Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting
For most Americans, the recent mass murder in Aurora, Colo., was an unspeakable human tragedy; if the story had any political dimension at all, it was guns and gun control (or the lack thereof). But for a vocal few in the misogynistic online world of “men’s rights” — and no, not all men’s rights activists are woman-haters — the takeaway was the evil of “male disposability.”
In the first few days after the shooting, a number of mainstream news venues, eager to find something uplifting to report on, focused on the heroism of some of the victims. “Three survivors of the Colorado movie-theater massacre escaped with minor wounds, but were left with broken hearts because their heroic boyfriends died saving them,” as The NY Daily News put it. “In final acts of valor, Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves used their bodies to shield their girlfriends as accused madman James Holmes turned the Aurora Cineplex into a shooting gallery.”
Less sentimental was The Wall Street Journals’ James Taranto, who, on July 24, let loose with this astonishingly sour and unchivalrous tweet: “I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.” Twenty-four hours later, after a deluge of negative comments appeared on his blog, he took down the tweet and issued an apology, in which he tortuously explained that he had merely been expressing his wish that the women would use “the gift of their survival well – to live good, full, happy lives.”
Taranto’s faux pas wouldn’t have even borne notice at A Voice for Men, one of the men’s rights websites the SPLC wrote about in the Intelligence Report last spring.
Under the headline “Three Cheers for Three Male Corpses. Heroes,” “John the Other,” identified as the site’s managing editor, explained that those so-called heroes were merely victims of their biology (males are hard-wired to protect females) and social conditioning (which tells men, as John the Other explained, that “in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat. They matter more than you. Your best and most honorable path ends in you on a slab in the basement of your city’s morgue”). Their sacrifice, he concluded, was merely a victory for misandry, the principled hatred of males. Had they not died, he added, “the preening, strutting, amoral whores of the mainstream media” would have described “them as cowards and shirkers; failed men for not doing their manly duty by dying for the convenience of others.” (Interestingly enough, one man who did flee the theater, leaving his wounded girlfriend and their two children behind—and then proposed to her hours later in the hospital—cut a wide swath through the talk show circuit.)
Over at the Spearhead, another site highlighted in the Intelligence Report, W.F. Price unleashed his ire on William Bennett, who, in an essay at CNN.com, had not only deigned to attribute the men’s actions to a code of honor, but cited a Slate essay by Hanna Rosin, the author of The End of Men. “Bennett gets it totally wrong on a number of points, which is about what you’d expect from a guy who relies on feminists to divine the motivations of young men,” Price complained. “They were solid men; the kind that families and communities have always relied on when the going gets tough. It wasn’t because they held some belief or political position, it was because they were men that they acted as they did. It is simply what men do, and that’s why they deserve honor, which Bennett is incapable of bestowing on anyone. No, instead of honoring these men, Bennett continues to measure them according to their utility to women.”
The Pigman, a self-described left-wing men’s rights activist, saw the lionization of the three men as so much propagandizing for “male disposability.”
“Cheering these men’s actions is as reprehensible as it is stupid and discriminatory,” The Pigman wrote. “Imagine if this was a cinema where roughly 50% of the patrons were black and the other 50% white, then imagine that everyone who decided to act as someone else’s bullet-proof vest just happened to be black and everyone who benefited from their sacrifice just happened to be white. Anyone with any sense would be thinking, ‘Well, this is clearly a society that teaches both blacks and whites that white people are worth more than black people.’ But because the disparity runs against not a politically protected group but against a group that enjoys neither the protection of the Right nor the victim status granted by the Left, not only does no one complain – they actually encourage the continuation of such disparity by praising the men who were foolish enough and unfortunate enough to fall for a lifetime of anti-male propaganda telling them to die for the nearest woman whenever the shit hits the fan.”
The feminist website Manboobz has collected these and many other gender-centric takes on the shootings, here, here and here.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:08 pm
given the general quality of men in the men’s rights movement, I suspect that most of them would have trampled several children, knocked over a couple of people in wheelchairs, and strangled their own grandma to get out. In the unlikely event they actually had a wife or girlfriend they likely would have used her as a human shield to save themselves
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:12 pm
I knew it was too quiet. Well, BOHICA.
Lots of awards next week, I bet.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
I am eternally grateful to Hatewatch for introducing me to the hilarious, terrible, and hillariously terrible content posted on Manboobz. The owner of that site is now one of my favorite human beings ever.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I guess this is what they call “counterintelligence”. In a superficial sense I might relate to what seems to be suggested by these persons … in therms of Mink Stoles, God Diggers and Cadillac Cars but don’t in terms of human life – e.g., my wife saved her sister from drowning. It’s a human reaction.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Oops sorry about the typos :p
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
I’m not sure how this has anything to do with hate.
Personally, I’d rather not feel obligated to throw my life away for the benefit of others and that doesn’t make me a misanthropist.
It’s an interesting topic. Thanks for introducing me to these sites with more serious discussion of social issues rather than shaming men for respecting their own lives.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 12:57 pm
I am heading up to a family reunion in Stowe, VT, but I know where I’ll be getting the majority of my entertainment this weekend! I just hope HW mods feel like working over the weekend :)
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Also, I’m with Ian here. Manboobz is HILARIOUS. It’s very similar to SadlyNo for me in that regard.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Well, Just, some people have altruistic instincts most of the time, most people have them some of the time, and some people have them none of the time. Glad you found yourself.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Just a Man – respecting their own lives, i.e., running like a little beotch… Proposing marriage to a woman who you left with two kids to save yourself? You defend that???
Are you kidding me??? Living for yourself is an extremely sad life indeed.
And before you even start – I’m a combat vet with two national defense service medals, combat action ribbon, etc., desert storm / war on terror. So don’t give me “what if you were there???” defense.
I’m so sick of hearing about this “man’s rights” crap. Men’s rights…why do they call history “his story”?
History belongs to men. What the hell rights are we missing?
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:44 pm
I don’t even have a valid, educational, well-articulated argument for this crap.
I am straight up ghetto-ripping anyone who comes on this board and is “pro-men’s rights.”
So before you even type, be prepared.
It’s gonna be monumental.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I note herein that I have frequently had cats who lived, loved, and hunted as a natural pride, and though their doctrine towards mustelids was normally live and let live, if there were young kittens around, they’d band together (males and females both) and drive the predators out. Although I wouldn’t dare leave my rooster outside by night, on one occasion when he flew the coop, no one got him, and Bre’er Fox is pretty omnipresent, but the presence of a pride of whole-grain hardmuscled hunters deters even him. Altruism, in short, protects them all: because they hang together, they don’t hang separately, and neither do their pals.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 1:50 pm
In fact, the principle of protective altruism has long been known to us in that old fable called in the West “The Musicians of Bremen”.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Looks like the macaroni is hitting the fan at the last minute, all right, and the Awards Committee will have plenty to do after all.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 2:26 pm
The guys an idiot. He’s condesending to People who resent being preached to. Especially, after such a heart rendering event as a senseless mass murder.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I don’t think we should downplay the life-saving actions of these men. They gave their lives so that others could live and this is the ultimate act of selflessness and true compassion. This kind of fearless and loving act could even be described as moral perfection.
Yet, how many women have given their lives willingly, even joyously, to bring a child into the world? How many times a day does a parent or family member, friend or even stranger (I’m thinking organ donors) give up something they want or need, so that others can benefit? If you think about it, we live and die in infinite ways every day. Every thought has a lifespan…how do we spend the lifespan of our thoughts? Selflessly, compassionately, or filled with hate, vengeance, and personal gain?
We all have heroic nature, it just takes different forms. Every act of compassion deserves reverence, no matter how small. Maybe even especially the invisible acts that no one knows about or that don’t get headlines. I really wish this message is not lost on those who read it.
Loving each other is not a contest to see who deserves the greatest praise. It is just being human.
It is what we are.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Oh, incidentally, Just, you are welcome to spend your life with a bunch of like-minded males, but what I have heard from men deployed for prolonged periods with other men, after a while, the sweat and effluvia from other members of one’s own sex stink unbearably.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I have to say that I tend to cringe when I hear the reporting on stories like this shooting because of the efforts on the part of the media to “package” it and “tell a compelling story.” I still cringe when I hear ALL of the people who died in the twin towers during 9/11 referred to as “heroes.”
This isn’t because I don’t mourn their deaths — none of them deserved to die like that — but I would prefer to reserve the term “heroes” for the emergency responders who WILLINGLY went into the buildings to try to rescue people, or some of the towers personnel who could have left, but stayed, trying to get as many people out as possible. This isn’t because I dismiss the deaths of the others — or the trauma to the ones who did manage to get out (survivor’s guilt is a bitch). Simply living through that, or, in the case of those who didn’t get out, trying to get out, helping others, comforting others–I’m sure that the emotions and actions of all of those who were there were all over the place. Instead, I rebel against the blanket designation “heroes” because it IS a blanket designation. The deaths (or survival) of those who just happened to be in the towers (or on the jets) was a personal thing, experienced in a personal way, and of personal interest to those who knew and loved them. Simply saying, “they were all heroes,” strikes me as cheap and flat, a gloss-over — at least when the media say it; I can see it having a more intimate and consoling meaning when the families, friends, or co-workers say it, because they recognize that each one of these folks was an individuals, like you and me, who found his- or herself in a terrifying and horrible situation.
Moreover, when we stop thinking of events in terms of the INDIVIDUAL loss as well as the COLLECTIVE loss, then events such as 9/11 become less about tragedy and more in danger of resurrection as symbols for use for political gain. We shouldn’t simplify such events.
When I heard about the theatre shootings, I wondered about the people–the individuals–who were in the line of fire. None of us know for sure how we would react in such a situation. I have been in life-or-death situations twice, and both times, I defended myself against attackers. I don’t know where the rage came from, bubbling up and allowing me to fend off men who were bigger than me. I don’t know if I would act that way again. I would like to think that I wouldn’t freeze and that I would attempt to help other people in a terrible situation, too — even if it meant putting myself in danger. But I don’t know what I would do. Few of us do.
As other commenters have already pointed out, the instinct to protect others weaker than ourselves is very strong, and not just among humans. But so is self-preservation or — in a whacky case like this — simple bafflement and paralysis at the outset (I understand that some people initially thought the attack was part of the movie premier). To second guess how people acted or didn’t act (or how we interpret these actions/lack of actions) is really quite vile. Not to make light — but for all we know, some of the people who “took a bullet” for others simply tripped, while others who escaped unscathed (or at least only slightly injured), were striving mightily to help and protect others.
So I do understand the “Men’s Rights” groups take on the simple mythologizing of “the men were shot protecting their girlfriends because that’s what men are supposed to do,” because it is simplistic, and it in no way really conveys what the situation had to have been like. I do, however, object to their vitriol, and the way they characterize women (drug-addled slut?) and other, non-men (older people, little kids).
These guys have monumental chips on their shoulders, and they are obviously full of hate toward anyone they believe gets in the way of what they want to do — which is why SPLC includes them as a hate group. And I agree with Erika that these toads would probably trample everyone else into the ground to get away if they found themselves in this situation.
I hope that I don’t come across as heartless regarding the victims of mass tragedy. I did at one time work as a newspaper reporter, and one of the things that put me off of it was the fact that, in order to get the story out quickly, one would fall back on pat stereotypes that didn’t always (or sometimes, at all) tell the story. In addition, the nature of news media reporting puts a premium on “body count,” and tends to avoid the complexities of the individual or the complex emotions, some of them not always noble, that play out in situations such as this.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 4:34 pm
CoralSea, last night I watched a documentary about the Titanic which contained a very interesting statement. It said that many of the male survivors reported that they entered the life boats to “protect” the women or to row the life boats. Now, that would definitely be the case of the few surviving crewmen – they were specifically ordered to get in the life boats to row the passengers to safety and didn’t have a choice. But for the male passengers who survived – many of which were vilified as being cowards for getting in a life boat – one has to wonder if the claim that they got into the boat to protect the women or children was a defense mechanicism. And of course, the crew who died were hailed as heros even though they had absolutely no choice – there likely would have enough life boats to save all the passengers if they were filled to capacity, but most of the crew was doomed.
The mention of a century old disaster should note that even in a time when women had almost no rights, it was still considered a man’s duty to die to save women and children. In fact, probably even more so than today if you look at the history.
Of course, the life boat situation is different from what happened in the theatre, in that the life boat was much slower – it was not instaneous. It is much easier to imagine the life boat situation than an instaneous disaster. In fact, I believe that is one of the reasons why a century later the Titanic continues to fascinate. Simply because the sitaution is so easy to imagine and yet so difficult to imagine.
Of course, I would also say that the problem with the men’s rights movement is that they complain that men are “expendible” becuse of the ethos of women and children first – like in the shipwreck – but not considering that for the White Star Line, the crew of the Titanic really was expendible. Of course, that was also the case in factories, coal mines, railroads – prety much all areas of commerce during the Gilded Age. Hence, the men were expendible not to save the women and children – because the crews duty was to save passengers first – but the men were expendible because of the economic climate of the time. Workers were cheap. I suspect that one reason why the men’s rights bozos are feeling expendible now is because of economic climate and the move towards deregulation.
And yes, in the shipwreck situation, I can imagine that the men’s rights people would be the people who entered the life boat wearing a dress – or simply jumped over the railing as the boat was lowered. They are selfish people who simply hate women. Remember that many of the men’s rights people are actually pro-rape.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 5:48 pm
“running like a little beotch…”
REALLY, Joseph? You can’t even keep from using misogynist slurs in your comments, and we’re supposed to believe you are any better than MRE/MRAs? Your contempt for women is blatant.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
So apparently, according to these “men’s rights activists,” love and compassion for another person doesn’t exist. They have no idea what it means for a man (or woman, for that matter) to love another human being so much they would be willing to die to save that person’s life.
I have to wonder whether a lot of these “men’s rights activists” are sociopaths in fairly transparent disguise.
on August 3rd, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Dear SPLC:
I would appreciate an explanation as to the relationship between the SPLC and the website manboobz.com, or David Futrelle. This is the second time that your organization has done a convenient product placement of Futrelle’s website in your material when talking about the Men’s Rights Movement. I do find it interesting the Goldwag states that James Taranto acted “unchivalrous” – and with such statement Goldwag used gendered shaming language to show his political disapproval of Taranto’s statement.
Cordially,
Magdelyn Prossii
on August 4th, 2012 at 8:08 am
More proof that the “Men’s rights movement” is full of lazy-ass, cowardly, butthurt “nice guys.” It’s funny how they complain about wanting “traditional” relationships, so long as they don’t have to do anything.
on August 4th, 2012 at 10:17 am
Another piece of yellow journalism on the mrm from SPLC totally misrepresents and misses the point.
on August 4th, 2012 at 10:42 am
The whole idea that giving your life for somebody else is the only way you can “become a real man” is what John the Other is attacking here. It’s detrimental to men, and very insulting to women.
Let’s just imagine, for one second here, that several of the women who died in the shooting had been shielding their boyfriends with their bodies. You know what the mainstream media would be saying? They’d be saying that those men who survived were cowards, they were abusing their girlfriends, and the women were a bunch of dumb, patriarchally-oppressed animals who didn’t value themselves.
on August 4th, 2012 at 11:01 am
yourself.
whoever wrote what’s in the following quotes should shoot himself. he’s a disgrace to his gender:
“Just a Man – respecting their own lives, i.e., running like a little beotch… Proposing marriage to a woman who you left with two kids to save yourself? You defend that???
Are you kidding me??? Living for yourself is an extremely sad life indeed.
And before you even start – I’m a combat vet with two national defense service medals, combat action ribbon, etc., desert storm / war on terror. So don’t give me “what if you were there???” defense.
I’m so sick of hearing about this “man’s rights” crap. Men’s rights…why do they call history “his story”?
History belongs to men. What the hell rights are we missing?”
yeah, he should
on August 4th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Not that I agree with them, but what Pigman wrote doesn’t seem that bad. The first two examples are just plain sick (in particular that immediate assumption that women are all sluts and drug-addled whores—really, what the hell happened to those guys to make them hate women so much?) but asking why is it lauded for a man to lay down his life for a woman but would be considered an ill-omen for society if this crossed other socio-political barriers I think is a fair question.
Not to diminish their sacrifice in any way; it was a heroic act. It would be if they did to save anybody, including other men, but we should ask ourselves if it were the other way around—if the women had jumped in front of bullets—would we consider the men they saved cowards?
As for the guy who ran, I know it isn’t the popular opinion, but I can’t call cowardice. Proposing hours later was in poor taste. But nobody knows how they would react in a situation like that until you are there, and the self-preservation instinct is strong.
on August 4th, 2012 at 11:51 am
@Joseph: why do they call history “his story”?
Ever heard of an etymological dictionary?
on August 4th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
“Yet, how many women have given their lives willingly, even joyously, to bring a child into the world?” Weak. Not only is death in childbirth extremely rare, but vastly more women have callously terminated the life of an unborn child to avoid the “inconvenience” of motherhood.
on August 4th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
The mens rights crowd had no problem with men sacrificing themselves to save women. Or, more precisely they had no problem with PEOPLE sacrificing themselves to save PEOPLE.
What they DID have a problem with is the fact that men are EXPECTED to make these kinds of sacrifices just because they’re men. That is unacceptable.
Honestly this blog comes across as very hateful, which is ironic.
on August 4th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Hello,
I think you may be missing the point that the men’s rights activists are making. It is not that they promote greed and misogyny or that they denounce self-sacrifice, but that they are opposing the notion of male disposability, the notion that it is necessarily a man’s place to sacrifice for a woman. It is the notion of “chivalry” and “benevolent sexism” that they are fighting, which I am sure is something many women who believe in gender equality can stand with.
on August 4th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Arthur Goldwag,
I heard about this. Its pretty sick.
on August 4th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Heads up from Manboobz: “manosphere” already spazzing over this little article. BOHICA.
on August 4th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
@CoralSea
“And I agree with Erika that these toads would probably trample everyone else into the ground to get away if they found themselves in this situation.”
That completely contradicts the point you’re trying to make in your post.
on August 4th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
The SPLC has become a joke. It posts demeaning attacks on genuine human rights groups which support the “wrong” gender. At the same time, the SPLC gladly accepts donations from Radfem Hub, a group which literally calls for the genocide of men.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
on August 4th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Erm… hm? Are comments being censored? Because I find it odd that this article, which got 27 bashing comments on Reddit, has nothing but praising comments here.
