, with their selfish attitudes and desire to exclude most male viewpoints within the cause of the gender equality which feminisim is supposed to be based on, I think makes MANY of them “bad people.” They run around, touting to male to “give up their privilege,” while they revel within those of their own making, most notibly the “privilege of victimhood.” It is this sentiment, more than any other, that make modern-day femeiststheir bad reputation. It is what allows them to continually find fault with almost anything non-femeist males do and to keep male victims of female perpetrated violence practically invisible from their discussions. In their minds, only women can be victims, which makes men the oppressors, even if the crime done to a man is by a woman. SolNiger’s comments even show that, blaming “the patriarchy that high fives young boys for ‘getting some’ from older women.” So, the fact women sexually abuse men or boys, is not the fault of the women themselves, but of the “men of the Patriarchy.” Men cause men to be victims of female violence, not women. How could anyone, supposedly dedicated to the ideal of “gender equality” possibly find the use of such twist logic valid, much less palitable? Because you know the reverse would never hold up, if men blamed all male violence on women (and I’ve seen a few try and get the laughable outcome from such nonsense they so richly deserved). How could you look at someone who would do such things and not view them as “bad people?”

    Are they evil incarnate? No, not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. But, like so much else, there are degrees of “badness,” and femeists like SolNiger, who make up cheap and petty excuses for femeists lack of addressing a serious gender issue like this, of which they DO paint themselves as experts on such, by trying to shift the blame for the female predator and onto men, when the reverse would never be accepted, is certainly within the realm of “bad people.”

    Of course, despite all that I (and TS) have said here, I don’t expect those who need to hear it most (like SolNiger) to actually hear what has been said. The points, sadly, fall on deaf ears. Modern femeists are simply too infatuated with their own sense of privilege and egos, that they cannot see how they are making a mockery and perverting of every ideal they supposedly stand-up for. They bring shame upon their grandmothers and great-grandmothers, who fought so they could have it better in the future. They commit the very “sins” they say have been committed against women so much in the past. So, perhaps, they truly are for “gender equality.” Because they seem to have the same ability to dismiss, ignore, or outright deny, those they deem inferior or unworthy of their efforts, all while allowing the worst elements of womenhood to run around unchecked and unimpeded. And that hypocrasy is just as disgusting, in my mind, as a sexual predator, like Letourneau, trying to cash-in on their crimes against others.

  2. Lastly, I have to disagree, to some extent, with TS, in that given the pervasive mindset of many modern-day femeists, with their selfish attitudes and desire to exclude most male viewpoints within the cause of the gender equality which feminisim is supposed to be based on, I think makes MANY of them “bad people.”

    I would argue that acts are bad, not people themselves. While I am under no allusion that all people are good people or capable of change, stating that any group is “bad people” undermines the complexity of the situation. Things simply are not that black and white. More so, the judgment of a group as “bad” is based primarily on emotion and personal opinion. Technically speaking, “good” and “bad” are purely subjective terms. What appears “bad” to one person may appear “good” to another. It is better to understand why feminists seem to view their ignoring and dismissal of male victimization as a good thing rather than them as a group “bad people,” regardless of how one personally feels about their acts or their character or how much one’s feelings may be justified.

    I agree, however, that “me-ism,” this perverse sense of self-concern, plays a major role in the way feminists respond to male victimization.

  3. Apologies TS. I responded to SolNiger prior to noting this thread. Delete the other if you wish.

    SolNiger said…
    Lolita anyone? That ‘classic’ piece of literature extolls male pedophilia more than any stupid theme night at a dive bar could.

    Lolita is fiction and was written more than fifty years ago. The events under discussion are real and current. Furthermore neither Lolita nor those instances actually under discussion have anything to do with paedophilia.

    SolNiger said…
    Perpetuating the myth by not speaking up against it often enough or actively encouraging it? I don’t think the latter is true.