…Well, unless it has, and a moderator simply hasn’t allowed them yet. In that case, nevermind.
Anyway, the complaints aren’t so much with the sacrifices themselves, but with the… nature of the heroes. When people sacrifice themselves to help others, it’s heroic (most of the time, anyway). When these people are all of the same demographic, it’s fishy. When a fourth person of said demographic is lambasted for /not/ sacrificing himself, when many others of a different demographic were not, then there’s definitely a problem here.
The problem being that, yes, men are thought of as more “expendable” by the general populace. Which is awful awful awful.
For those of you who’re thinking that’s nonsense, I’d like to remind you that the justice system, the supposedly unbiased non-judgemental justice system, hasn’t executed a woman in two years now. Or the two years before that. Or the three before that. In fact, in the last 40 years, they’ve executed well over a thousand men but only 12 women.
on August 4th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
This is a very silly article.
If you had wanted to look there were plenty of feminists arguing that women would have sacrificed themselves too.
And a few feminists arguing that this does say something about men (Hanna Roisin for instance).
Similarly, there were MRAs saying this says something special about men,
And a few MRAs saying women would have done the same thing and that this talk of special qualities of men encourages male disposibility.
I can no longer place SPLC on the pedestal of truth and justice as I learned as a kid, because you have allowed yourself to become hyperpartisan in these culture wars.
Indeed, I am more inclined then ever to take the criticism of Morris Dees to heart and just think of SPLC as yet another group that will do anything it takes to get into my wallet in order to better fund theirs.
on August 4th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Keeping an eye on the radical right? From what I know the men’s movement isn’t radical or right(they are correct in what they say but they’re not right on the political spectrum).
You maggots at the SPLC seem to be radical left ideological Nazis, who will bash anyone you please and anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
I think the SPLC is a mental hospital. They seem to have all the patients.
on August 4th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Whats the point of this article? Are you saying that men worrying about their male-disposability (which results in death in this incident) is wrong? Instead we should worry about guns only?
You are unhappy that James Taranto sent out an “unchivalrous” tweet? Do you prefer that everybody else be a dignity’less pussy-worshipper like you?
on August 4th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Oh my. Now you’re claiming that to deny that a human being has a moral duty to give his life to protect another human on account of which sexual organ they possess is hate speech.
Isn’t it time that you give serious consideration to the possiblity that your obsessive and cack handed pursuit of the men’s rights movement is starting to actually discredit the proud history of the SLPC?
on August 4th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
The men’s rights people are wacko, but this smacks of an excuse for more of the nonstop coverage of the latest massacre by gun control advocates. At least 12 people are killed every Saturday night in Chicago, which has a “total ban”. It would not even make the news in Mexico, where all firearms are also banned. Do you think one of those retarded stickers that show a cartoon six gun with a red line through it on the back door of the theatre would have turned this guy around? The last clear chance to stop this was his parents, who were paying his bills and probably paid for all the weapons on their credit card.
on August 4th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
OK, Reyn…I found the blog, dully bookmarked and ready to “present claws” when needed…the “claws” are long, sharp and well-manicured, ready to hand out some “Hammerhead Awards”…(do you prefer a whack or a thud?).
It’s a sorry state of affairs when women are pulled backward in an under-tow created by wave of violent powers plays amongst throw-backs who haven’t evolved a centimeter since their inception as pond scum.
Pond scum never moves from the “surface” nor changes form…it always seem to over take still water at peace with life and spread an ugly film that turns brackish and toxic over time…unless it is removed.
on August 4th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Joseph,
The fact that you are a decorated cog in the American war machine is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, if you were really brave, you’d be dead.
on August 4th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
If ever there was a time when the SPLC was worth taking seriously, that time has long passed.
on August 4th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
So a man is a coward and a misogynist if he refuses to die to save a woman?
Screw you. There’s no such things as a heroes. Only corpses rotting in the ground.
It’s not about altruism. Altruism is voluntary. It’s not voluntary if not acting will get you villified and called a coward.
on August 4th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
First of all, I would like to thank each and everyone of you heroic men for your service to your country. Secondly, I would like to point out that the military is full of rapists and pedators. It’s the only reason more women don’t serve.
You see, SPLC decreeing MRAs “haters” notwithstanding, I can see the MRAs point of view here.
It’s give with one hand, and smack down with the other as far as this mother of both genders sees it.
Patriarchy is evil. Matriarchy is nurturing and kind. Patriarchy is responsible for horrors like war and slavery that Matriarchy would NEVER condone…unless it pertains to paternity fraud, wage slavery and debtor’s prison for deadbeats who can’t get a decent job or experience drastic pay decreases from deployment in these bountiful times. Because we women are the empathetic gender it’s with no pleasure we serve men who served decades in prison for a crime they didn’t commit with child support arrears.. .and return them to prison if they don’t pay up. It’s for the children, you see.
However, as a woman, I stand in league with the SPLC with shaming finger wagging to those whiners and complainers. REAL men take their lumps and get over it. Of the nearly 300 men released from decades of wrongful prison by Innocence Projects I ask, do you see any of THEM whining or blaming the women who put them there?
Of course not! REAL men smile bravely and offer forgiveness. They don’t make a burden of themselves with blame or guilt or shaming tactics.
You “toads” on the other hand don’t deserve the honor of allowing women to wipe their feet on you.
No, you really don’t.
on August 4th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
You are assuming that I am a pervert because some men are perverts? Fine. Shall I assume you are a slut because some women are sluts?
on August 5th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Im still trying to make sense of whats not to understand about the legitimate platform issues of the mras. Injustice to one is an injustice to us all and theres no denying that men have faced injustices that warrant advocacy and grassroots activism. In fact while i dont agree with some of the language or expressions of pain chosen by a feww, i totally understand and am encouraged men are beginning to demand that their voices be heard and painful experiences addressed!!!!! As a twenty year advocate for choice and a number of other womens issues, i embrace the call toaction by these men as it strengthens our push for equality. For instance i am pro choice but i believe mens reproductive rights strengthens “choice”. Not extending men rights in this issue undermines the campaign or basic premise of choice. We have a right not to be forced into motherhood and i believe men too deserve that right or else it weakens our stance. I see the pain and neglect of our young men in the black and brown community and understand that a community that despises its men run the risk of creating despicable.. everyone focuses on the “vitriol” or other expressiins of hurt and pain without bothering to try and understand.. i recall a time in my life when many white folk coukd not understand the strong language and expressions of hurt and pain from black people..there was shaming and attempts to silence “radicals” like dr. King or malcolm x. I havea sons and i dont understand how any one with men i have their lives and who believes in equality cant get behind what appears to be a growi g movement that has diversity of thouvgt and diversity in the expressiin of thought similar to most movements.. but to paint them as a hage group is not warranted in my opinion!!!!
on August 5th, 2012 at 9:04 am
@ erika
The mans rights guys in my community have fouvht cor increased and comparable funding for prostate cancer and are develooing male centric programs for male children as an alternative to psychopharmacological intervention in grammar schools. Pro rape? Ive nevere heard that one. But i have stood i have the trenches alongside many in the past twenty years in the defense of a womas right to choose. Those men who fought with me would have their rights denied by the same women for whom they fight so passionately..in fact as it relates to my commu ity i have a gretaer feeling of solidarity with these men than the very women in my community that enjoy the rights but have never contributed to the fight. Ive even been called radical by other women due to my beleif that our coalition to protect choice is strengthened when evryone has a choice that is equal right equal responsibilty. Do hou know how disheartening it is to fight for someone that calls you a woman hater because your views on equality and after two decades of advocacy.. its a smack i have the face especially from those that have never done a thing!!! As bishop t.d jakes said in his summitt on fathers..”the rise of women does not have to come with a push for the fall of men.”
on August 5th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Sorry about predictive texting spelling and grammatical errors.. also to clarify i am not pro abortion but i am pro choice.
on August 5th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Erika –
I definitely agree with you on your assessment of “expendability;” and I do think that this is one of the reasons why the men’s rights groups are so angry (also a nod to Linnea’s comment that a lot of them are probably sociopaths). The economic times in which we find ourselves as well as increased technology replacing workers–and off-shore workers replacing workers here — all work to undermine all but the richest strata of society’s sense of security.
For decades men in America (particularly white ones) were, for the most part, able to earn good livings, either in white collar or professional jobs or in unionized blue collar jobs. Now that this is no longer a given, and so many well-paying jobs have evaporated, a lot of these guys (and their families) have taken the bait dangled by those who mislead others at the behest of the “ruling class,” and instead of questioning why so much money is now flowing upward to overpaid CEOs, blame immigrants, women, African-Americans (or in some cases, African-Americans blame immigrants) for taking their jobs. They are aiming at the wrong people, but with the media to reinforce such simple and “dramatic” storylines, one can see why they lash out. And when one considers this type of “devaluation,” particularly against the backdrop of the rugged American individualist archetype, one can see what a bind this creates, particularly for men.
“Chivalry” has typically been very specific as to whom it is given: noblewomen, nuns, beautiful young girls, although some men (and women and children, too) are of a nature that they are inclined to want to help anyone they find in distress. We’ve all seen it–the VP of a company who rushes forth to help the wife of another executive who is juggling packages in a show of suave good manners–while ignoring the female administrative assistant (or the male administrative assistant) who is struggling to drag a bunch of file boxes into a conference room. But one has also seen the nice guy, offering to help someone else (usually female), and being told to buzz off, because she can handle it herself (I’m afraid that in my younger, more militant years, I was guilty of this).
Finally, in regard to the Titanic, one of the scenes that struck me (I am talking about the James Cameron movie) was when the man who looked solidly second class was trying to reassure his tearful young daughters, who he had just placed in a lifeboat, that he would be taking another boat “for the daddies.” Considering the economic brutality of the times, I was struck when I saw that scene wondering what happened to the wives and children of the men who didn’t make it onto the lifeboats. Except for the wealthiest, they probably ended up in poverty or living uneasily with relatives, because there weren’t a lot of job options that would lift one into the middleclass for women back then.
It is unfortunate when groups blame others for misfortunes that afflict us all (or that afflict those of us who don’t possess mega-bucks).
on August 5th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Damn. The mods look in on us goldfish and I can’t hand out last week’s awards before this week’s candidates flood in. Working on novel with deadline, but I’ll be back from time to time.
Some of our Hammerhead awards might be special Peterhead awards this week. And for anyone tempted to think some of the MRA’S are expressing honest indignation, check over at Manboobz for the scurvy stuff being said about the author of this column *right away* . The malice is unmistakable.
Regardless of any shipwreck, the actions of people in a shooting like this are unpredictable and instinctive. At the moment in question, you are not thinking about what society expects. Help or hide, you *just do it*
Other than that, we are two things: mortals and mammals. As the former, we protect the young. As the latter, we protect actual or potential mothers of the young. Any social mammalian species that behaves otherwise goes extinct. And before anyone says it, no, tomcats don’t eat their kittens.
Welcome here, Singh. Bring some friends.
on August 5th, 2012 at 11:17 am
I was not aware of the male rights movement before this. Thank you for making me aware of male disposability. I am against all human sacrifice irregardless of gender. I am socialist and I believe I have a lot in common with these so-called ‘hate mongers’ (despite the fact that I am not predisposed to hate.)
I am a man and I am a human being. Thank you again Mr. Goldwag for introducing me to a realm of the internet that allows me to be. Sorry, but I do not think I will be doin’ much hatin’ though. I will introduce all my friends to the MRM however. In time I am sure it will be revealed who is doing the real hating.
on August 5th, 2012 at 11:19 am
I can’t say as how I ever turned down anyone’s help. Nor have I stinted in offering help to others.
I am very tired, though, of people who have to jam others into a little gender box. I never fit in mine and there are plenty of men and women who don’t fit in theirs.
When a person gives a life that another may live, that’s a wonderful thing no matter who they chose to save; if a person ran instead, well, there’s nothing wrong with that, either. Fight or flight, and it comes from a nonthinking place. No one knows what they would do when faced with a difficult situation. No blame for anyone except those who deliberately cause such a situation.
The first time I was surprised by something that happened when I was 14, and a kid near me had a seizure. I had no idea what it was, and stunned, just sat there while an adult yelled at our group of teens, “Why aren’t you doing anything?” Truth is, I did not know what to do and froze. Since then, I’ve always leaped into action, with that person’s words as my goad. I don’t always do the right thing, but I do SOMETHING. Not everyone, though, has had the experience that I did, or it may have affected them in different ways.
I’ve spent my life trying to make the world a better place for my having been in it. I *think* I’ve had a net positive effect, but who knows? We don’t always know how our actions/lives will affect others, and, like all humans, I’m terribly flawed.
on August 5th, 2012 at 11:28 am
“Of course not! REAL men smile bravely and offer forgiveness. They don’t make a burden of themselves with blame or guilt or shaming tactics.”
So I guess “real women” should not hold grudges against men who raped them but did not receive justice?
on August 5th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
@ Kerry Soileau
You are absolutely mistaken on death in childbirth.
Until fairly recent times every pregnancy meant the very significant likelihood of the mother’s death. This has been the case for the entire history of the human species, the same history where men were considered the “valiant defenders”. That was my point, but maybe you are too dense to understand it.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e.....dbirth.cfm
And as to comment regarding termination of pregnancy I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread.
on August 5th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
From the posts by Natalia-Jackson Ramirez and others I see that the movement is not as wacko as I thought. Like most groups, like the Tea Party, the Occupy movement, the NRA and the ASPCA, possibly there are valid concerns and reasonable people, but also nuts who are looking for somebody else to blame for their own problems.
on August 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Sucks and other Peterhead candidates: We’re not the ones invading your fora and using vile language. Res ipsa loquitur.
on August 5th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Methinks them MRMtards doth protest too much…
Totally predictable.
on August 5th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
The MRAs are right. SPLC is talking rubbish on this. You’re simply wrong, and think if you label those who disagree with you as part of a ‘hate movement’, you’ll get away with it and noone will notice. Well, you won’t, and we will. You’re wrong, and frankly far more hateful than MRAs.
YOU are the hate group, SPLC.
Thankfully, more and more people are finding it out.
on August 5th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Thanks to the “Men’s rights” activists who came in here and confirmed my suspicion that their movement is basically about laziness and cowardice.
on August 5th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Oh and please go ahead and shove your “disposable male” theory directly back into the place from whence you got it. If you were really so upset about this you’d be complaining about the First and Second World Wars, not this theater shooting.
on August 5th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Once again, the MRA’s are using a tragedy to make it all about them and their grudge against women. It’s sad for them that they don’t know the kind of love that led the heroes at Aurora to give up their own lives so that their loved ones could survive. It’s the same way when mothers use their bodies to shield their babies and children during natural disasters. When you love someone that much, you would rather die yourself than lose the person you love. It’s not about anyone being disposable, it’s about love.
I’m not religious, but I still love the verse “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:37 am
This article, along with most of Arthur Goldwag’s material, comes across no better than gutter tabloid journalism. Pure sleaze, I mean. You would think that an organization like the SPLC would try to project a more mature image, wouldn’t you? But then, possibly the SPLC has seen better days and is now sliding into its decadence?
I mean, why in heaven’s name don’t the higher-ups in the organization immediately FIRE Arthur Goldwag?
Must be that the poison has infected the SPLC from top to bottom, and Goldwag’s brand of schoolyard trash talk reflects the ethos of the organization as a whole. Rationally, there is no other explanation.
on August 6th, 2012 at 6:52 am
Owing to deadline pressures, I have been unable to come up with awards for the past week. Others are invited to do so. This upcoming week looks real juicy, though.
on August 6th, 2012 at 7:13 am
Natalia, if you cannot see the pro-rape and pro-wife beating and child abuse side of the men’s rights movement you are being willfully blind. There are even some who are pro-pedophilia. They have infested many of the criminal blawgs (where merely being openly female can unleash a torrent of abuse) and they are truly vile people.
In fact, if you really look closely at the men’s right movement you can see that their primary complaint is that men are no longer legally permitted to beat their wives and commit acts of child abuse with no legal concenquences. A secondary complaint is that women now have rights of their own. When you really look at things see the bottom line, their “legitimate” claims tend to be of the “I lost custody of my children after being convicted of felony child abuse resulting in serious injury” variety. Except of course, they will leave out the entire “convicted of felony child abuse resulting serious injury.” part.
If you really think they primarily focus on “legitimate” complaints and concerns you are a complete dupe.
on August 6th, 2012 at 7:33 am
That’s right, Sam.
If we generalize too much we run the risk of becoming that which we claim to oppose. However, it is equally true that very few bigots, misogynists, racists and so on actually consider themselves to be acting unreasonably.
I think that is why it is so important for any activist group to be especially vigilant about the conduct of its members. If groups, such as the Tea Party as a perfect example, are not vigilant in weeding out racists and bigots, they will always be considered racist groups.
Unfortunately, as in the case of the Tea Party, most constituents don’t recognize racism when they see it and instead insist that “playing the race card” is always inappropriate, or that minority groups are the real racists, and so on. This type of painting with a broad brush ends up polarizing groups into meaningless opposition, since the real issue is lost in the shouting.
So I think what what’s going on with the man rights people is that there is a push back against the feminist movement, which includes some valid concerns: criminal sentencing, divorce settlements, parenting rights, and others. Sadly though, the wackos who just really hate women for whatever reason end up finding support from their more rational allies in the man rights movement.
So it’s really a case of the movement not being discerning enough in its own agenda to be able to claim legitimate status. I don’t think most people here — including old regulars like yourself — actually want to silence anybody. We just don’t want groups like this legitimizing hatred against women simply because there are some “rational people” involved.
A little bit of botulism in the tea still makes everybody sick.
on August 6th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Zang, apparently you have not noticed what gender continues to dominate the criminal justice system. With the lawyers and judges Its going to change with time because more women have been going to law school than men for around the last decade – but police forces are showing no sign of changing.
Also thanks to having represented defendants in criminal trials before I happen to know that its virtually impossible to get a conviction when its just one person’s word against another. At least that is how a justice system with a presumption of innocence is supposed to operate.