    Unfortunately both are true. Convicted female rapists are presented as celebrities to large female audiences by media doyens such as Oprah Winfrey. They are given forums in which to put their side, and only their side, of the story with no hard questions asked and absolutely no reference to any potential harm to their victims. By wealthy, influential, feminist, “advocates for rape victims” no less. They are magnificently applauded after which the entire package is beamed globally to hundreds of millions of women for their “entertainment”. In my country womens’ magazines pay travel and living costs enabling foreign female internet kid groomers to consumate their lust and then present these packages to my countrywomen as cute romances – for the sponso…er…cover price of course. That same entire country recently went into apoplexy – up to and including our Prime Minister – because of ONE coy photo of a naked girl in a photographer’s exhibition. Meanwhile schoolkids can go to our local library and look at as many pictures of naked little boys – even close ups of genitals – as they wish. Published, in the feminist author’s own words, to “position boys as legitimate objects of female lust”. The Vagina Monologues presents the sexual abuse of an adolescent as a “good rape” BECAUSE it was perpetrated by a woman.

    Shall we now discuss “rape culture”?

    SolNiger said…
    The former however, maybe. A case of having too much on our plates already and being called shrill harpies all the time?

    The former I don’t care about. I WILL do that work and do it far more effectively than I am currently able IF THEY will cease putting barriers my way. You could have less on your plate if you wished.

    Feminists can, if they wish, pack up all their distortions and walk away from the issue all together. They would be doing ALL victims a service. While feminist activism – some of which I was involved with – during the eighties was essential to draw attention to the issues their continued involvement is now more negative than positive. Their insertion of gender politics into the community discourses, advocacy and treatment regimes is conterproductive for victims regardless of gender. Trauma cannot be cured by political ideology.

    SolNiger said…
    No feminist will stand in your way if you try to fight for male victims of sexual abuse

    Proven untrue by my own experience and that of numerous others including professionals in the field. Given that you do not engage in advocacy for male victims you are patently unqualified to make this assertion.

    SolNiger said…
    but try not to make male perpetrators look like the victims. (as one of your commenters does above).

    None of the commenters “above” said anything like this.

    However if you are refering to my comments on another thread the facts I pointed out therein are true and verifiable. And it’s not only male victims. There is growing belief that many female perpetrators – possibly moreso than males – may have previously been victims.

    SolNiger said…
    I think that sentiment is often expressed in these types of arguments and makes most feminists walk away in frustration.

    Frustration? I walk away in despair and disgust at their smug hypocrisy and short-sightedness.

    SolNiger said…
    What would be wrong if the genders were reversed and women’s groups were banning such a theme night? Are you saying they shouldn’t be? Or are you saying it is their responsibility to ban this as well (most probably would if itwas brought to their attention).

    Unprovable. Such a “theme night” would never occur. Where I take issue is the legitimisation of this activity by noted feminists.

    SolNiger said…
    I completely fail to see how women’s group fighting against female sexual abuse diminishes your rights in the least.

    It shouldn’t. Sadly it does.

    You have completely missed the reality underlying this instance which, I note, you casually refer to as a “theme night”. This “theme” has been previously legitimised by very high profile feminists in very large scale, very public, presentations.

    What you should be asking yourself is why some of Oprah Winfrey’s high profile feminist friends have not suggested to her that celebrating rapists is not a good look for somebody claiming to be an advocate for rape victims.

  4. Secondly, feminists purport themselves as authorities on sexual violence and on women, so when one sees sexual violence committed by women one would expect a response.

    They make this claim so that they can maintain control of the discourse, plain and simple. This would be part of the reason why some feminists go through so much trouble declaring that this issue or that is a feminist issue as if labeling it feminist adds a level of validity and urgency that wasn’t there before. They have no intention of talking about the issue but they certainly do not want anyone else to talk about it.

    I did a post on this myself and as I typed it I was wondering exactly how quiet would feminists be on this and I guess the answer is apparent.

    Feminists generally ignore the issue altogether or engage in the shifting tactics SolNiger deployed, claiming first that it is not feminists fault such things happen, then that they have been fighting against it without any help from men, then that feminists are too busy to help male victims and finally that feminists have no responsibility to address the issue at all.

    That is the usual line of tactics feminists use when they get called out.

  5. “I would argue that acts are bad, not people themselves. While I am under no allusion that all people are good people or capable of change, stating that any group is “bad people” undermines the complexity of the situation. Things simply are not that black and white.”

    TS:

    I don’t want to derail the topic, but I did want to comment on this point.

    I would agree that commiting a bad act, does not make on a bad person. We have all, at times, done things that would be considered “bad” by most. If we are truly good people, we regret these actions and try to do better in the future. That, to me, signifies “bad action/good person.” We all make mistakes and it is folly to believe otherwise. So long as we learn from them, and try for better next time, we stay away from becoming bad people.

    To me, the difference between “bad action/good person” and simply “bad people,” comes in with how one responds when your bad action is presented to you. If you do not try to mend your ways, or if you do not learn from it and strive for better outcomes in the future, that is not simply a bad act, but a bad person.

    Taking SolNiger as an example, I must acknowledge that I do not know them or their habits, so what I’m about to say could be wrong, but I will put forth the example to make my point.

    SolNiger tried to excuse femeists lack of generating uproar over female predators trying to cash in on their crimes, as a lack of knowledge on the instances of it happening. While I highly doubt that is the case, let us grant that point for the moment. They know about it now, though, thanks to you. So, are they going to feminist spaces online and spreading the word about it? Are they rallying the troops to amass a large outcry against Latourneau and others who attempt to profit from their abuse of others? If so, it should be an easy matter for SolNiger to provide links to these places showing that is the case. Once again, however, I doubt that will happen.

    Yet, while they seemingly turn a blind eye to this very important issue that affects not just men, but women, as well, they had no problem coming to your blog and attempting to dismiss or silence you and the rest of us, who are critical of feminism for such glaring oversights of inequity, that flies in the face of what they stand for and shows them to be little more than hypocrites. And I’d be willing to lay odds, this isn’t the first time SolNiger has done such a thing, as many femeists are always quick to respond to their critics with twisted logical fallacies and snark (at least, that has been my experience in such matters).

    Given these fairly well-known facts, it comes to me that the actions SolNiger has taken, are not those of a good person who has done a bad act, but of a bad person doing things they know are bad. They don’t care about the male victims who suffer at the hands of female predators. They don’t care about the near-glorification of female predators, with acts like this one Latoruneau is doing. All that matters, is a few men were critical of feminism and the hypocrasy many of those who claim to be for the cause create with their silence and dismissal of such things. It was more important to attempt to silence the critics, than address the problem. And even with it now brought to their attention, thereby taking away the excuse of “not knowing about it,” they still are doing nothing about it. Those are not the actions of good people make a bad choice. Those are the action of bad people, who only selfish care about themselves and their own opinions.

    For me, that is what makes the difference. There is no attempts to learn or do better from SolNiger and other femeists. They show no remorse or regret for the “bad acts” they do. In fact, more than a few actually revel in doing so. That is where it crosses the line from a mere bad act to bad people, with me. Perhaps you have a different way of seeing it, or you simply have higher tolerance for bad acts, but this has always been my final yard stick and it has rarely done wrong by me.

    Everything may not be black and white, but some things are. And I certainly think in the case of SolNiger and other femists like them, in how they handle criticism of feminism by others (specifically men) and their (in)actions towards issues of female predators and their victims, is very much black and white in how it should be seen. And I firmly feel it paints the picture of them as “bad people.” Your miles may vary.

  6. They make this claim so that they can maintain control of the discourse, plain and simple.

    I concur. In the instances where feminists do discuss male victimization, they are not very keen on male victims themselves engaging in the conversation nor do feminists appear to want to acknowledge the male perspective on that issue at all.
    lse to talk about it.

  7. For me, that is what makes the difference. There is no attempts to learn or do better from SolNiger and other femeists. They show no remorse or regret for the “bad acts” they do. In fact, more than a few actually revel in doing so. That is where it crosses the line from a mere bad act to bad people, with me. Perhaps you have a different way of seeing it, or you simply have higher tolerance for bad acts, but this has always been my final yard stick and it has rarely done wrong by me.

    The thing I always keep in mind is that the difference between oneself and those one considers “bad” is rarely significant. In the right set of circumstances it could be you behaving in such a manner. In the right circumstances — or I should say the wrong circumstances — it will be you. Feminists themselves have in large part fallen to this. They behave in the very manner that they rail against, and the reason they are able to justify it is because they resort to black and white thinking. They are good and men are bad. Their views are good and (their perspective of) the views of men are bad. They have no reason to show remorse because from their perspective their actions are righteous.