Oh and for whoever you were responding to (to lazy to scroll back up to find the original post) – its not women who wrongfully put people in prison. Okay, there are a few cases like a recent one here in the great Commonwealth of Virginia where an African American man was wrongfully convicted of raping a white woman based upon witness misindentification (studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is actually extremely unreliable) – of course, the police, prosecutors, and judge were men – and it was a stranger rape case. Actually there was another involving a teenaged white girl with intellectual disability who to avoid getting beaten by her father claimed that her African American boyfriend who also was a person with intellectual disability raped her when in fact the sex was consensual and she wanted to avoid getting in trouble when caught. Again though, the police, prosecutors, and judge were male. Much more typical is the most notorious innocence case from Virginia involving Earl Washington an African American (note a theme?) man with intellectual disability who the police effectively tortured for almost 48 hours to get him to confess to a rape-homicide of a white women (note another theme?) he didn’t commit. The police who extracted the wrongful conviction that wrongfully sent him to death row were men – as were the prosecutors and judge. The Norfolk Four case is also a very interesting false confession case from the Commonwealth – look it up – again, it was a rape-homicide so there was no accusation from a woman and the police/prosecutors/judges were overwhelmingly male. (I would also argue that the infamous Martinsville Seven case was very likely a false confession case since the confessions of rape which resulted in the execution of seven African American men for raping a white woman were obtained through saying “if you don’t confess we will release you to the lynch mob which is directly outside of the police station”)
Especially back in the 1970s and 1980s when the vast majority of the Innocence Project cases took place the justice system was dominated by men.
on August 6th, 2012 at 8:07 am
CoralSea, I don’t think that there is any question that the entire men’s rights movement – and male movements in general – is in reaction to the drastic economic changes that have taken place. It is less a reaction to social change than it is to economic change. During times of stressers people tend to lash out at carefully selected targets which the elite provide so that stressed people do not lash out at them. Women and feminism make a convenient target – especially once Rupert Murdoch got going in this country since his background was in tabloid media where you use sex, sleaze, and sensationalism as the bait to hook in viewers to get them to swallow what you want them to believe. Hence, you blame feminism for women working outside of the home rather than stagnating middle class wages which requires two income families.
And of course, looking at what is going on in this country is why I have found myself drawn to the history of the period between the end of reconstruction and the start of World War I. Mainly because it seems that is where we are going back to. In the Gilded Age, men really were seen as being expendible by the industrialists. Since we seem to be headed into a new industrial age it is actually natural for men to once again see themselves as being expendible but rather than looking at the cause – they blame women.
Never mind that women are facing similar economic pressures. I realize that whenever I think about having children and wonder how we could possibly afford it (and I have the luxury of a job which is very mommy friendly as far as hours, being able to telecommute, and has very good health insurance and I know that most women who have to work in order to make ends meet don’t have that). And then I start to consider the state the world is in and wonder if I am being selfish and cruel to even consider bringing a child into this world given the way it has been going lately. Especailly since I think we have entered a new Gilded Age (doubters take a look at Mitt Romney – he would have fit right in. Okay, maybe he would have had to grow a big beard, but put a beard on him and tell the difference between him and say Chester A. Arthur).
on August 6th, 2012 at 8:15 am
Xiao Mao – Contempt for women?
First of all – I don’t know if you’re a man or a woman. I use that term in the context of where I was raised, born, from, whatever you want to say, I DON’T REFER TO WOMEN when I say that. When I say that, I am calling a MAN a female dog.
The fact that the term brings to mind a woman for you says way more than I ever could. You’re done.
on August 6th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Joseph:
The fact that you are a combat veteran would have meant nothing in that situation if you were not armed. The
people in that theater died for the same reason the 9-11
passengers did. Because they were disarmed and left
helpless by idiotic policies. People get killed every day
by cops and Federal agents yet no one ever calls for
“gun control” on them.
on August 6th, 2012 at 8:52 am
“The
people in that theater died for the same reason the 9-11
passengers did. Because they were disarmed and left
helpless by idiotic policies.”
What policy “disarmed” these people? You’d prefer to have armed citizens carrying guns on planes? Gee, I sure hope they remember to take their glaser safety rounds if they don’t want to kill innocent people via over-penetration, let alone depressurize and destroy the WHOLE PLANE.
Are you suggesting that someone with a handgun could have taken out the body-armor wearing, assault rifle armed madman in a crowded, smoky theatre? Please find me ONE case of a shooting rampage in the last 30 years being stopped by an armed civilian. There have been something like 50 between 1990 and the present, and not one was prevented or stopped by a person with a handgun. In fact in the Loughner shooting, one individual who had a gun nearly shot the man who tackled the shooter.
” People get killed every day by cops and Federal agents yet no one ever calls for
“gun control” on them.”
I’m glad you point this out because it is true, but it’s called a “monopoly of force”, and it’s the basis of the state, which in turn is the basis for a class-based society.
on August 6th, 2012 at 9:00 am
Joseph, I have to agree with the objection to the use of the word for a female dog to denote the cowards of the men’s rights movement – its a complete insult to female dogs who can be extremely courageous in their defense of their owners and puppies.
on August 6th, 2012 at 10:53 am
Erika and Ruslan –
Both of your posts have been very much on target (at least to me).
And all I could do was cringe when I read Wes’s comment about how 9/11 happened because innocent people weren’t packing heat. I sure as heck don’t want to fly in a plane that some idiot carrying a gun could depressurize if he/she got mad or simply dropped/mishandled the damned thing, trying to shift it around so it isn’t poking into oneself in the increasingly cramped airline seats.
And the people who died in the towers or the pentagon? How would having guns have helped THEM?
And Erika — I believe that many of the problems we are experiencing now are due to the economic manipulations of those at the very top of the heap — and those who cover for them by saying, “look over there! Immigrants are taking your jobs! People on welfare/unemployment/food stamps are bleeding you dry!” It would certainly be nice if more members of the public (like, all of them) would begin to “pay attention to the man behind the curtain” and begin to work together to figure out how we can re-establish a more equitable society.
(And for those who think I’m a socialist — I’m not. But there are limits to how much power (and money) corporations and the investor class can be allowed to wield. Watch that iconic film, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I think you’ll figure it out.)
on August 6th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Joseph wrote: “Living for yourself is an extremely sad life indeed.”
Why are you hating on me because of the way I choose to live my life unwilling to be a human sacrifice?
Joseph wrote: “I don’t even have a valid, educational, well-articulated argument for this crap.”
Agreed.
on August 6th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Go ahead and embrace your inner socialist, CoralSea.
“Socialist” isn’t a dirty word anywhere but America. “Individualist” in many countries is a perjorative meaning selfish and anti-social.
The United States never really got over the Cold War. The bugbear now is “Islamic terrorists” but it’s merely the same paper tiger as McCarthy-era diatribe. The military industrial complex needs an enemy to keep the cash rolling.
I for one am unashamed to consider myself a socialist and see many advantages to centralized planning and workers owning the means of production over the boom and bust cycle of capitalism.
Let’s face it people, it wasn’t socialism that dumped our economy in the sewer, unless you consider George W. Bush a socialist.
Has anyone noticed that the same people who are most reactionary against “socialism” are the same people who are most getting screwed by capitalism?
on August 6th, 2012 at 11:36 am
@ChippersYum: “His Story” is a figure of speech.
on August 6th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Simply amazing! So the mens rights movement is just a reaction to drasric economic changes.. that doesnt explain the masses of black men finding their way to the movement in my community.. most have always been economically disadvantaged but many are finding solidarity with men of all races that have been impacted by policies that have led them to have to fight for their children instead of having rights to their childrenn, higher rates of incarceration, etc. The black mens rights guys have long been affected by the societal male bashing and unjust policies. We are witnessing a significant increase of reprted false rape allegations that black men are unfortunately far too familiar with, and that are becoming many white mens nightmare.. additionally, i have jclients whose prison experience was an extremely traumatic one in that many were the victims of a “rape culture” that is used in our prison systems to maintain order and facility compliance..THOUSANDS of men are raped in prison every year, many i suspect that may have even been wrongly convicted.. most recently during a practicum seminar a black student spoke of his frustration with what he has experienced as an academic environment that embraces and communicates high levels of empathy when he shares his struggles as a person of color. However he would go on to speak of how he is often silenced by the tension in the room whEnever he shares the experiemces he has encountered as a man. Hes the one male student in a program of the 23… ive watched as many have tried to portray the movement as one of heterosexual white men buckling under the pressure of lost privilege..ALL of the mens rights guys i know are black and latino and are gay and straight..thats probably because there is emerging a legitimate MENS movement that is begi ning to shed light on issues that men are struggling with. And the alliances appear to be less manipulation than what many of us women of color experienced with the likes of the gloria steinems of the world..the men that i know are begining to identify and showi increased solidarity with men across the globe through their experiences of pain and suffering..
on August 6th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Just A Man
Joseph and I pity you because you obviously have no-one in your life for whom you care deeply enough that you would be willing to lay down your life for them.
And that is a very sad life, indeed.
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“In fact, if you really look closely at the men’s right movement you can see that their primary complaint is that men are no longer legally permitted to beat their wives and commit acts of child abuse with no legal concenquences.”
The primary complaint is actually that women can beat their husbands and molest children without legal consequences.
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Don’t hate on me because I’m not a human sacrifice.
I have a good life, home by the lake, professional career, lots of friends.
I don’t need pity from anyone.
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“Thanks to the “Men’s rights” activists who came in here and confirmed my suspicion that their movement is basically about laziness and cowardice.”
You’re essentially saying that women’s rights activists are all lazy cowards because they ask for rape protection instead of fighting off the rapists themselves.
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
“Joseph and I pity you because you obviously have no-one in your life for whom you care deeply enough that you would be willing to lay down your life for them.”
It’s not about caring for someone, it’s about fighting the idea of male disposability.
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
And one more thing. I’ve noticed that you didn’t call these women greedy cowards because they didn’t try to save their men. What if the genders were reversed, if women died protecting men? Would you call the men cowards, or simply just laud the women’s sacrifices and call it a day?
on August 6th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Zang, you’re cowards because I know “men” like you who complain about how women killed chivalry, and how you want to find some Asian or Eastern European wife who will do what you want, but on the other hand you don’t feel you need to be obligated to do anything.
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Just a Man: I’m not ‘hating on you.’ I’m criticizing your extreme callousness and nihilism. And regarding your friends and family, what would they think were they to be threatened, and you simply ran?
I don’t care that you claim to be successful. I care that you describe yourself in such a manner as to be a very poor human being. And I still pity you.
Zang Hong: When did I ever describe possessor of both X and Y chromosomes as ‘disposable?’ Last I checked, human life is the most precious of concepts, and there is no higher cause than the sacrifice of one’s OWN life if that means a loved one can continue theirs.
You MRMtards really are something else. To call you nihilists would be too generous, as that would entail a personal philosophy of denial. No, you’re simply selfish children, unable to accept that everyone else’s lives are just as, if not possibly even more — dependent upon the person and their abilities — valuable than yours.
I hope you find love and compassion at some point in your sad lives, whether it be from a significant other, or from family or friends. Because the lives you’ve described are empty husks worthy only of pity.
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“Zang, you’re cowards because I know “men” like you who complain about how women killed chivalry, and how you want to find some Asian or Eastern European wife who will do what you want, but on the other hand you don’t feel you need to be obligated to do anything.”
I don’t want to simply receive without reciprocating. But often men are expected to give to women without expecting things back, and that’s what I don’t like.
Answer me this. Are those women whose men died cowards because they didn’t jump in front of the men to save them instead?
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
“You MRMtards really are something else. To call you nihilists would be too generous, as that would entail a personal philosophy of denial. No, you’re simply selfish children, unable to accept that everyone else’s lives are just as, if not possibly even more — dependent upon the person and their abilities — valuable than yours.”
I’ve noticed that you didn’t call these women greedy cowards because they didn’t try to save their men. What if the genders were reversed, if women died protecting men? Would you call the men cowards, or simply just laud the women’s sacrifices and call it a day?
“I hope you find love and compassion at some point in your sad lives, whether it be from a significant other, or from family or friends. Because the lives you’ve described are empty husks worthy only of pity.”
Come on, I don’t assume that women who get raped are sluts who deserve it, don’t assume that I’m an unloved person just because I disagree with you.
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Zang, who knows? Perhaps some of these women DID try and sacrifice their lives to save their men.
But then again one must take into account the fact that MOST MEN ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN WOMEN, you dummkopf. The women could simply be pushed out of the way, and held behind the men.
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Zang,
While I’m happy to hear you aren’t pro-rape, too many of your colleagues are. I would certainly count you among the ‘reasonable minority.’
on August 6th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
“But then again one must take into account the fact that MOST MEN ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN WOMEN, you dummkopf. The women could simply be pushed out of the way, and held behind the men.”
You ignored my question. You haven’t denounced the women as cowards. If it was true that the women died for men instead, would you denounce the men as cowards, or just praise the women as heroes and say no more?
“While I’m happy to hear you aren’t pro-rape, too many of your colleagues are. I would certainly count you among the ‘reasonable minority.’”
I’d say you’re living in a fantasy world. MRAs aren’t pro-rape, they are anti-false rape accusations, which is quite different.
on August 6th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Just wondering if there is a hate-group category for
“disdain for men’s lack of human sacrifice”
on August 6th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Aron the hater says:
“I’m criticizing your extreme callousness and nihilism. And regarding your friends and family, what would they think were they to be threatened, and you simply ran?
I don’t care that you claim to be successful. I care that you describe yourself in such a manner as to be a very poor human being. And I still pity you.”
Hopefully, if they were smart, they would be running too. Otherwise, they would be dead.
on August 6th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Aron the hater says: “I hope you find love and compassion at some point in your sad lives, whether it be from a significant other, or from family or friends”
Already there man, I’m just not willing to be a human sacrifice because my life is just as valuable as everyone elses.
on August 6th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Zang,
You can’t expect me to condemn something that is purely speculative. And even if they didn’t sacrifice themselves, I cannot condemn anyone for that choice.
And you’re right. Pro-rape is too strong a word. But if you go back and look at some of the things your MRM colleagues were writing on the post that seemingly established the SPLC as the Enemy of All Men Everywhere, you’ll see some pretty disturbing things.
There are over 250 comments on that page, which I believe is the most posts on any Hatewatch story to date. And you can’t expect me to find the comments that support my position for you.
I leave that to you.
on August 6th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Hey Just a Man (what is it with you internet tough guys unwilling to use your real names?),
I never claimed to hate anybody. My unwillingness suffer fools lightly should never be misconstrued as ‘hatred.’
You say smart people would have run? Have you ever been in a situation like this? Are you completely unfamiliar with human psychology? (Good money says ‘yes’ on both counts.)
In stressful situations such as these, the natural response for many people is to simply freeze. They desperately wish to flee, but they are unable to move. Does that make these people stupid?
Where’s the Subreddit for ‘idiots who lack the laughably easy ability to run away from a crazed gunman in a darkened movie theatre with tear gas in the atmosphere?’
You Internet Tough Guys are all the same. Keyboard Kommandos who always know better than everybody else, with the ability to function successfully when everyone else cannot.
Go back and cry to DemonSpawn, little baby.
on August 6th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
On that occasion, several men were shot as they protected wives/daughters, and (on I forget if it was that or another recent occasion) a woman was killed while applying pressure to the wounds of another female friend. In that theater, there were doubtless many more people shielding others than actually died; also, many more were wounded than actually died. It was dark, and despite his armament, as a marksman, the shooter was no Anders Breivik. Because of this, many who interposed themselves between the danger and another target may have been wounded nonfatally, lightly, or not at all.
Men *are* considered disposable…but not by women. Men of the youpeople are considered disposable by men of the “right people”. Where do you think they mean to get their cannon fodder from? Not any mortal woman are you conditioned to expend your lives for, but “freedom”: whose freedom to do what? Their freedom to use you without your knowledge, consent, or just recompense, that’s what. And when you sense you’ve been had, they send agitators to post blogs and troll threads and tell you it’s eevil (check as many as apply) liberals socialists cultural Marxists feminists furriners pagans atheists Mooslamic terrorists other doing it to you.
The first thing intending oppressors do is turn the men of the group they mean to subjugate against the women. This does two things. It halves the strength of the targeted group, depriving men of their allies; and it gives those men, once declassed, the consolation prize of thinking that, even as they sleep under bridges or march in chain gangs, they are still “better” than half the world. It’s being done to you. Wake up! Wake up!
(If thiis is a double post, please strike one)
on August 6th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
To Rusian and CoralSea:
As far as 9-11 goes, even Tasers could have made a
difference against thugs with box cutters. As for de-
pressurizing the plane I think you have watched Goldfinger
too many times. Even a .22 caliber will do the job if it is a
headshot at close range. It worked for the CIA and KGB
during the Cold War. As for the theater, why are you so sure
it wouldn’t have worked? The shooter was not suicidal so
at the very least it would have forced him to take cover.
I don’t buy the whole “monopoly of force” idea and
never did.
on August 6th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Sorry about the misfire…
I’m just a bystander but it looks to me like Aron just knocked that bully out of the ring.
on August 6th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Zang, sorry but if you really believe the concern is “false rape” accusations you simply are not paying attention – why because the men’s rights bozos believe that every rape accusation no matter how overwhelming the evidence is false. There are “men’s rights advocates” – although I prefer the term “male supremacists” who advocate for acquittals in every rape case. They have this fantasy that somehow there are a large number of false rape accusations when the reality is that it is incredibly difficult – pretty close to impossible – to get a conviction in a “he said, she said” case.
The reality is that rapists routinely get off – now as I mentioned I was [briefly] a criminal defense attorney so I don’t have a problem with that – however, I have a problem with you male supremacists trying to pretend that rapists are not going free simply because our judicial system makes getting convictions in cases without external evidence very difficult. The fact is that men have all of the advantages in our judicial system – the police forces and prosecutors offices are dominated by men and they routinely don’t even bother investigating “date rape” cases because they know that getting a conviction in them is impossible. The number of women who were raped which rape results in no conviction is much higher than the number of men who were wrongly convicted of rape – and in the vast majority of cases men who were wrongly convicted of rape are in rape-homicide cases where there is obviously no testimon from the victim (generally based upon false confessions) or in stranger rape cases where there is no question that there is a rape but the victim identified the wrong person (which is much rarer). Cases where men were convicted of a false accusation are extremely rare – and most of those were Jim Crow era cases like the Scottsboro Nine or cases involving teenagers who claim rape to avoid getting in trouble.
Raped women are routinely raped a second time by the judicial system – there have been improvements but there really isn’t anything anyone can do about it. Branding women who more than likely were in fact raped but there simply is not enough evidence to prove it as making false accusations is simply not true. Legally you simply cannot tell what happened. Adults – at least adult attorneys – understand that. You male supremacists would brand all of those accusations false accusations when they are nothing of teh sort. You simply hate women.
on August 6th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Aron, no “pro-rape” is not too strong for the simple reason that the male supremacists believe that every rape accusation no matter how overwhelming the evidence is false. Despite the fact that the odds are already stacked against obtaining convictions in rape cases they want to tilt the odds even further in the man’s favor. They also want to pass extremely punitive laws against women who make rape accusations which do not result in a conviction even though the lack of a conviction does not prove that a rape did not take place. They believe that even in cases of stranger rapes that the woman was asking for it and deserved it and the man should be acquitted simply because they hate women. They consider even those cases to be “false rape” accusations because they consider every rape accusation to be false.
They effectively want to legalize rape because they completely hate women and believe that women deserve to be raped.
They are pro-rape and do not let them try to weasel out of it.
Of course, they are only pro-rape of women and teenaged girls. Even most [but not all] of the male supremacist losers oppose the rape of pre-pubscent children and at least according to the cut and paste jobs on the previous thread they are very opposed [publicly at least] to their fantasy of women raping men.
on August 6th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Why do I get the feeling that the real reason why the male supremacist bozos are so opposed to the men who saved their girlfriends is that they were upset that more women weren’t killed by the gunman? and in general they oppose men laying down their lives to save women because they want to see women die?
on August 6th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
“I don’t want to simply receive without reciprocating. But often men are expected to give to women without expecting things back, and that’s what I don’t like.
Answer me this. Are those women whose men died cowards because they didn’t jump in front of the men to save them instead?”
Typical cowardly, childish point of view. I’ll only do something if I get something in return. This is where capitalism leads us.
on August 7th, 2012 at 2:31 am
It seems to me that it is not such a far stretch from refusing to protect innocent women to refusing to protect one’s fellow man in general.
The annals of military history are filled with tales of courage and self-sacrifice, highlighted by award citations which are filled with words to the effect of “without regard to his own safety,” “having refused medical treatment,” or “in spite of his own wounds,” etc. Such people were cited for saving their fellow men without regards for their own safety. In the case of the USSR, there are numerous posthumous Hero of the Soviet Union award for WOMEN who sacrificed their own lives for the sake of men, including at least one who killed herself by diving under a tank and detonating several anti-tank grenades.
What good fortune it is that the allies possessed such courageous people, rather than the spineless cowards of the whiny “men’s rights movement.”
“We can’t go down that road, sarge! There are GERMANS down there! What am I going to get for putting my ass on the line?!”
on August 7th, 2012 at 7:08 am
Aron – My daughter has been in one arm for the past few days, and I was too busy at work to retort to these individuals. Thanks for watching my back.
Tommy thinks me a disgrace to my gender. Even though I probably have more “man-stuff” on my walls then he does. Not sure, but it’s possible.
Just A Man states that he is not expendable. 9 years of active service and 1 year of reserve service has taught me that we are all expendable. So why let children suffer?
I bring up my service because I have been shot at before, and I didn’t run. It’s not just the bullets though. It’s als the car accidents that I’ve pulled a few people out of. It’s the disasters that my squadron volunteered to help out with.
This thread is about opinions, some backed by fact, as Ruslan so very well backs his. Mine backed by life experience.
And life experience tells me that a man who runs from disaster is not protecting his right to live. He’s running from danger.
So run little man. You successful professional with lots of friends you. I don’t have many friends myself. You know why? They always leave you in the dust when you need them.
on August 7th, 2012 at 7:54 am
“And you’re right. Pro-rape is too strong a word. But if you go back and look at some of the things your MRM colleagues were writing on the post that seemingly established the SPLC as the Enemy of All Men Everywhere, you’ll see some pretty disturbing things.”
If you think that statements like “the alleged rape victims should be innocent until proven guilty just like alleged criminals of any other crime” is disturbing, I’d say you’re too easily disturbed.
on August 7th, 2012 at 9:11 am
‘Scuse. Alleged rape *victims* should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is to preposterous for you, Zang? Wonderful! An open court confession!
Erika, I daresay you already have at least one Sharkie in the bag.
on August 7th, 2012 at 9:23 am
You got friends here, Joseph.
I personally don’t judge anyone who runs from danger. Ip Man, who trained Bruce Lee, advised running, and I don’t think anyone would call him a coward. I really don’t know what I would do in a situation like that, it sounds like no matter what it would still be a tragedy. I don’t want to see this senseless act of violence become an increasing wedge between men and women. We all have a little bravery and cowardice.
“Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
–Buddha
on August 7th, 2012 at 10:07 am
If you think that men should be courageous and noble enough to sacrifice themselves for others, that’s fine.
One question: Why shouldn’t the same be expected of women?
on August 7th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Kudos, in particular, to Reynardine’s 4:40 post from yesterday and Erika’s 5:55 post, also from yesterday for explaining some of the contextual issues surrounding “expendability” (Reynardine) and rape (Erika).
As for Wes, Zang, and others who are still hypothesizing and second-guessing what happened at the theatre–Really? I mean, Really? As I noted earlier, since this “event” broke upon a crowd that didn’t expect it and had no reason to expect it, some of the early causalties, in particular, probably had no time to parse what was happening. As for the actions of the others, I’m sure that some were heroic, with men and women attempting to help others get out of the line of fire. But I am also pretty sure that, with all of the bullets flying, who got shot and who didn’t didn’t necessarily equate to the theatre goers own attempts at heroism–or not.
This was a tragic event that was caused by THE SHOOTER. As I’ve stated, I don’t like the pat “storylines” that the media often apply to situations such as these because they cast little light on the individual responses and reactions under extreme stress. The fact that both men and women tried to save others and themselves–and that we have nutcases running around with easy access to deadly weapons–is the only generalized takeaway. The rest are the stories of individuals, caught it a horrible situation, doing their best to survive, and, in many cases (since people were their with girlfriends, boyfriends, kids, husbands, etc.) trying to protect and assist their loved ones, as well.
on August 7th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Ruslan: the Aurora shooter was wearing a “Tactical Jacket” that is, it has a lot of pockets for ammo. We were led to assume it was body armor by a biased media. 30 years ago enough people would have been armed that he would have been stopped. The demographic in that theatre have been
Brainwashed into thinking someone else is responsible for their personal protection, so there were probably very few armed citizens.
Also re: WW I and II, WWII was a useless slaughter started by alcoholic leaders and fought by uneducated people who trusted them. WWII was justified to eliminate Nazi tyranny , and those who would freely surrender our rights today make a mockery of that sacrifice.
Unrelated to everybody: look up the movie Runaway Slave, in theatres now. It’s about the false promise to Black people that the entitlement culture from Government (the new plantation) will hand them happiness on a silver platter and they won’t have to pursue it, which was the original Constitutional guarantee.
on August 7th, 2012 at 11:27 am
“30 years ago enough people would have been armed that he would have been stopped.”
Really? 30 years ago everybody was packing heat? What theater was that playing in?
on August 7th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Copyleft said,
“If you think that men should be courageous and noble enough to sacrifice themselves for others, that’s fine. One question: Why shouldn’t the same be expected of women?”
I think that’s called motherhood.
on August 7th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
aadila
*snap*snap*snap*
on August 7th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Sam, you have placed yourself in line for whatever they choose to call the proposed “Shuttle” award, because those are the utterances of a space case.
on August 7th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Copy left, you could have a point. That was before the current batch of Concealed Carry Permits. In Kentucky 30 years ago carrying a gun was a minor fine and a lot of people just did it anyway. Depending on the location, however, there was a time when people considered personal protection their right and responsibility. There was (is?) even the theory that it is the duty of responsible people to carry a gun to help keep our streets safe.
on August 7th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
“Ruslan: the Aurora shooter was wearing a “Tactical Jacket” that is, it has a lot of pockets for ammo. We were led to assume it was body armor by a biased media”
Ah yes, a SECRET media conspiracy to demonize tactical vests by labeling them BODY ARMOR!!! Good work, detective. The bottom line is that in a smoke filled theatre, you don’t take on the guy who has an AR-15 and the element of surprise. A gun is not a magic want that makes bad people go away.
BTW, Can you name a single shooting spree that was stopped by an armed citizen?
on August 7th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Natalie — I meant to respond to your post earlier, but there were some problems with the website. You are correct in stating that all of the pressures on men — including black men — are not economic, but the economic situation that many people (or most people) are faced with today in terms of reduced incomes, reduced benefits, reduced job security, are important drivers in the overall malaise that “whites” (look through other threads to see what a hot-button term “whites” is) are feeling. Unfortunately, rather than questioning tax policy and various corporate practices that have created many of the economic pressures, they are instead lashing out at other groups that they believe are benefitting at their expense. So yes — I, and many others, believe that economics are important.
Your comment about the way black men are often treated under “the law” is also very much on point. The “prison culture” that we have in this country, which favors locking people up and making light of the horrific conditions that inmates face is deeply disturbing (and has often been a source of discussion and outrage on this site). False imprisonments — you don’t have to convince me; I’m from Illinois, which has seen some atrocious examples of this. Adding to the horror of the whole prison nightmare — the fact that many inmates, once they are released, have little to no ability to get jobs because of the “security measures” that so many companies have put into place. How are these folks supposed to lead law-abiding lives if they can’t get jobs? Then again, we have the for-profit prison industry that just can’t wait to get their hands on more prisoners, and lobby for laws that with ensure more of them (there have been threads of discussion about that, too).
Finally, I DO understand (as much as a white woman can) the very difficult issue of “dialogue failure,” where people of color, people with disabilities, people with autistic kids, people who are low-income, attempt to convey their thoughts and experiences, and others (people who don’t have first-hand experience with such states of being) don’t respond, change the subject, or act defensive (or get mad). I work in the environmental field and often assist in community outreach/public involvement efforts in diverse communities, some of which face issues of environmental injustice, and trying to get people to talk to each other and to listen, and to accept others’ points of view can be monumentally difficult and messy. I also know that people need to have these conversations anyway, regardless of the mess.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I wish I could get to know you in person, because I am sure that we would have a lot to discuss.
on August 7th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
“‘Scuse. Alleged rape *victims* should be presumed innocent until proven guilty is to preposterous for you, Zang? Wonderful! An open court confession!”
Oops, I meant alleged rape criminals. Come on man, you knew what I meant.
on August 7th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
“I think that’s called motherhood.”
And fatherhood is any less?
on August 7th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Reynardine: I just got the perfect name for the space-case award. The Sputnik.
on August 7th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Crying sure helps, doesn’t it Zang? I’m not surprised you chose to skip over the massive history of men sacrificing their lives for their fellow man, and especially the stories of women doing the same for men.
23 September 1943
Sr. Sgt. Valeria Gnarovskaya killed 28 Germans while protecting wounded men. She saved 77 wounded men by blowing her self up under a Tiger tank with a satchel of anti-tank grenades. Posthumously awarded Hero of the Soviet Union
Naval Chief Petty Officer Yekaterina Mikhalova-Demina dragged several HUNDRED wounded men off various battlefields, receiving three wounds of her own in the process.
Just to name a couple.
on August 7th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Suersonic: perfect. Zang: think you expressed yourself truly the first time round. And fatherhood takes five or so minutes generally counted pleasurable, while motherhood takes nine months and physical trauma counted distinctly less so. But if you were not hatched from an egg in the sand, go upstairs and ask your mother.
on August 7th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Copyleft — if you are speaking of social conventions (“women and children first”), then I believe one would have to do a lot of research to determine how, in fact, that actually played out. I know that in some cases, men did indeed stand back and let women move to safety (the Titanic comes to mind). And certainly many men have taken on the role of protector for their families (often because they were stronger and the wife was with the children — and, again, because of the social convention and that whole “love” thing).
I always laugh, however, at the idea that women and children didn’t join in along with husbands, fathers, and brothers in out-and-out confrontations. One of my ancestresses was referred to as “the woman with the axe” in accounts of an attack by Native Americans on a fort out in the Massachusetts wilderness back before the Revolutionary War. Did you think frontier wives stood back and did nothing?
Yes, there have been, perhaps, unfair expectations thrust onto men as “protectors” in different cultures. Often, the protector role was considered, in part, a quid pro quo for being the “head” of the family and an individual embued with certain rights — like to work and get paid, vote, get an education, go where they wished.
But I would also say that chivalrous behavior has been notoriously selective, with some lower-class women on the receiving end of anything but heroic behavior by upper-class and other lower-class men. And, as both Erika, Reynardine, and I have pointed out, lower-class men have often been exploited — by upper class men.
I am by nature a rather physical person, and I would not expect anyone to protect me. In fact, I would go out of my way to protect others (if I wasn’t totally frozen, wondering what the heck was happening). And most of the women I know, at least of my generation and younger, would say the same thing. With the equality that we have (or almost have — the wage thing continues to lag overall) comes responsibility. And as I said, I would not sit in judgment over someone based on how they behaved in an extreme situation (unless they were trying to block bullets from hitting them with a toddler or something).
Really. Some of you gents have real chips on your shoulders. And I have to say that I think that your motives for attacking women rather than other forces of injustice in the U.S. run parallel to some of the animal rights folks, who willl throw paint on rich ladies wearing furs to prove their point, but demure from throwing paint on biker gang members wearing leather. In other words, you attack those who are less likely to beat you into bloody pulps!
on August 7th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Zang, anyone who has seen the male supremacist websites know that what you claimed to be a slip up was much closer to what they believe:
They do in fact believe that women who accuse men of rape should be treated like criminals :P
on August 7th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
The male supremacists also believe that the act of accusing a man of rape is a crime – of course, they require a much lower burden of proof to prove a “false claim” – for the male supremacists any rape claim made by a woman is false..
on August 7th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
A final thought on this whole sad topic: To what extent did the men’s rights folks comment on the fact that the shooter was a MAN? Are women also be blame because some unhinged man decides to shoot up a theater, hitting both males and females? I mean, they make it sound that the men who died defending others (including women) died because they were defending others as opposed to the fact that they were shot by another MAN.
Men commit the majority of these types of crimes, and other men are also killed when they do. Perhaps if the men’s rights folks are so concerned about men dying in the line of fire, whether they are protecting women or not (or whether women are trying to protect them), they should perhaps perform some outreach to disaffected young men who like to stockpile weapons so that other, law-abiding men won’t be placed in the terrible position of deciding whether to bow to public pressure to “sacrifice themselves” for lesser humanoids such as women and children.
It’s just a thought. Maybe some of the MRM people will consider this. Others will follow less productive paths of blaming women for everything that goes wrong in their lives.
Guys — we are all in the same boat here. Please lose the vitriol and the rest of us will do our best to lose the disdain and the sneers (or I will, at least).
on August 7th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Men have traditionally been divide into Alphas/Leaders,
Betas/Enforcers and Omegas/Followers. It is the Omegas
who do most of the dying in war or from heart attacks or
suicides. Remember Pat Tillman? After 9-11 he gave up a
million-dollar football career to become an Army Ranger.
When he was killed by friendly fire the Army lied about
what happened then tried to use his death for publicity
purposes. He went from Alpha to Omega to expendable
just like that. Those who talk about “male privilege” seem
to forget things like this. For most of us there is none.
on August 7th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Zang Hong said,
“And fatherhood is any less?”
—
Yes. Yes it is.
Motherhood means gestating for nine months, and dealing with the physiological and psychological sequelae of pregnancy and birth, which can go on for months, years, even a lifetime. Ask any woman who has given birth about before and after.
You did have a mother, didn’t you (unless your sprang from your father’s brow fully formed or appeared overnight like a toadstool)? I hope you remember her on your birthday. You’re not the one who deserves presents. She is.
By the way, something tells me the relationships many of these man-apes have with their mother is probably very revealing…
on August 7th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
“Crying sure helps, doesn’t it Zang?”
It helps women for sure.
“hink you expressed yourself truly the first time round”
Wrong.
“And fatherhood takes five or so minutes generally counted pleasurable, while motherhood takes nine months and physical trauma counted distinctly less so. But if you were not hatched from an egg in the sand, go upstairs and ask your mother.”
So you’re ignoring the whole child support part.
“They do in fact believe that women who accuse men of rape should be treated like criminals :P”
Women who FALSELY accuse men of rape should be treated like criminals.
on August 7th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
This was indeed a tragedy. But a man who would lay his life on the line for his woman is a noble, chivalrous and most likely a very romantic being.
on August 7th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
OMG. It is 10:39PM as I type this and I just had the opportunity to read most of these threads. The ones that didn’t make me reach for the tissue box.
Men’s rights. That’s like saying – chocolate cocoa. It’s already there.
Who was our first female member of legislature? I bet you can google that. But can you google our first male member of legislature?
Men’s rights. That like saying – white cotton ball. It’s already there.
I bet you can’t google the first male mailman. Oh thats right, they call it “mailman”. How about milkman. Or police-man. Or hu-man.
You bunch of crybaby, I want my mama, I didn’t get enough hugs when I was a kid, oh-em-gee, you must be kidding me.
Men’s rights. That’s like saying, orange orange. IT’S ALREADY THERE.
How can you want something, that you were endowed with at birth? I’m sorry, bad example. That may actually be the problem. Your not endowed at all. My bad. Didn’t mean to get personal.
“I’m a man…and I want my rights.” Didn’t men write the constitution, and the bill of rights. I know about the bill of rights. I used to be an oath keeper. Until I decided I didn’t need a bunch of other men, to validate me, as a – guess what – a man!
You can fry it, filet it, bake it, or broil it, call it a movement, talk about the painful experiences in your life, but guess what, sooner or later, you’re going to have to MAN UP.
Good luck with that. It took me 10 minutes to type this. I look forward to your poor excuses as saving face.
on August 7th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Ruslan, the shooting in Tuscon was halted by two permit holders that had guns, but chose instead to simply pounce on the perp. It’s the mind set to not be a victim, not the weapon that is important. Also, Sky Marshals do have special extra-frangible bullets, but a single bullet through a fuselage will be compensated for so quickly the passengers may not notice the pressure change. All planes leak anyway. If a regular bullet hits a window, there will be a depressurization, the masks will drop but the plane will not explode.
on August 8th, 2012 at 8:47 am
So, if the men who fled the theater instead of sacrificing themselves to shield anyone were pathetic cowards, we can agree that women who did the same were too. Correct?