    However, the primary reason they do not show remorse is because one generally only feels remorse or regret when one commits wrongs against those similar to oneself, which is another way of saying that have othered men. From the feminist perspective, men are not people, at least not like women are. Men are just “them,” a nebulus group somewhere between a person and not a person. Certainly few feminists will admit this, the same way few cops will admit that they view minority groups as lesser than white people. But it is still palpable enough to have an effect, which leads to the apathetic response one sees.

    All of this is just a long winded way of saying that calling feminists “bad people” means you are doing the very thing you do not want done to you. I do not call pedophiles monsters primarily because I do not want to be treated like a thing, and treating them like things or monsters creates the same situation I never want to go through again. That does not mean I like them or accept their excuses for their behavior, only that I do not want to become them, and so I will not take the easy way out. It is harder to try to understand why they do what they do than it is to simply hate them. This applies to feminists as well. It would be much easier to call them “bad people” or “evil” for the things they have done. It is certainly tempting and I would be lying if I said that given the way I have been treated by them I do not want to simply write them off. But that is too easy. They have their reasons for behaving that way and the only means of understanding that is by treating them as I want to treated and not othering them by reducing their humanity or demonizing their character.

  8. TS:

    I get what you are saying, but I’m also a believe is calling it like it is, too. You noted before that you aren’t naive enough to suggest that there are no bad people in the world, but it seems in this reply, that is exactly what you are saying. If everything comes down to the bad acts bad people do need to be understood, and to condemn them for those acts is wrong, then why even bother to fight the tide? Why waste the effort?

    I agree that we shouldn’t dehumanize others, just to win an argument. But that’s not what I’ve done. I didn’t call femeists “monsters,” or “orges,’ or “evil.” I called them “bad people.” They are human being, the same, generally speaking, as we are. And that should not be forgotten. But that is hardly enough justifcation to let their bad acts, for which they know are wrong, continue to slide by without being called down for it.

    You said things aren’t balck and white on this. I agree that not EVERYTHING in this is black and white. The greater argument might not be. But looking at the specifics of this situation, it is black and white.

    I think all of us (including femeists) would say rape is wrong. I also think all of us would say a criminal trying to gain profit and celebrity for their crimes, at the expense of their victims and the victims of similar crimes, is also wrong. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone else to say otherwise. Yet, as SolNiger shown from their comments, the fact those things are wrong isn’t reason enough to for femeists to put aside their selfishness and petty grudges and address the wrong being done. Yet, they have no problem attempting to silence those who would speak out about it and point out feminism’s lack of doing the same. They ignore what we all agree is wrong and instead attack those who want to see the issues addressed.

    You see, I’m not judging them on some subjective view I hold myself. I’m judging them by their own standards. The very standards they call upon others (mostly men) to follow. Yet, here they show themselves incapable (or unwilling) to do so. The classic adage of parenting by saying “do as I say, not as I do” is known to be a very poor way to parent. And those who do so are usually called “bad parents” (and rightfully so). It is no different here. A group of people, who have supposedly dedicated themselves to stopping rape and promoting gender equality, doing things that are so blatantly in opposition of those very goals, who them condemn those who point that out, can only be seen as “bad people.” And while that judgement might not make them change, it really isn’s supposed to. It is to serve as a warning to others, to beware allowing themselves to fall into that state themselves, because most folks do not want to be known as a “bad person.”

    As for trying to understand why they continually do these bad acts, despite that it goes against the very core of what they supposedly are fighting for, has become a fairly obvious matter in my experience. You can boil it down to any one (or combionation) of the following reasons:

    1) Revenge: This one is pretty straight-forward. They have been hurt (most likely by men) in the past and this gives them the oppertunity to even the score. The fact the men they will enact this revenge upon are most certainly not the same ones who wronged them doesn’t much matter. The somewhat cathartic thrill of hurting a man, like they were hurt, is all that matters.

    2) Selfishness (i.e. me-ism): Again, something fairly straight-forward. They honestly don’t care about true equality. In their own self-centered minds, there can only be “equality,” if they can dictate the terms of exactly what that is. And if that takes things away from others, even within their own group, that’s just fine, so long as they get what they desire. Anything less, is simply another form of oppression and twisting of the truth.

    3) Ego: Since they finally have some true measure of power, they become a little drunk with it. They start to think that only they have the right answers and that to not listen to them, is the equivalent of disobeying God. They have the true knowledge and know the right path. Anyone who says otherwise is, at best, a fool or, at wosrt, an enemy who must be crushed.