Or perhaps, as CoralSea and others have noted, we shouldn’t judge _anyone_ for running away from danger, male or female.
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Well, Zang, you not only want your parenthood to involve a few minute’s pleasurable activity and then not obligate you to to support your offspring, but THEN you expect the same respect as the chiild’s mother. Do you realize that there are men on this thread who are REAL fathers, and men and women alike who HAD real fathers? I did. Even my tomcats are better fathers than you propose being. They protect and lay with kittens and then help teach them to hunt. Too bad you had some puny examples.
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:10 am
“Play with”, that should read, but a number also lie down and let newly-weaned kittens use them as pacifiers.
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:18 am
CopyLeft just to clarify I don’t judge those who run. Like I said, who knows what I would do in a moment like that. Everything we believe and like to think about ourselves comes to a screeching halt. So who knows?
But I do take issue with the reactions by MRM folks who are so pissy about the social roles which have been broadly favorable to men for as long as society has been organized into groups.
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:48 am
I was going to respond to Zang about child support but I see that Reynardine has already done so.
My only comment then is that you are making a false comparison. I mentioned the toll that pregnancy and childbirth takes on women, which is real. I demonstrated how throughout history, women have run the significant risk of death in every pregnancy, and referred to the counterpart role of males to protect and defend the female who IS vulnerable during the process that led to you, me, and everybody else even being here to talk about it. I don’t expect you to have the decency to respect women for this, but at least you could recognize that women, and women alone, put their lives on the line in order to give birth.
AFTER the child is born, there is child support. Both women and men are legally and morally obligated to provide for their children. This does not apply to men and not women, it applies to both. With more fathers taking on primary caregiver roles, and more women earning higher wages then men, child support settlements can also be paid by women to men.
It seems to me you are arguing that men are on some kind of moral high ground because they have to take responsibility for the children they fathered. Women on the other hand are somehow supposed to be expected to take care of kids by themselves, without financial support.
I know from experience that some men make better primary care givers than some women. But, judging by your comments I don’t think you apply to that category and if you do father children I think it would be more than appropriate to slap you with child support obligations in court, you little weasel.
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:10 am
Wes — your “alpha” “omega” example has some merit to it — we are all aware of just how much those “at the top” frequently view (and use) those at the bottom.
But do you think that this sort of classism (which is sometimes expressed as racism) DOESN’T apply to women and even children?
Women are also often considered expendable or at least not worth protecting. When I began working in the late 1970s, it was still common for companies to blatantly pay women less (because we weren’t supporting families!) and also to arrange hiring/work so that experienced women, who were typically “assistants” of some kind, helped along (or in some cases, did the work for) inexperienced men who had been hired and were, ultimately, promoted above the women who had trained them (and who were not even considered for promotion, but were considered highly “useful.”)
Now, I know that this also happened to “nice guy men” and to employees who were minorities (it happened a lot to minority employees). I mention this because, at the time, it was basically an institutionalized practice. While one doesn’t find this sort of thing in nearly as obvious form, it is a problem for a lot of unassuming people, male, female, black, Asian, Latino, white, who plug away while the “showboats” (many of whom are simply “legends in their own minds”) are promoted over them. Nowadays, the “showboats” can be of either sex and any race or ethnicity, although the field is still tilted toward whites who are either male or female (in some industries, men still hold sway, while I am well aware that women are sometimes favored in other companies or industries).
And look at how we treat children in this country. If a kid is unfortunate enough to be born into a poor family, the “powers-that-be” are very begrudging of any money spent of them for food, housing, education, healthcare. We have come very close to criminalizing poverty in this country –even for the kids. This is a terrible waste, which sets them up for diminished opportunities. Some suggest that this is intentional — to provide a “cannon fodder” class (economically or in actual wars). I don’t know that it is intentional, but it is despicable all the same and it disadvantages and marginalizes large numbers of men and women. (And take a look at how many black men who are from lower income families end up in prison. This is a national disgrace that has down terrible damage to African Americans and to many communities across the U.S.)
I put forth all of this not because I want to diminish the slights or unfair treatment that you or other men have experienced — because injustice to anyone is unacceptable — but because I think that you might be feeling oppressed by the wrong people (women). I think that we would all benefit from taking a closer look at how the “alphas” exploit the “omegas,” and why the “betas” are so willing to help them.
My best to you — and I do mean that.
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:12 am
None of the people in that theatre should be criticized for anything that happened so quickly in the dark. I’m just saying, we as a people should take more responsibility for our well being and safety. Be aware of your surroundings and have the basics of a plan.
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:35 am
“Ruslan, the shooting in Tuscon was halted by two permit holders that had guns, but chose instead to simply pounce on the perp. It’s the mind set to not be a victim, not the weapon that is important.”
In other words, having guns didn’t help.
” Also, Sky Marshals do have special extra-frangible bullets, but a single bullet through a fuselage will be compensated for so quickly the passengers may not notice the pressure change.”
Sky Marshals are specially trained and authorized to carry weapons.
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:44 am
And this why I don’t drink Dr. Pepper 10, a drink supposedly for men only. Evil is evil., and there’s no getting around it.
on August 8th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Zang is one of those men who are going to die without love, but they still have their testicles, so that is what is important.
Have a good time with that Zang, dying in a lonely room, with your hospice nurse walking around your bed, your kids waiting for you to die so they can get you insurance money, your wife waiting for you to die so she can go on a vacation, your lawyer waiting for you to die so he can go on vacation with your wife.
But no one by your bedside, except for that nurse, who for not her wanting of a job, would also be outside, waiting for you to die, so she can change your sheets.
And that is who will remember you bro. That nurse, you will be Zang, the sheet stain.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:06 am
I would point out that filing a false police report and committing perjury are both crimes in U.S. jurisdictions, the latter a felony if committed in open court. Filing a false rape charge and testifying falsely at a rape trial are both covered under these provisions, as they would be for any other false charge of a crime. Any kind of aggravation of the charge specifically for the crime of sexual battery would be highly unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny, as would selective enforcement in such cases.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Damn Joseph, good try at ad hominem. Instead of just using one-liners like other people, you wrote a whole small essay.
First of all, I don’t plan to get married or have kids. I won’t die without love, because I will always have friends. I volunteer occasionally (kind of busy due to college), but I will do it more often when I’m out of college, and sure as hell a lot more when I retire. I highly doubt I will die without love.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:13 am
“But I do take issue with the reactions by MRM folks who are so pissy about the social roles which have been broadly favorable to men for as long as society has been organized into groups.”
Expendable is favorable?
Besides, we’re trying to dismantle social roles. If you are a true gender egalitarian, shouldn’t you help us?
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:16 am
“Well, Zang, you not only want your parenthood to involve a few minute’s pleasurable activity and then not obligate you to to support your offspring, but THEN you expect the same respect as the chiild’s mother. Do you realize that there are men on this thread who are REAL fathers, and men and women alike who HAD real fathers? I did. Even my tomcats are better fathers than you propose being. They protect and lay with kittens and then help teach them to hunt. Too bad you had some puny examples.”
I never said I wanted parenthood to “involve a few minute’s pleasurable activity and then not obligate you to to support your offspring”. I don’t want to father any children, and will do whatever the hell I can to protect myself from that. But what I do mean is that if a woman somehow gets pregnant with me and decides to keep the kid, I don’t want a part of it, so she would be smart to abort.
What’s your beef against giving men the equivalent of abortions?
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:17 am
“And this why I don’t drink Dr. Pepper 10, a drink supposedly for men only. Evil is evil., and there’s no getting around it.”
Thanks for calling us all evil.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:19 am
After a child is born, both the father and the mother have obligations. But before that, the fetus is the mother’s responsibility only, as she has the sole power of what to do with it.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Quoth Zang:
‘I don’t want to father any children, and will do whatever the hell I can to protect myself from that. But what I do mean is that if a woman somehow gets pregnant with me and decides to keep the kid, I don’t want a part of it, so she would be smart to abort.’
Well there you go. That is the MRM in a nutshell.
‘We will happily screw you silly so long as it pleasures us, but heaven forbid you get pregnant by my seed, because then you’re on your own, you dirty whore.’
I’ll bet the ladies LOVE you, Zang.
By the way, what house do you belong do? I’m guessing ATO or SAE. You definitely fit those organizations’ phenotypes.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Zang, you can get one right now. It’s called vasectomy.
on August 8th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Well Zang, I would say getting a vascectomy is a smart thing to do in your case. However if you do father a child — and I find it unlikely since most women would see your views as very selfish and unmanly — whether or not you WANT to be a part of it is really not the issue. You are a perfect example of why we need child support orders from the courts.
Now that said, a lot of women, including mothers, don’t seek any money from their husbands after a divorce. I know of several women who are confident enough of their own principles as feminists to never lower themselves to depending on someone else’s money. Other women indeed look at men as a personal pension plan and I think that’s wrong too. Fortunately, the courts seem to be getting better about who is who. It is wise to know who you are getting involved with sexually, for this and many other reasons.
Ideally, in a gender-equal society we would not see disparity of wage and opportunity. Unfortunately, we still see such disparity.
The world is not fair, Zang, and it is not the role of the courts to try to make the world fair. But what the courts can do is try to make as equitable as possible decisions.
What really saddens me in your viewpoint is that in trying to “win” in some effort against women, the ones who are really going to suffer are the children.
I believe children need all the support they can get. Sometimes they don’t get it. The courts are there to try to help them. If that means putting a lein on your house or car, or garnishing your wages, until you pay up, so be it. If you had a more responsible outlook maybe that wouldn’t be necessary.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Zang, belay my last. Not married, no kids, college student who volunteers. Okay.
I read the above posts and I have to give you credit. You’re still here.
You’re not one of those “one hit wonders” “If you were brave you’d be dead.”
Never said I was brave. Only said that I have been under the gun in the past. But I didn’t have to join the military to do that either. There were and still are plenty of gun shots in the neighborhood I grew up in.
And I get it. Some people run. But leaving your girl with her kids? That’s just chicken shyte.
See, if you love someone, you won’t run. It’s not in the nature of the emotion.
Male disposability??? Why does phrase even exist? maybe you can tell me.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
“We will happily screw you silly so long as it pleasures us, but heaven forbid you get pregnant by my seed, because then you’re on your own, you dirty whore.’”
That’s how the law is like with men. “If you get the woman accidentally pregnant and you don’t want the kid, and she does, too bad, you pay for it!”
“By the way, what house do you belong do? I’m guessing ATO or SAE. You definitely fit those organizations’ phenotypes.”
I’m not in any fraternity, and even though I am not a brother of either of them, I don’t appreciate you mocking them so. Let’s stop with the frat shaming.
“Zang, you can get one right now. It’s called vasectomy.”
I meant a post-conception way out. Women have abortions post-conception, tubal ligation pre-conception.
“If you had a more responsible outlook maybe that wouldn’t be necessary.”
Perhaps the mother should have aborted if she knew that the father was unwilling to be a father.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Okay, I don’t want to hear any more of this “you won’t ever get any women to love you” type of insults. They distract from the main arguments, and I don’t call the women among you “fat man-hating hags” or the men among you “ball-less manginas”, and don’t think that way either.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I believe that after pregnancy, a man should have the right to opt out of fatherhood and all financial responsibilities. That decision is independent of a woman’s right to abort. But if the father opted out before the abortion period was over, he cannot be sued for child support.
Of course, if he fails to opt out before that, he is going to have to pay.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Hang in there Zang, I gotta tell you, you’re going to hear plenty you don’t want to. C’mon, Male disposability. Talk to me about it. Why aren’t we disposable?
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Hi Zang — I have several comments to what you have written.
1. I agree with you 100% regarding a woman’s right to choose to do what she wants with her body, including getting an abortion. I am not sure if you know (if it has been covered in the sites you frequent), but reproductive rights and reproductive choice–meaning the right to have an abortion and even the right to obtain birth control–have been under an incredible assault, particularly over the past year, primarily from the Religious Right. I hope that, given the chance, you will weigh in.
2. Women do have the right to have babies after they are impregnated if they choose, just as they have a right to abort. The child support issue can be a knotty one, but it is aimed at supporting THE CHILD. I don’t know enough about this topic to discuss whether, for example, a mother can “let the man off the hook” if he said he didn’t want a baby. It is my understanding that since the support is for the child, she does not. As women have been told for eons, if you don’t want a baby, then don’t have sex! (Okay — that’s dumb — people should be able to have sex using birth control, but understand, sir, that contraception isn’t always completely effective. Thus, if you REALLY don’t want to have kids, absolutely, and totally, then don’t have sex.)
3. I agree with you in regard to people being treated equally and that this is a noteworthy goal toward which we, as a society, should strive. But it can be messy and takes work. For example, rabid opponents of affirmative action (I am not aiming this at you — I don’t know where you stand on this issue) insist that the playing field is now level, and that “minorities” shouldn’t be viewed by any different standards that upperclass white kids. Well, it can take more than a couple of generations to undo institutionalized inequality and the effects of poverty on education. I think we need to keep this one for a while.
As a woman, I can tell you that despite my credentials and experience, I am still “assumed to be ignorant” by some old-tymy men (not all of whom are themselves old). For example, even after 20 years, I will get comments like, “How do you know about that?” when I speak knowledgably about OSHA regulations, while they assume that some kid, right out of school and who is working as an engineering firm sales rep, is supremely knowledgeable.
It sucks, and it cuts across race, ethnicity, gender, age, and the like. (I work with several people of color who are technical experts–and who are frequently “talked down to” or assumed not to know as much as white people. Galling — totally galling and ignorant). What I am saying is that it takes time to bust out of stereotypes. We do need to challenge them, but we also need to recognize that there are a lot of people who are extremely invested in keeping them in place because such “norms” make their own lives easier (or so they think).
So challenge away. However, making nasty statements is typically guaranteed to result in nasty replies. We unfortunately live in a time when vitriol is popular and stereotypes exploited. I watch the show “Dance Moms” on TLC (I expect you probably do not) because I like to watch the children dance — but if you want to talk about absolutely hideous representations of women, tune into that show and watch the (staged) fights and bickering among the “Moms.” If I was visiting from another planet and knew nothing about women and saw that show, I’d think that all women (or at least Dance Moms) should be shot! Yes — it bothers me a great deal when anyone (and since I am a woman, especially women) a portrayed as total idiots. But news reports and TV shows are TV — we live in the real world and need to engage in dialogues that are more productive than what passes for “infotainment.” Yes — it can be difficult, but a lot of shouting, over long periods of time, probably doesn’t help.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“And I get it. Some people run. But leaving your girl with her kids? That’s just chicken shyte.”
I could also say “let your boyfriend die for you instead of trying to die for him is cowardly.” In this age of supposed gender equality, I thought the gender roles of “protector” and “protectee” were gone.
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
“Male disposability??? Why does phrase even exist? maybe you can tell me.”
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw.....ableGender
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Zang, it’s not an insult. I literally think no woman in her right mind would go to bed with you knowing this is your point of view.
No one here seems to be using ad hominem in the sense of, oh, you are a weasel so whatever you have to say is going to be ignored. We are listening to your arguments, rationalizing them, and concluding they are weasly. This is a very different thing.
Pregnancy results from sex, and it’s one of the consequences of your behavior. Wiggling out of responsibility for your behavior is by definition weasly. So is not paying your debts. So is downloading intellectual property you didn’t pay for. You may be required to pay a price for all of these behaviors. The world is not going to revolve around your personal gratification. A child needs to eat and be clothed and schooled. Who shall pay?
If you cannot accept this responsibility there is always sodomy or onanism, although I am told both are great sins. Or you can abstain, or take reasonable precautions and be prepared to support a child if you father one. You might even mature and grow to realize how selfish these arguments you are making really are.
It seems to me you are not arguing for gender equality at all, but just want to be allowed to make irresponsible choices without consequences. It’s not a very noble perspective you are arguing from. You truly expect a group of altruists to accept ignoble attitudes?
on August 8th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Zang,
You were offended by my mockery of the Greek system? Tough shit. Obviously you aren’t a student at a school with a large Greek population. Otherwise you may not take such a cheery view.
And regarding your condemnation of the court, it comes down to responsibility. You did the deed (fertilized the egg), and now you have to bear the responsibility (pay child support if your partner decides to carry the child to term).
And frankly, I find your views on forcing women to abort their zygotes to be the height of distate. It’s a woman’s right to choose. Not a man’s responsibility to dictate.
I can’t wait for you to enter the real world and see just how silly and immature your feelings on this matter really are.
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Okay Zang, thank you for answering my questions. You know what no one talks about the “running away” thing. That woman did not leave her kids. That’s called love. And people may love you. They might. God bless them.
Gender role reversal – that’s like saying men’s rights. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Male Disposability – okay. I call it living without fear of dying, and protecting those that you love.
What if my wife did not protect me? I can’t answer that. It’s not my business. It’s like an offensive tackle looking at the quarterback throw the ball. It’s doesn’t work, and he’s not doing his job. If my wife were to protect me. I wouldn’t know about it until after the fact. I would not be hiding behind her.
And getting a woman pregnant and not taking care of the baby. I had a father like you.
I remember my first thread. I asked Aron why call names? Why resort to name calling. Because – some people just don’t get it. You can’t make sense to the senseless.
You are a sorry excuse for a man. I pray to God you don’t ever reproduce because the child you attempt to father will probably be a sorry excuse for an offspring, just like you are.
I’m not going to give you the time of day like the others anymore, or try to make sense to you like Aadila has the grace to do. I’m just going to resort to name calling and humorous short stories at your expense.
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Why isn’t this site being looked at?
http://ncfm.org/
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
CoralSea –
1. I oppose the Religious Right, and I think it needs to calm down and let the women do what they want with their bodies. I disagree completely with what the RR does.
2. I do agree that women can choose to keep as much as they can choose to abort, but I think if the father does not want the kid, it would be the most responsible for her to abort in order not to burden anyone involved. Or she can put it for adoption, giving up her motherhood and right to sue for child support as well. All choices are allowed, but some choices are better than others.
Of course women shouldn’t be told “if you don’t want to have a baby you shouldn’t have sex”. But you’re telling men “you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want to accidentally be a father and lose your money”. It is the best, I think, to encourage keeping the baby only if both sides are willing to support it, and encouraging abortion otherwise.
3. I don’t believe in affirmative action by race or gender, but by the applicants’ financial statuses. If there are two applicants with similar achievement levels but different economic backgrounds, regardless of race, I think the poorer should be chosen because he/she displays a greater potential, and is likely to have done better with more resources if he/she was as rich as the other kid.
I am sorry if I came off as vitrolic, I simply wanted to make some points about gender equality.
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“Zang, it’s not an insult. I literally think no woman in her right mind would go to bed with you knowing this is your point of view. ”
I don’t particularly care anyways, I have more important things to worry about.
“Pregnancy results from sex, and it’s one of the consequences of your behavior. Wiggling out of responsibility for your behavior is by definition weasly. So is not paying your debts. So is downloading intellectual property you didn’t pay for. You may be required to pay a price for all of these behaviors. The world is not going to revolve around your personal gratification. A child needs to eat and be clothed and schooled. Who shall pay?”
I’m not sure if you missed it, but here’s my standpoint on child support:
I believe that after pregnancy, a man should have the right to opt out of fatherhood and all financial responsibilities. That decision is independent of a woman’s right to abort. But if the father opted out before the abortion period was over, he cannot be sued for child support.
Of course, if he fails to opt out before that, he is going to have to pay.
If the father does not want the child and makes that intention clear to the prospective mother before she gives birth, I think it would be very good for both sides for the woman to abort.
You see, I don’t support men being allowed off the hook anytime they want. They should be obligation free if they declare their intentions before the time period for a woman to have abortion is up.
“If you cannot accept this responsibility there is always sodomy or onanism, although I am told both are great sins.”
Did I somehow come across as a Religious Right-er?
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Zang, if you have a vasectomy right now, you won’t *need* a post-conception remedy. That’s the point. They even make reversible ones, if you are not 100% sure about never wanting a wife or children. If that’s how you feel about women, DO IT NOW!
on August 8th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
No Zang, you came across as a callous jerk.
Pure and simple.
on August 8th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“Pregnancy results from sex, and it’s one of the consequences of your behavior. Wiggling out of responsibility for your behavior is by definition weasly.”
Gee, isn’t that the exact same argument the anti-choice nuts use against women?
on August 8th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Zang — uh, “fat, men-hating hags?” Well, thanks for NOT calling the females who comment on this site by THAT name. FYI — I don’t think that it’s true — or at least the men-hating part. “Hags” is a derrogatory and dismissive way of referring to older women who aren’t as attractive as society thinks they should be. I am older, but I don’t think I’ve passed into “hag-hood” yet. And at least as I envision them, I highly doubt that the other women who comment on this site qualify for such derision.
“Manginas?” Gee — I don’t think that fits the regular contributors who are male. I, of course, imagine them all as noble figures of towering intellect. You have taught me a new word, though, so thanks for that.
Zang — one thing that occurred to me after I posted my last comment was that I think you are very definitely barking up the wrong tree in criticizing the regular commenters on this particular website (SPLC). Many of your comments indicate that you are concerned about stereotypes and inequality along gender and other lines. Well guess what? So are the folks who typically weigh in here. I think that if you were to read through other threads and click around this website, you would find that you agreed with rather a lot of it.
I can understand that you are sensitive about the whole Men’s Rights Movement thing and the fact that SPLC has labelled some of its proponent organizations a “hate groups.” Since you may not be all that familiar with SPLC, let me explain that they make their designations based not on their own personal disagreement with others’ beliefs, but on a group’s actions–which includes willful spreading of lies (take a look at some of the information on the Family Research Council or Bryan Fisher on this site, and the way they continue to spread out-right false information on homosexuality) or promotion of hate and intimidation (see Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church if you aren’t already acquainted with them).
As another example: I am not a Christian, and I do not like the tactics of some of those among the Religious Right to control women and education, demonize gays and lesbians, and the like. I can say that I don’t care for them, and not be called out by SPLC or (most) commenters on this site as a hater. However, if I were to take it further, and ascribe a lot of evil motives, or knowingly tell falsehoods about Christianity and Christians, especially with the goal of provoking hatred or intolerance toward them, THEN I would be called out on this site — and if I had a group, listed on this site!
The examples SPLC gave of some of the Men’s Rights groups and leaders appear to fit into this template. Perhaps you don’t believe that they do — I have no first-hand knowledge of these groups, so I can’t say. However, from what I read about them (and yes, it was through SPLC), they appear to engage in some pretty vile rhetoric regarding women that, in some cases, has boiled over into conduct.
My point is, young sir, that your desire for a world that is more equal, genderwise and other, is a desire that most of the regular commenters share. I had refrained from mentioning this sooner, but you are young and you may be a bit overwhelmed by all of the obligations that society appears to be throwing your way. You are right not to undertake them all without considering whether they make sense for you (or are simply efforts to use you up), but do try to avoid an “us or them” mentality.
As I said to Wes, I truly wish you all the best. Do take a spin around this website. I think you will likely find a lot of common ground in your quest for equality.
on August 8th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Actually, I think I finally understood Zang.
What we are really talking about here is money, not equality or justice or anything else. What Zang feels is insecurity about money, and you know what, I too can identify with that.
But I will say this: perhaps 99% of the mistakes we make in life are based on fear of one thing or another. I could go on about this but won’t. Fear makes people do things that they wouldn’t normally do.
Joseph I appreciate your kind words, but I do hope Zang has a child one day. I hope he sees how precious and absolutely wonderful it is to have a child, how it changes everything in your life and gives so much meaning and purpose to WHY we make money.
Zang, I’m a buddhist and I’m not trying to convert you. But one of the things we think a lot about is what it is that we think about. And people think a lot about two things: what we want, and what we don’t want. Perhaps the most helpful teaching I have learned is to hold what we have with an open hand, enjoy it while it is there and not cling to it in hopes that it will leave.
Having money is not the same thing as having security. There are very wealthy people who live in fear, behind walls, behind armored glass, and if you ask me that is no way to live. There are also poor people who live without fear because they know that life itself is precious.
I think you will find one day that you have enough money. At least I hope you do. I also hope that you see there are far more important things. Difficulties and obstacles can be great sources of power and strength because you see you are a lot tougher than you thought you were, when you face your responsibility.
The poet Rilke once wrote that our deepest fears are like dragons guarding our deepest treasure. If you lost all your money there would still be something precious to you. Ask youself what that is. Not for me, but for you. Focus on that and you might find your fears are guarding nothing of great importance.
on August 8th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
“Gee, isn’t that the exact same argument the anti-choice nuts use against women?”
—-
I don’t know, Copyleft. Is it?
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Copyleft — It is the same argument anti-choicers make, however, most of the posts that have appeared here indicate that there is agreement that women have the right to choose what she does if she gets pregnant. Biology being what it is, that should be her choice, since she’s the one who has to go through the pregnancy.
It is interesting, however, that you would throw this back at women now. Way back when (or a couple of decades ago), men could impregnant women and walk away, secure in their ability to deny that the baby was theirs beyond all doubt. Now with DNA, paternity can be established to a very high probability.
Thus, a man may still be able to insist that a woman he slept with was a slut who slept around, and “the kid isn’t mine,” and in the past, especially if he was “a good guy” (or a married guy) and she could be painted as the whore of Babylon, or at least a loose woman, he could walk away if he so desired.
There are still some kinks in the system (procreation is, after all, kinda complex). Women are still the default choice, at least where newborns are concerned, although I believe that men who want their child or at least want to be involved in his or her life have made some inroads (this is, I would expect, a good thing. Kids should know their parents. But if one of them is unfit, as in a hard drug user or a drunk, who neglects or abuses the child, then that parent should be kept away until they receive help or, if they don’t change, permanently).
I don’t think that, unless our society really heads downhill into Hitler-like fascism, that you are going to see many people agreeing that the father of a fetus should be allowed to demand that it be aborted or that a woman who doesn’t want to carry it to term, should be forced to do so. That, Copyleft, is biology. Perhaps if scientists do invent artificial wombs, an unwanted (by the mother) fetus could be transplanted, but that opens up way too many ethical cans of worms to discuss here.
So now the shoe is on the other foot, and men can find themselves in the same position that women have been in for thousands of years — having to deal with the consequences of pregnancy. They can, as women have been told to do, abstain from sex (or sex with a woman), if they want to be absolutely safe from the clutches of a gold-digging infant. But unlike women in the past (and some who currently live in repressive cultures), they may have to shell out some money, but they won’t be stoned to death, driven from their homes, villified and forever viewed as deeply sinful, etc., as has in some times and places been the lot of women who become pregnant out of wedlock.
If you want to keep men from laboring under the tyranny of babies, and you still want to have sex with women of childbearing years, then advocate for the easy and affordable availability of contraceptives–and advocate for funding to research methods of birth control that have as near to zero failure rates as possible.
Otherwise, keep your pants zipped and stop whining.
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
CoralSea -
“So now the shoe is on the other foot, and men can find themselves in the same position that women have been in for thousands of years — having to deal with the consequences of pregnancy.”
So now men have to suffer because women have suffered for a long time? Why can’t both of us not suffer? Like I said, women should abort responsibly.
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I thought the religious right was saying women have no right to abort. What I am saying is women have the right to abort, but if they carry to term then both parents share in the responsibility. The only real similarity in the argument is not wiggling out of responsibility. I don’t believe in god or sin, so it’s pretty hard to fathom how I could be making the same argument. But if the argument seems the same it must be so!
on August 8th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
And what if the woman does not want to abort? Does that let you off the hook because you don’t want the child? Abortion does not denote responsibility. I agree pregnancy can be a mistake. But responsibility is taking care of your mistakes not turning your back on them. Your man enough to make a baby, but not enough to take care of one. You would simply turn your back because the abortion choice is available, and if she doesn’t take that choice, it’s not your fault right? That’s callous and irresponsible, that’s not making a choice. It’s takes two to have sex. So it should take two to make the choice. If she does want an abortion, and you don’t, then you should have your day in court. If she does not want an abortion, and you do, and she has the child. I hope she milks your worthless butt for every penny you don’t owe on student loans.
on August 8th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“What I am saying is women have the right to abort, but if they carry to term then both parents share in the responsibility”
If the women have the right to abort, absolving their motherhood, men should have the right to absolve their fatherhood as well. In order to prevent the father from absolving his fatherhood after the child is born, he should only be allowed to back out before the time period for abortion is over.
“And what if the woman does not want to abort? Does that let you off the hook because you don’t want the child?”
If you want to be off the hook, then yes, you should be.
“Your man enough to make a baby, but not enough to take care of one.”
She’s woman enough to make a baby, but not enough to abort it if it’s a good idea to abort.
“You would simply turn your back because the abortion choice is available, and if she doesn’t take that choice, it’s not your fault right?”
It IS her fault for not choosing the responsible choice.
“So it should take two to make the choice. If she does want an abortion, and you don’t, then you should have your day in court. If she does not want an abortion, and you do, and she has the child.”
If she wants the abortion and I don’t want her to, it’s her choice. If she doesn’t but I do, I can’t make her abort, but I should be able to back out on the child rearing. It takes two to make babies (actually only one really, because you can just go to a sperm bank), but only one to make it into a legally recognized human being.
on August 8th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Zang — I am disappointed; you jumped to a ham-fisted conclusion. I am pointing out the injustices that women had to face — which, frankly, were worse than the injustices that men face over an unwanted baby now.
No — I do not believe that because others have suffered in the past or that some are suffering now that we should “spread the joy” to others. I was pointing out that, because of advances in science, men are now in a position of having to think a lot harder about the consequences of sex. I am not against sex, actually, I am for sex. But in the past, women have often paid the price ALONE! As I suggested to Copyleft, lobby for more effective birth control. Birth control methods and efficacy has been at a standstill for a couple of decades, largely because (my opinion) of the folks in the Religious Right who don’t want people to have sex — other than for procreative purposes. (Note: as a student, I expect you very busy, but did you HEAR some of the comments, notably from Rick Santorum, during the primaries this spring? If not, do some Googling.)
Please re-read my post to CopyLeft. I am acknowledging the complexity of the topic. But if you think that a woman should be forced to abort a fetus that she, perhaps, didn’t plan, but now wants, because of a failure in birth control and — please listen — because you wanted to get your rocks off, then welcome to our imperfect world.
Joseph and aadila have both had very valid responses to your outrage, and I am beginning to believe that, at your current age, you are simply too self-centered to have a clue. The older MRM posters — I don’t know what their excuses are, other than, perhaps, mental illness or traumatic sexual disfunction.
on August 8th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Tom Sims — I just looked at ncfm.org website. I will have to look at it a bit more closely. I have to say that some of the stories appear to be discussing stupid stereotypes in reporting (singing my song!) and also incidences in which issues that have an impact on both men and women appear to be missing meaningful input from men. Since I work in the area of public involvement (though for environmental issues, I’m an environmental consultant), ensuring adequate stakeholder identification and engagement is one of the issues I take very seriously. It IS a big issue — which cuts across race, ethnicity, class, and gender (I am currently commenting on some EPA regulations that address environmental justice issues, including meaningful involvement of all stakeholders who are affected, are interested, and perceive themselves as affected. Take note of that last wording, because it is important — and it would apply to gentlemen and their interests and views as well as ladies and our interests and views.
The whole media bias issue is something I have been aware of for a long time. If you haven’t done so, you should look at the http://www.fair.org website (there is a link on this page). FAIR is Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Although you may not care for some of the reports they have done on sexism against women, I think you will find their comments and examples of how the media — and lazy reporting and editing — reinforces stereotypes, interesting.
Sorry it took me a while to look at the website you referenced (I’m actually supposed to be working). Do look at the FAIR.org website. I’ll go back to yours later tonight.
on August 8th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
An abortion, though it may be preferable to childbirth in a number of situations, is an invasive and painful procedure. No, Zang, you and the woman you impregnate are not in comparable positions. And I hope you do *not* have a child.
on August 8th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Coral Sea:
Thanks for the reply. As far as politicians who
consider most of us either assets or cannon fodder, I
have seen ten Presidents in my lifetime and every one
of them fit that bill. And not just men are guilty of this.
Look at Hillary Clinton. Just like her husband she hates
and despises anything not under her control. It is the
same sociopathic urge to control other’s lives because
“they” know better. As men we have not only allowed
this to happen, we have become willing participants in
a system that is causing our own demise.
on August 8th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
I will wade into this with a couple of observations. I beg your indulgence if they are redundant.
First, Zang has probably never had sex with another person. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just that his opinions are not based on how things work in the real world.
Second, and more to my point, he writes “I believe that after pregnancy, a man should have the right to opt out of fatherhood and all financial responsibilities”.
Where does one start with this? Simple slogans like “No glove, no love”? Or a reminder that if a man shares a certain responsibility for his actions?
I will simply add, Zang, grow up, be a man. Take responsibility for your actions. I
on August 9th, 2012 at 5:59 am
Zang, since you said that you are in college I’m going to try to not be too mean to you because your ignorance and arrogance is the ignorance and arrogance of youth. Quite simply you are an incredibly immature person who has incredibly warped views of human sexuality and relationships.
Sex should not be entered into casually – any sexual activity poses a certain degree of risk whether from pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, or other more situational risks – if you’ve ever actually had sex you’d know that. If you view sex as a mutual expression of love between two people in a relationship you will limit some of the problems. Pregnancy will always be a risk – there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective. Then you will know how the woman feels about having children and abortion. Quite simply, if you don’t want children, don’t have sex with a woman who wants children or a woman who is personally opposed to abortion. If you do anyway and you get her pregnant be a man and be a father to your child. Duh!
In fact, my guess is that quite simply you are scared of women – that is the case of most of the male supremacists in the men’s rights movement. You turn to male supremacy because you suffer from male inadequacy – which is to say that for whatever reason you believe that you cannot possibly be able to satisfy a woman. Yet, you desire women – but you are afraid that if you ever get one of the objects of your desire in bed you will fail so misrably at sex that she would laugh at you. So hence, you take on an anti-woman attitude to guarantee that women would stay away from relationships with you.
Yet, you still want women and you know that perhaps some day – likely involving alcohol – the opportunity might arise where you can have sex. Its your biggest dream and your biggest fear at the same time. Its your dream because you sit sullenly in your dorm room on a Friday night viewing porn on your computer and playing with yourself. Its your fear because you fear that your inadequacies as a man will not only lead to embarassment, but will even lead to rape charges when the next morning comes around. Quite simply you know deep down in your heart that no woman in her right mind would ever have consensual sex with you. You also know that if you ever get a drunk “slut” in your room that you will have sex with her (or try and fail so misarably that she is too busy laughing at your expense with her friends to charge you with rape) whether she wants it or not. Quite simply you think it is your right as a man to force the woman to have sex. Because everything is always the woman’s fault, its her fault that you raped her. That is what you male supremacists believe.
But just like your views of pregnancy, you believe that men have no responsibility – hence, you rail against “false rape” charges knowing full well that the women you claim make false rape charges were in fact raped – its just that there is no evidence to prove it. However, merely being raped and having no meaningful legal satisfaction is not sufficient – you want to punish the woman further for daring to say that she was raped in those “he said, she said” cases.
Sex is just another bastion of male privilege to you. Until you get mature enough to know better I agree with the others – keep it in your pants.
on August 9th, 2012 at 6:21 am
Aron, I’m simply puzzled by Zang’s response to you – if he isn’t in a fratnerity why does he care? Yet another instance where he is ignorant because if he was familiar with the guys of SAE he would know how fitting the phrase “Same A-holes Everywhere” is.
Of course, my “favorite” fratnerity was Kappa Alpha Order which for some reason no longer admits to their historic connection to the [reconstruction era] Ku Klux Klan. They do however still say that their goal is to mold men after the model of Robert E. Lee. And yes, for people who went to college in the North and did not have these guys around, they were just as bad as you’d imagine :)
Of course, Aron you better watch it if you start talking about sororities :P
on August 9th, 2012 at 8:47 am
I’ll keep it short for now, and come back with a longer response later today.
I thought you people were about equality? Why are you so opposed of men having equal power as women in reproductive issues? And please stop mocking me, I don’t mock you.
on August 9th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Zang’s attitude toward women is revealed by the name he has chosen for himself, that of an ancient Chinese warlord who reputedly killed his mistress to feed her to his starving troops. So from his perspective, apparently, women are certainly “disposable” and exist merely to provide momentary satisfaction of men’s needs. That’s an attitude he has expressed consistently in his comments here, and it’s almost infantile in its self-centeredness.