    4) Fear: And I don’t just mean they fear the power of men, although it could be a factor. The fear is more on the level of how important they and their issues must be seen. Like two science projects, competing for the same governmental grant, they need to make the world believe that what they see as important, is what is important for everyone. And if that means exaggerating their own claims, or dismissing and devaluing those of their opponents, all is fair, because they simply must win and fear any outcome that does not provide this end result.

    Now, while I understand that any of these reasons might be behind SolNiger’s comments, that doesn’t take away the fact that what they did was wrong. That they ignored a true wrong, while commiting one of their own. And while one would hope that they might learn from that and strive for better, sadly, that rarely ever happens, due to (at least, in part) the factors I noted above. And while I judge them a “bad person,” I do so, not based (solely) on my own opinions and beliefs, but on the stanards feminism has put forth for everyone to follow. I judge them by the rules they set forth and they have come up wanting. And if that is not a textbook example of what a “bad person” is, than I don’t know what could be.

    I understand your feelings on not wanting to dehumanize them, because you do not want to be dehumanized yourself. But a person’s actions also must be taken into the equasion. And I simply will not turn a blind eye to the wrongs they do, just as they turn one to wrongs like the one Latourneau is engaging in. To do so, would make my actions no better than theirs. And how can we ever hope to have an open and honest dialogue between us all, if we can’t even call people out when they cross such lines?

    It is very hard to stay on the high moral ground. As you said, there are many traps you can easily fall into. I know I’ve had pitfalls in my time and will have them again. But I try to learn from them and do better. That is why I simply call them “bad people.” I don’t want to “other” them, as they have done to men. Thus, I keep in mind that, while what they do is “bad,” they are still PEOPLE. Just as I am. I grant you, it is a small distinction, but a very important one, I think.

  9. I understand your position, however, I do not think it helps with the ultimate goal. It creates antagonism. In a tactical sense, you are not giving the opponent any way out, no means to retreat and no real reason to surrender. The result is more fighting. At least allowing them a way out — by not resorting to their tactics — gives you the advantage as it costs you nothing to without the comment. More so, sometimes not saying a thing has a much greater effect than saying it.

  10. TS, saw your comments over at Apostate’s place.

    Her rhetorical smackdown of your ad hominem strawman argument was amazing.

    [/sarc]

    Keep up the good fight. Be seeing you around.

    EW

  11. Thanks for that pointer. I didn’t know TS was engaged there.

    I left them a little Tosca.

  12. I checked it out, as well. I even made a comment (which I’m sure will be moderated into oblivion (but I know she will see it, if no one else does).

    I didn’t dehumanize her, either, TS. However, I can’t say my comments were un-antagonistic. Like I said here, I’m not going to let people like that off the hook, just because they are “people, too.” I didn’t call her a “bad person,” though, so I guess that something, right? 😉

  13. Know what gets real old?

    A feminist, when confronted by an example of feminist malfeasance, who has no reply other than “don’t blame feminists, blame patriarchy!”

    Yes, let us blame the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster that only feminists can see as bearing responsibility for the behavior of people with flesh-and blood.

    What’s next? “The patriarchy ate my homework, professor!”

  14. I am of the opinion that “The Patriarchy” is as an idea designed to deflect blame. I do not think anyone who looks at our society can honestly say that women have not played an equal role in shaping it, which includes shaping gender roles for men and women. However, acknowledging that would mean that feminists would have to rethink their perspective on how and why gender roles develop. Blaming “the Patriarchy” is much easier to do, and as with anything, when one does it often enough, it simply becomes habit. I think that is how some feminists resort to that argument. It is simply reflex.

  15. “I do not think anyone who looks at our society can honestly say that women have not played an equal role in shaping it, which includes shaping gender roles for men and women. However, acknowledging that would mean that feminists would have to rethink their perspective on how and why gender roles develop. Blaming ‘the Patriarchy’ is much easier to do, and as with anything, when one does it often enough, it simply becomes habit.”

    TS:

    You know, I think you’ve hit upon one of the things I find so infuriating with femeists. That they use “reasoning” and tactics which, if brought out and used upon them, would be seen as the height of misogyny.

    Let’s me take an example from the recent nonsense of “The Apostate” and her views of all men being rapists. She says:

    “Good men know that it’s not a personal indictment of them, but an expression of anger against a world that disproportionately mistreats women more than any other single group of people, and that the fact of this mistreatment emanating from men in the majority of cases makes generalized female anger at men quite justified and understandable. And that if they want to change things so that there isn’t this generalized sense of anger against their entire gender, they will personally do what they can to promote feminist ideals and resist their male friends when they dehumanize women.”

    So, if men want women (or, more specifically, femeists) to stop viewing the whole of the gender as rapists, it is up to them to change and conform to what femeists think they should be. And, until that happens, their rash and ill-judged words and actions that dehumanize half the population of Earth needs to be seen as “justified” and “understandable.” Yet, if we turn this around from the other end, the same would not hold true. For example:

    “Good women know that physical abuse not a personal indictment of them, but an expression of anger against a world that disproportionately mistreats men more than any other single group of people, and that the fact of this mistreatment emanating from women in the majority of cases makes generalized male anger at women quite justified and understandable. And that if they want to change things so that there isn’t this generalized sense of physical anger against their entire gender, they will personally do what they can to promote male-friendly ideals and resist their female friends when they dehumanize men.”

    How many times has a situation where a man has hit a women, and he would claim that he didn’t hate her, but only that her silly “female nonsense” made him angry and he couldn’t help it, wasn’t done as an act of harm, but to help the woman “do better”? That is, if she didn’t want him to be angry, she needed to straighten up and fly right? It’s not his fault she got hit, but her own. And only she can stop it by changing to what he wants her to be. Yet, this has been dispelled as a logical fallacy. If you care for someone, even if they do silly things that annoy you, than you do not strike them. The “justification” doesn’t wash. Nor should it.

    Yet, The Apostate (and those who think like she does) offer up the same kind of logical fallacies for their own poor actions. Generally dehumanizing all men as “rapists” isn’t her fault or the fault of femeists (or women in general), but the fault of men making them scared and angry. And only men can change that situation, but conforming to what she (and those like her) dictate as the only acceptable conduct for men to be allowed to do. Otherwise, the abuse (verbal, not physical, in this case) can and will continue, as it should be seen as “justified” and “understandable.” And the men have only themselves to blame for it.

    One of the very fallacies they have fought so hard to dispell, is now the one they cling to as justification for their own reprehensible words and deeds. And having done so quite often and getting away with it, it has become a reflexive habit for them. Because to do anything else, would force them to examine their own tactics and the beliefs they hold to as self-evident truths. And that would just shatter their little self-important microcosm.

    Is it any real wonder why, despite it all, nothing ever really changes in this whole stupid game?

  16. “Lolita anyone? That ‘classic’ piece of literature extols male pedophilia more than any stupid theme night at a dive bar could.”

    Typical feminist logic – Lolita is fiction, this is not. Also, Lolita was written several decades ago before this was all dragged out of the closet. Call me cynical but i think this woman already knows this…

  17. Hmmm…

    Apostate, so far, seems to be letting my stuff through. That, if nothing else, convinces me this person is a bit lightweight. The one that’s awaiting will tell the tale. Let’s see how much undermining Apostate will take before twigging.

    @TS…

    I just revisited the feministing “allies” thread.

    Occured to me that quite a few of the posts have a “contrived” feel to them.

    This one from “sfyn” for example…

    Don’t expect a cookie = One of the first and probably most important lessons for me too.

    But right now I am going crazy trying to find a community, any community, of pro-feminist men that function as a support network. I have some nasty shit to work through and I am kind of reaching a point of desperation with this.

    So… Anyone reading this know of some good and active online communities that are explicitly feminist, and function as support networks for men doing personal work to be better allies?

    Interestingly marc responds first with Michael Flood’s website before launching into a plug for NOMAS which marc will, coincidentally, be “flying to”. What odds do you want that if “sfyn” is indeed a real poster that “he” has an Australian IP.

    TS, do you know the concept of the “Dorothy Dixer“?

  18. Lolita anyone? That ‘classic’ piece of literature extols male pedophilia…

    The whole theme of that book was the tragic consequences of pedophilia. Jesus, she never even read the damned thing.

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 )

Connecting to %s