More generally, I’m still shaking my head over the statements quoted in the original post. It’s just appalling that these men would defame the memory of those who died in this tragic incident, and merely to promote their own dubious philosophy. But what can you expect from people who openly heap scorn on notions like self-sacrifice? If a man spends his whole life satisfying his own appetites and gratifying his own desires in total disregard of everyone else’s, what good is he?
on August 9th, 2012 at 9:02 am
Zang is a little boy, not a man, a boy. Probably in love with his mama and mad at his daddy for being married to her.
I bet he gets secretely pissed off when someone says something about his controlling mother. You would think he has a controlling father, but not so much, si, si, si…no, no, no.
He has issues, with girls, because they’re not like his mama. So they must be taught a lesson. Kind of like Norman Bates.
Zang Norman Bates Hong. There he is!
Girls must be impregnated, and left to rot, or forced to have an abortion because they want to graduate college too and can’t go to school and support a child at the same time, because the punk father has a pre-meditated idea of abandoning the baby.
Pre-meditated dead beat dad Zang Norman Bates Hong. And you know what bro. Doesn’t matter if you say I’m wrong. Fact of the matter is, you need medication. You and the rest of your Men’s Rights Movement who think someone magically took rights away from you.
Next thing you know you’re going to see signs saying “Let’s Roll It Back a Century or Two”. With your traced phallus symbols and arrows pointing up to the sky.
I hate to break the news to you and you’re cronies, but, progress is being made. So take that with you to your “Down With Women” rallies, and be sure to cover that “MOM” tattoo you have on the back of your arse.
on August 9th, 2012 at 9:07 am
“If the women have the right to abort, absolving their motherhood, men should have the right to absolve their fatherhood as well.”
Zang from a purely theoretical, arid view this makes some sense. But in practice it does not: women, and not men, become pregnant. This is unique to women. The parenting responsibilities AFTER birth are divided.
Actually a good father will take care of his mate during pregnancy but still, it is her body and her choice. That would be like saying some woman has a right to tell you whether or not to have a vasectomy. She may be interested in one or the other choice, but the choice is entirely yours to make because it is your body.
By the way I have been meditating on your behalf. And for Rey, CoralSea, and Joseph. Tomorrow I will get to Aron and the others. I hope this simple action provides some metaphysical benefit to all.
on August 9th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Zang, we’d stop mocking you, if you didn’t make it so easy :P
(and btw, its not mocking, its stating accurate observations. Mocking is repeating everything you say in a sarcastic manner. Telling you that you are an immature little man with completely warped views about gender and sexuality is 100% accurate. Telling you that with your attitude towards sex and women you should refrain from ever having sex is good advice).
on August 9th, 2012 at 9:28 am
“Quite simply, if you don’t want children, don’t have sex with a woman who wants children or a woman who is personally opposed to abortion.”
Thank you Erika, as always everything you say is cogent and relevant.
I would like to chime in here because I advised Zang to also consider practicing sodomy or onanism but I realize that I made a mistake. Reynardine is very scholarly and educated me yesterday, pointing out that “onanism the sin” is not the onanism one normally thinks of practicing. The practice of sinful onanism is actually coitus interruptus, which as we know is NOT a very effective means of birth control, and still raises the possibility of sin.
So I respectfully retract this advice. If you wish to avoid child support payments, it would not be especially wise to practice onanism.
on August 9th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Let’s give Zang a chance. Even the most recalcitrant hater can evolve. Like the bamboo sprout, Zang is still growing and looks nothing like he will look when he has reached his full potential. So we can recognize him as bamboo now, even though he doesn’t yet look anything like bamboo. Metaphorically speaking of course. I think there is a similar Western parable about wheat and tares. Let us cultivate Zang and see what we see. He is no better nor worse than any in this discussion.
on August 9th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Erika,
I went to the University of Florida (slogan ‘Go Greek or Go Home!), and SAE, ATO and KA were the three most powerful houses in Gainesville.
I pledged Delta Upsilon in my Junior year (I was 23 at the time), because it was full of nerd. A real life Lamda Lamda Lamda, if you will. Almost the anti-frat. Also, they are non-secret. Which is really cool. (At least that’s what I thought at the time.)
But out of my pledge class, I was the only one not initiated. I believe I know the identity of the one brother who blackballed me.
To say I was crushed was an understatement. For the rest of the year, I couldn’t drive past the DU house (which was unfortunately a daily necessity) without becoming angry to the point of tears.
Knowing some of the things they’ve done to girls, I’m glad I didn’t get in. And that’s not even getting into the stuff I’ve heard about other houses :(
(Also, aside from the whole ‘treason’ slip-up, I can think of far worse men than Robert Eustace Lee to use as a roll model. I say this as a Yankee. Also a military historian :p)
All of the friends I had in the house suddenly wanted nothing to do with me. And this was the first time in my life that I had a large group of friends who actually sought me out to do stuff.
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:19 am
C.M., thank you for enlightening us about Zang’s screen name. It may be indicative or not, though his attitude speaks for itself. My own screen name does not indicate I am a were-fox, entice young virgins of either sex, have hypnotic powers, or even am particularly hard to find. I did have a fox denning in the corner of my admittedly small and uncastle-like property, and s/he made off with all of my then chickens before I discovered the lair, well-decorated wiith feathers (my current rooster resides in the house with me, a tribe of cats, and a big hunting dog). The fox moved on, but in my heart, this is still Reynardine’s den.
Somebody tell me where I can get a miniature donkey, thus completing the Musicians of Bremen.
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:24 am
CM – I’m surprised that you know who Zang Hong is, because he’s not a very well known figure at all. But Hong is my surname, Zang is the first syllable my first name, and I won’t reveal the second syllable for privacy reasons. Good try linking me with an obscure cruel figure, though. It was real good. Have you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms? (note, he’s not in there, but was present in that time period).
(And if you haven’t noticed, I’m Asian and not white, we aren’t all a bunch of “privileged white guys who are just afraid of strong women”).
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:25 am
And since you are going to relate me to that historical figure about how I think women are all disposable, let me say that I don’t think women are disposable, but neither should men be considered disposable. And you people saying that a woman can abort if she wants but a man can’t “financially abort” is male disposability.
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Let me say one more thing before you think I am a childish woman-hater. All I want is gender equality. I don’t believe in “women going back to the kitchen”, “men being allowed to beat their wives”, and so on. Those are cruel pasts and should be forgotten. Or, rather remembered and serve as examples of what not to fall back into. I believe that all women should be be given equal opportunities to work for what they want to achieve, without suffering from any sexism. I am an engineering student, and I have many female classmates who are excellent students, and will never judge a woman wrongly just because she is female. I will live and breathe gender equality.
But I don’t believe that it is a man’s place to be forced to sacrifice for a woman, when a woman doesn’t have to sacrifice herself. I believe that women are more than capable of treating men equally. I believe that women are more than capable of taking responsibilities just as well as men can.
That is why I believe that chivalry has no place in our society, unless chivalry includes reciprocation. And that is why I believe that if pregnancy occurs and the man does not want the child, he should be allowed off the hook and she should be responsible enough to abort or give the child up for adoption.
Now you may call me out as a misogynist for believing that men and women should have the same rights and responsibilities, but if that is misogyny, then I don’t know what I can do.
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Zang,
I hope where you’re currently studying offers some courses on logic. Because you’re engaging in some pretty pathetic circular arguments on this thread.
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
“Quite simply, if you don’t want children, don’t have sex with a woman who wants children or a woman who is personally opposed to abortion.”
And how is that different from saying
“Quite simply, if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex with a man who wants children or a man who is personally opposed to abortion”?
I know that abortion is an intrusive process and women should not have to be stuck with children they did not want, but why should men have to be stuck with them?
on August 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Zang: if a human being exhibits the moral level of toilet paper, s/he will be considered disposible.
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“Zang: if a human being exhibits the moral level of toilet paper, s/he will be considered disposible.”
So saying that men and women should be equal is having the morality of a toilet paper? I guess castrating all men is the way to moral enlightenment?
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“I hope where you’re currently studying offers some courses on logic. Because you’re engaging in some pretty pathetic circular arguments on this thread.”
And you aren’t?
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Look Zang if you stick it in, you should be prepared to stick it out.
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Zang, all I can ask is where is your Beavis?
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
“Look Zang if you stick it in, you should be prepared to stick it out.”
And try telling women “if you let him stick it in, you should be prepared to make him stick it out”
“Zang, all I can ask is where is your Beavis?”
I don’t know, he’s off somewhere not frustrated with the task of explaining explain gender equality to sexists like I am right now.
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Aron, sounds like a pretty awful experience and a good example for Zang if he would bother to pay attention about how oppression of men most frequently comes from other men.
on August 9th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Thank you for the positive energy Aadila. It always helps. Out of respect for your meditation, I shall refrain from insulting Zang. I won’t say anything else because like I said, I do not have an educated argument for Men’s Rights.
WHEN did MEN lost their rights? No one can answer me that? I submit to you that any, and every, stereotype of the “Manly Man” has been perpetrated by MEN.
I don’t get these websites by men, for men, and about men. I don’t get male disposability. I guarantee you if women ran the world, a lot less men would be disposable because war may just be a thing of the past.
I’d give up my guns. Save more money for my kid’s educations, and my video games.
But no, the world is the way it is because of…dum, dum, dum, duuuuummmm. MEN. I know, I’m a man.
Bunch of cry babies. You made you’re bed. Lie in it.
on August 9th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
“I shall refrain from insulting Zang. ”
Thank you.
“WHEN did MEN lost their rights?”
I’m talking about things like reproductive rights, the right to be treated fairly in courts, etc. Kind of hard to lose these rights that we never had in the first place.
“I guarantee you if women ran the world, a lot less men would be disposable because war may just be a thing of the past.”
Sounds like a very naive outlook. Either that or you’re being sexist by implying that all peace is of women and all war is of men.
“But no, the world is the way it is because of…dum, dum, dum, duuuuummmm. MEN. I know, I’m a man.”
And assuming that the world will be any better or worse if ruled by women is again quite naive.
on August 9th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Joseph, you’re right about that. It’s all very homosocial.
And as for the meditations, curiously enough I smashed the hell out of my middle finger just this morning while leaning back in a chair. It broke suddenly, pinning my hand between the chair and the wall.
Depending on your point of view, this was either freak coincidence or, as I tend to think, a reflection of the karma of taking some of the pain out of this thread. Actually it feels just fine now. Helping another is the same as helping ourselves.
I like to believe it just erased some bad karma, and lord knows I got plenty of it. Maybe one day I’ll be born a fat cat Republican like Mitt Romney with nothing better to do than run for office and comb my hair.
on August 9th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Zang, you are the one who believes that men are such fragile eggshell creatures that they need to be protected from the consequences of their actions.
on August 9th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Zang, do you know what ignoratio elenchi is?
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Oh by the way Joseph, to repeat something once told to me that I found funny…if women ran the world there would indeed be a lot less war, but there would sure be a lot more poisonings!
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Reynardine – Yes I do. Tell me how I am making an Ignoratio elenchi.
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Ignoratio elenchi? Sure I can make that. I cut the eggplant lengthwise so as to not soak up the oil, and remember to salt it overnight…
Oh wait. That’s different. My bad.
Can anyone tell I am badly in need of a vacation?
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
“Zang, you are the one who believes that men are such fragile eggshell creatures that they need to be protected from the consequences of their actions.”
If women are, men are too.
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Wes — Thank you for your kind words. We all (men and women) need to be aware of the manipulations by those in power to “use” us, with no regard for our lives, hopes, and dreams.
One of the things that they do is attempt to turn everyone against each other. Unfortunately, they are often successful.
I am a “strong woman” (I support myself and always have), but I also love and appreciate men (with some exceptions, of course. I also don’t like women who are scheming and manipulative). I can’t imagine living in a world without men and their unique humor and abilities, or where men were marginalized. I don’t like stereotypes or many of the cultural expectations that are foisted on both men and women. In many cases, they simply serve to stifle the individuality that everyone deserves.
But mostly, I detest the efforts of the “powers that be” to use the rest of us, both men and women, for their own gain, and I believe that it is important to take time out, periodically, from battling over stereotypes (many of which could use a good shake-up), and look at the people who are pulling strings that send men (and now some women) into unnecessary wars, or into workplaces that make them sick, or that make it so damned hard to make a living that many of us are either in poverty or teetering on the brink of poverty.
Thanks so much for writing back.
on August 9th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Aron –
Sorry about your hideous fraternity experience. This is why, when I attended Southern Illinois University for my bachelors degree, I opted to avoid the whole student housing/student life debacle and instead lived in off-campus housing in an efficiency apartment with a basset hound for a room mate. (We also had a really big Wolf Spider that shared the closet and would come out at night around 9:00, sit on the bookshelf, and then go into the kitchen area to hunt cockroaches. [I often imagined that I could hear their little screams]. The spider, which was, including its legs, the size of a saucer, was big enough to throw a shadow, and although my basset hound chased deer, she would pretend not to see it, because she didn’t know what to do about it [Neither did I, hence the mutual co-existence].)
Ah, college! I am so damned glad that I am decades past that part of my life, although I miss my basset hound roommate (she died at the ripe old age of 17) and, well, I don’t miss the spider, but living with it/him/her was at least rather interesting, and I had a lot less cockroaches after it moved into the apartment.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Zang, you know exactly what you did. Don’t play cute. Furthermore, your choice of a screen name, coupled with your bitterness and intransigence, make us fear we could soon hear of your name coupled with something quite nasty. If you have already impregnated some young woman who won’t abort, check yourself into a quilted place before you wind up in a worse place.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
“Zang, you know exactly what you did. Don’t play cute. ”
No. Point out to me.
“Furthermore, your choice of a screen name, coupled with your bitterness and intransigence, make us fear we could soon hear of your name coupled with something quite nasty.”
I’ve explained already before, but Hong is my surname, Zang is the first syllable of my given name. I don’t know how much you know about Mandarin Chinese, but homophones are quite common. The Chinese characters of my name and the name of the historical figure you accuse me of taking the name from are different as well.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I haven’t impregnated anyone yet, never will, don’t want to anyways. And I don’t quite care for your “you won’t get to impregnate anyone anyways even if you wanted to” insults, because getting laid isn’t on my priorities, and prostitutes are always available legally in certain parts of this world.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
It is not I who said you wouldn’t get a chance to impregnate anyone. There are always sick chicks who like misogynists, and some of them are the most appealing of all. Nor has anyone suggested you be castrated, which is one of your red herrings. What I have suggested is that if you are adamant about never being a father, get a *vasectomy*, and refrain from sex until you have had several zero sperm counts. Such medical evidence is an absolute defense against a charge of paternity.
As to the rest, you know you are not submitting your comments in Mandarin, and that even a Mandarin-speaking person who saw the English transcription of the name could not make the distinction. You have stated it is not your actual legal name, but a modified form of it. Why that particular modification? Clearly you are bright, and clearly you are troubled. Do something about the latter, before it does something about you.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Zang, we believe you when you say you haven’t impregnated anyone – after all, you must have sex in order to do that :P
oh and Zang, nobody here is saying that women should be free from consequences from their actions. You have repeatedly said that men should be free from the consequences of their actions.
You are about the densest person I have ever seen.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
It looks like Zang is ready to go on sex tourism trips with Funformenonlyinsnow.
It also looks like we know what the only job the male supremacists like Zang find it acceptable for women to work it.
Oh and Zang, if you aren’t intentionally referencing a mysognstic cannibal who hates women its quite a coincidence.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
It looks like thanks to Zang we are going to pass the last men’s rights thread’s post count without resorting to punning about colorfully named place names.
Incidentially, Zang, I recommend a trip to Blue Ball, Pennsylavania for you. You could love yourself in Onancock, Virginia, but no radiant joy in Peach Bottom for you :P
Those male supremacists sure are a whiny lot.
on August 9th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
“Zang,”
You knew who the historical Zang Hong was, and how his biography speaks (grotesquely) to the exploitation of women by men, and yet you chose to go ahead and use his name anyway because the resemblance was merely coincidental? Go ahead, pull the other one.
“I’m talking about things like reproductive rights, the right to be treated fairly in courts, etc. Kind of hard to lose these rights that we never had in the first place.”
Are you talking about China, perhaps? Because in the English-speaking world at least, those are the very rights that men – and especially men of a certain class and color – held for centuries while denying them to women (and the “other” classes). Add history to logic on the growing list of subjects you need to study.
on August 9th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
“You knew who the historical Zang Hong was, and how his biography speaks (grotesquely) to the exploitation of women by men, and yet you chose to go ahead and use his name anyway because the resemblance was merely coincidental? Go ahead, pull the other one.”
I only knew him because I like to read history, and the history of that time period is fascinating to me. I’m not going to tell you my second syllable, for privacy reasons. But I sure as hell didn’t name my screen name on this site for him.
And if you’re going to keep pushing me about the unfortunate coincidence of the name, I’ll just have to assume that you are a culturally insensitive prick that doesn’t realize that Mandarin Chinese is a language with many characters that have the same pronunciations, and stop taking you seriously on the issues of gender politics because I’ll assume you are a racist who probably makes fun of Asians with ching chong jokes. Please don’t make me do so.
But the fact that you knew who he was really impressed me. I’m serious about that.
“Are you talking about China, perhaps? Because in the English-speaking world at least, those are the very rights that men – and especially men of a certain class and color – held for centuries while denying them to women (and the “other” classes). Add history to logic on the growing list of subjects you need to study.”
Then was then, now is now. Men of now don’t have any reproductive rights, only responsibilities. Women are tried easier for the same crimes. Let’s not focus on how women were historically given the short end of the stick, because dwelling on history won’t change the present situation.
on August 9th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
“It is not I who said you wouldn’t get a chance to impregnate anyone.”
Other people did, though.
“Nor has anyone suggested you be castrated, which is one of your red herrings.”
Alright, I’ll give you that.
“What I have suggested is that if you are adamant about never being a father, get a *vasectomy*, and refrain from sex until you have had several zero sperm counts. Such medical evidence is an absolute defense against a charge of paternity.”
And why shouldn’t women be told that if they don’t want children, they shouldn’t have abortions but instead opt for tubal ligation before they have sex?
“Oh and Zang, if you aren’t intentionally referencing a mysognstic cannibal who hates women its quite a coincidence.”
With over a billion people, and with 60,000 or so characters, there’s got to be people who have same names. If you can’t understand that, I’ll have to assume that you are a racist who makes fun of Asians with ching chong jokes, and stop taking you seriously.
on August 9th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“As to the rest, you know you are not submitting your comments in Mandarin, and that even a Mandarin-speaking person who saw the English transcription of the name could not make the distinction. You have stated it is not your actual legal name, but a modified form of it. Why that particular modification? Clearly you are bright, and clearly you are troubled. Do something about the latter, before it does something about you.”
That’s too bad, huh? Well, some people are just named unfortunately. Like Arab kids named Osama who don’t have any ties with the dead terrorist. But if you’re going to profile me just because I happen to have the same name as some obscure ancient figure, I feel sorry for you.
on August 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I’m going to leave, and say this one bit: I do NOT hate women. I have nothing against women. I in fact think they are, as a group, a great bunch of people. I have great respect for them, because many of them, including my colleagues, my mother, my aunts, and so on, are intelligent and kind people.
I will always support their equal rights and opportunities, I will always support them getting paid equally, I will support their right to choose in terms of pregnancy, and I will support their equality in every other way I have not mentioned. And don’t you dare twist anything I say to portray me as a misogynist.
And don’t you dare profile me because I happen to have a similar name as an ancient Chinese figure who happened to be a misogynistic piece of crap (even though the surname and given name are reversed) which was just an unfortunate coincidence, just as you or I wouldn’t label a person named Osama or Hussein a terrorist and mock that person’s culture.
The only thing, and the ONLY thing, I want is that men are given equal reproductive opportunities as men. Women can wiggle out of responsibility by having an abortion, why not men through a “financial abortion”? I mean, since this is a hate watch group and all, I was expecting at least some consideration of reproductive equality for both genders, but instead all I got was mockery and a surprising amount of hate from a group that is supposed to be an anti-hate group. Is equality too much to ask for? To make things sound appealing to you as well, don’t you think that making things equal would kill the “MRA bullcrap” that you despise by completely removing its motivation to exist?
I am not white, rich, or privileged. I don’t think I’m oppressed or anything, I just think there are some areas in which we can make things more equal because they are in favor of women, just like there areas in which men are more favored. That is all.
Have a good day/evening, depending on where you are. I don’t hold any grudges against any of you, and I hope you don’t either.
on August 9th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
My desire was not to create any hostile feelings between us, but only to have a level headed discussion where minimal, if any, insults or shaming languages would be hurled at each other. That obviously didn’t happen, and I’m not saying that you guys are the only ones responsible, because I am responsible for some of the mocking and shaming too. But it really would be nice to have a better, more civilized discussion on this and other issues at a later time at a different place.
Once again, know that I am not a hateful person. I support gay marriage, support women’s right to choose what they do with their body, and oppose the Religious Right and their attempts to impose their fundamentalist Christian morals on everyone. I’m mostly on your side, except for a few issues such as the reproductive issue for men.
on August 9th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Hello all,
After a while of deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. Yes, people arguing passionately online can change their minds. No matter how much a man may want out of a financial support situation, it does not override the fact that a he is responsible for a life he helped create. A woman’s pregnancy, both abortion and childbirth, are way more painful than a man could experience.
This change of mind might seem abrupt, but I want you to understand that I am able to accept my faults, like a man instead of a boy. Again, I apologize, and I wish that you could forgive me.
on August 9th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Joseph: Do you actually believe there would be no war if
women ran the world? Do you think Hillary Clinton or
any female politician would hesitate to sacrifice your
life or dispose of you if you became a problem? I do
believe in equality, which means that women are just as
capable of bad behavior as men. No one gets a free pass.
It’s not about gender, it’s about the urge for power I spoke
about earlier. It’s like telling an alcoholic he doesn’t need
a drink. He has no idea what you are talking about.
on August 9th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
You’re making it very hard for me not to insult you, but I will not like to Aadila.
“I’m talking about things like reproductive rights, the right to be treated fairly in courts, etc. Kind of hard to lose these rights that we never had in the first place.”
Rights men have never had in the first place? How many courts have you been in? How many cases have you aided in trial? I have been doing that since I was 19, not an attorney, but staff, and I can tell you, from EXPERIENCE, the law has been written by MAN since Hammurabi until the first Queen had ultimate authority. That was a long time, and lawmakers still to this day are majority men.
“I guarantee you if women ran the world, a lot less men would be disposable because war may just be a thing of the past.”
I also have this unfortunate experience. Stop talking theory with me since I speak from experience, my expeirence trumps your theory. Even the women in the military are not outwardly aggressive.
And if I’m so naive, name me one war that was started by a woman. Evidence??? Not theory.
“And assuming that the world will be any better or worse if ruled by women is again quite naive”.
Please see above.
on August 10th, 2012 at 8:56 am
Wes, I don’t speak in theory and I don’t speculate. I base the majority of my opinions off of experience.
Having served with a multitude of women, having been raised by women, having three sisters, no biological brothers, etc.
It is my experience, and yes I believe this, that POUND FOR POUND, a woman will not go to war as quickly as a man would.
I actually did a little research last night, and based off of said research, with the prior female heads of state that have ruled, i.e., Cleopatra, Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, others I have failed to mention. Women have had plenty of chances to start a war with other countries and I have found that when they did go to war, it was out of defense, and with mixed results. Cleopatra did not defeat Rome, but Elizabeth did have success against Spain.
I cannot tell you what Hillary Clinton would do, because that situation has not presented itself yet. Sarah Palin shoots pigs from helicopters. Plenty of women has gotten down and dirtly with men, in defense of their children, homes, or serial killing.
But compared to men??? No. I don’t think so. Not from my experience. Can a woman kill? Yes. As compared to a man??? That’s my argument.
on August 10th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Zang, no forgiveness necessary. You stood your ground, right or wrong, that’s admirable.
on August 10th, 2012 at 9:11 am
“This change of mind might seem abrupt, but I want you to understand that I am able to accept my faults, like a man instead of a boy. Again, I apologize, and I wish that you could forgive me.”
This is enlightened action.
I tell you I saw from the beginning your true nature, which is one of reason and humility. This is why I ceased to attack because I realized I was attacking the same person as myself, my own ignorance, my own intolerance, my own insecurities, and my own limited views. It is I who should apologize.
If you are sincere, you have overcome the greatest obstacle any of us can face: our very own minds.
on August 10th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Zang,
Congratulations. Now that you seem to be seeing people as people and not merely as potential objects of use to maximize your personal benefit, you could actually have a life of real fulfillment.
on August 10th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Zang,I applaud your apparent realization just how silly the male supremacist proposal for “paper abortions” really is – if you really want gender equality in reproductive rights work on finding a way for men to get pregnant. Until that happens, sorry – will never happen.
As far as the crimes issue, the fact is that statistically men commit more crimes than women. That often plays a role in increased sentencing. The way sentencing law generally works is that sentences will increase with previous convictions – you may have heard of the “three strikes” laws. That can result in some rather twisted results such as a case where a man who pumped 6 bullets into another car stopped at a traffic light at a busy intersection outside of a McDonalds in a road rage incident got less time than a young woman who had bounced several checks. And yes, as my real life example shows, this issue has nothing to do with gender.
And if you want to help men – and really help men – work on the issue of the achievement gap in education between women and men. Especially for young men of color, the gap in educational achievement between girls and boys is becoming extremely serious. As I think I noted earlier here even in what is still a male dominated legal profession, the number of women attending law school has exceeded the number of men for more than a decade. the percentage of women receiving college degrees is now much higher than the percentage of men. One way to do this is to go after what is called the “school to prison pipeline.” That is because of the increased criminalization of conduct within the schools – added into the increase of treating juvenile offenders as adults and you are seeing more and more kids – mainly males but this also affects young women as well, often members of racial or ethnic minorities and often children with disabilities – being given serious felony convictions and often serious time in adult prisons before they become adults. There are enough serious issues which are primarily facing males but are not exclusively gender issues that you can work for to actually benefit society.
Most of the issues you list as being male issues (the legitimate ones) are really issues of race and class. You seem like a decent intelligent guy (and I mean that) – go and fight the criminal justice issues which primarily but not exclusively effect young men of color. Just don’t see it as exclusively a gender issue. You will do good if you do that.
on August 10th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Zang –
I am glad that we reached some agreement. Frankly, some of the issues you raised regarding reproductive rights and men are rather knotty and really haven’t been addressed. The difficulties in reproductive rights, until it was possible to demonstrate paternity through DNA, have mostly been born by women (no pun intended).
Please do continue to participate in this site. The fact that you are passionate about your beliefs and have an active mind are GOOD things overall. The last thing this country needs is more sheep. We don’t have to agree on everything, and I know that I learn all the time from people who have different viewpoints from my own. I may not agree with them, but I can often understand that they have reasons for what they believe–or that their views are as valid as mine, simply different.
I do know that, having looked at the Men’s Rights website that Tom Simms recommended that there are definitely some dialogues that men should be involved in that they are not (this is also the case with women and people of color). As someone who works in the area of public involvement (even though I stick mainly in the environmental area), I found this very interesting, and it points up what can happen when a rigorous approach to identifying stakeholders and ensuring that they are able to be involved in decision-making processes and discussions isn’t followed. Since men (or white men) have traditionally had a great deal of power in the U.S., and the struggle that women, low-income people, people of color, and the like have gone through to obtain “a seat at the table,” I doubt it occurs to us that, in some instances, men may be marginalized in some decisions and dialogues. This is something that I will definitely keep in mind in my work.
The Internet can be a tough place for substantive discussions, since such discussions often devolve into shouting matches. Still, difficult discussions are often the most important discussions.
Good luck, young man, and all the best to you. Do continue to visit this site. Now that you know some of the regular commenters (I’m actually something of a newbie), I think you’ll find the various strengths, experiences, and viewpoints to make for some good discussions.
on August 10th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Aron, at my college being a bunch of nerds would not have made a frat stand out – the entire college was a bunch of nerds (kind of like in Revenge of the Nerds III). Even the football players were nerds. A wild night was to smoke pot and go to the library to study. A really wild night was to smoke pot while in the library studying or to have sex in the library – but only doggy style. That way you could both continue to read the book ;)
on August 10th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Wes and Joseph –
You raise interesting points — of whether women would be willing to go to war as readily or more readily than men. I appreciate Joseph’s research, and as a woman, I would like to think that women would be more willing to look for other ways of resolving conflicts. Wars are complex events, however. I once heard the statement “wars start in the past,” meaning that the seeds of war are typically planted years before they actually break out into open hostilities. World War I certainly set the stage for World War II; and some major unheaval (which turned out to be World War I) was pretty much inevitable as Europe moved out from under dynastic control and rigid social orders into something more accommodating of the advances in science, technology, and manufacturing. So wars may break out having nothing to do with certain leaders–they break out because of the momentum of social, political, or economic forces.
For example, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that Abraham Lincoln caused the Civil War. His election may have catalyzed the actual war itself, but the run-up to it–the clash between an agricultural and socially hierarchical South and the increasingly industrial and Puritan-style egalitarianism (still hierarchical, but less so than the south) of the North, plus the economic issues surrounding allowing slavery to be spread to new states (and what this would mean for “free, white farmers,” since the slavery culture and economy doesn’t work so well for non-slaveholding farmers working their own ground), just about made the Civil War (or some conflict) an inevitability. After all, Lincoln didn’t sign the Emancipation Proclamation until the war was already underway.
“Wars of Adventure,” such as Bush’s invasion of Iraq, are a different story. They are wars that come out of an excess of ego and stupidity. I would like to think that they are totally the provence of delusional or meglamaniacal male politicians, but I believe that there are women who, given the chance, would barrel down the same road.
My experiences with women in power have been mixed. I know that in the 1980s, a lot of people were saying that once we got more women in management (and in executive positions), we would see “kinder, gentler” corporations, more team work, etc. (Note: I have a Masters of Management (basically an MBA) from Northwestern University, a top school, so I have watched this particular trend for several decades now.) I have to say that management style still depends overwhelmingly on the “culture” of the company — bully cultures grow and attract bully managers.
Where some women managers have, I believe, brought some of the supposedly “female” traits of communication, collaboration, teamwork, and nuturing/mentoring of employees, these are also traits one can find in good male managers. (A Wall Street Journal survey from several years ago indicated that, contray to the stereotype fist-ponding manager, the managers who are most effective communicate well and are willing to apologize when they are wrong — something the egomaniacs never do!)
There are also a lot of female managers who are hard, ruthless, uncommunicative, petty bitches. In some cases I have seen over the years, it appears that men have picked up and promoted women who already had such tendencies because they behaved “like men” (if that was the culture of the company). In other cases I have seen, women who started out knowing better, have taken on these characteristics to show that they can be as tough as men (and they are often horrible to everyone other than a few select men and women).
Again, management style is still an artifact of corporate culture, and up until a few decades ago, many corporate cultures were rather punishing. At this point, more balanced corporations that I’ve worked with tend to have both men and women who possess good communication and collaboration skills and avoid all of the fist-pounding and screaming.
That’s my two-cents.
on August 10th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Erika –
Oh dear — did you attend Oberlin? A friend of mine did and she said that once there was a near riot when they closed the library for some maintenance work on a Saturday night. (Wait — I don’t think they had fraternities and sororities.
I stand by my college experience of minimal studying, making money as a freelance writer, and rooming with a basset hound and a really big wolf spider!
on August 10th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Erika,
Please don’t interpret this as a gainsay because it’s not. However if you look at how women are sentenced for sexual crimes such as statutory rape, you will see that they get 3 years at most, many get off with probation. Men on the other hand get five years plus for the very same crime — consensual, not forced, sex. And, in this case, I would say at least 51% of the sex with minors crimes I have seen in the past few years involve women as perpetrators. These are people in positions of trust: teachers, TA’s, youth group leaders, even friends’ moms….
So if we are going to be fair to everyone, how can we reconcile the leniency shown by judges to women offenders for the very same crime as men? i.e., sex with a willing, even aggressive underage partner.
I personally think we need to look more carefully at these laws because a 19 year old kid who has sex with a 15 year old girlfriend, both in high school, should not necessarily be considered a rapist and sex offender. Some people are very mature sexually at 15 (or even yonger), some people not.
I don’t agree with MRM views in general, but I do think this is one area that is wildy unfair to males and extremely lenient with females for the same crime.
If feminism is really going to succeed as a political philosophy how long can we cling to the notion of every female being sexually vulnerable and innocent, and every male being a predator?
on August 10th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Zang, I somehow picture you as being rather like my stepson was at your age, and I have also a godson whom I helped guide through that period of his life.
It appears to me that you have not altogether renounced the prospect of fatherhood…one day…but do not want parenthood forced on you. Neither, I daresay, do the young women you are likely to meet. Therefore, let me give you a bit of godparental advice:
A. Never become sexually intimate with someone you don’t know and trust.
B. In re: The Pill: they’re not what they used to be. The old ten and five milligram pills were, if taken as directed, virtually infallible. The modern ones are much lower dosage and thus more easily deranged by medications and even certain foods. The use of one barrier contraceptive with the low’dosage pill or of two barrier contraceptives without it (e.g., sponge and condom) is advisable in any relationship not foreseeably permanent.
C. I’d advise any young man, and possibly older ones, who engages in heterosexuality at all to get a sperm count. Some men are hyperfertile (high count + high motility). Conversely, overall male fertility is dropping, likely due to the bioactive contaminants in our food and water. The sperm count of the average 30-year-old male today is half what it was in 1955.
Conduct yourself responsibly. I wish you well.
on August 10th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Erika –
The issues surrounding the ever-increasing “pipeline” into the prison system is extremely horrific. Especially since a stay in prison (or a conviction — or in some cases, even an arrest!) can keep people out of so many jobs. It’s definitely a color and class issue, but it affects our entire society, since the creation (and it has been a “creation”) of a permanent “outlaw/outcast” class destroys lives, families, and whole neighborhoods in some areas. I mean, how are people supposed to lead law-abiding lives if they can’t get jobs and are forever stigmatized. Sure — repeat child molesters need to be kept away from children, but some kid or twenty-something who did something stupid (or was with someone who did something stupid) doesn’t automatically deserve to be blocked from having a normal life after he or she has had a brush with the law.
Although there have been many cases of wrongful convictions for murders (people released from death row — we know a lot about that in Illinois), and DNA proving wrongful convictions in the case of some stranger rapes.
However, considering that THESE types of cases, because of the severity of the crimes and the punishments, have been held up to scrutiny before prosecution (one would hope, but in some cases, the defendent was simply “convenient”) and afterward (by various legal groups), one has to wonder how many people end up convicted of lesser charges of which they were innocent? If it’s a felony, or even a misdemeanor, in some cases, that’s enough to keep you from getting a job.
All I can say is that I hope that I am never arrested for anything, because who knows what will happen? At best, you end up spending a lot of money (money that many people don’t have) to defend yourself and manage to be acquitted. At worst you end up in some Corrections Corporation of America hell hole with bad food, bad or no healthcare, and administrators with a financial interest in keeping you locked up!
Our whole “prison in place of school or counseling” system, as well as our non-existent healthcare systems are national disgraces.
on August 10th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Aadilla, it is a mistake judge the legal system based upon what cases make the news – by doing so, you receive a highly inaccurate view of the sitaution. It always helps to remember that the news media in this country is largely driven by sensationalism – especially on television. Hence because of sensationalistic media coverage, a situation which is actually quite rare – but lends itself to breathless media coverage – is likely to appear much common than it really is. It also makes people believe that the mundane and non-sensational is rarer often even than the rare but sensational.
The reason why you think that there are a large number of cases involving attractive young female high school teachers having sex with their underaged male students is that they tend to get a lot of news coverage. There are two reasons for that – one is the man bites dog aspect of the story – we are conditioned to expect the male sexual predator with teenaged girls, but the female sexual predator is rare and unique. Statistics would point that out. Well over 90% of all people arrested or convicted of any sexual offense are men – the vast majority of people convicted of statutory rape offenses are males who are much older (generally a decade or more) than the females they are having sex with. Hence, the female sexual predator stories get a lot of media coverage because it is an unusual situation. The fact is that cases involving sex between adult women and teeanged boys are comparatively rare – that makes them more sensational than the more usual adult male and teenaged girl situation.
The second reason is that the stories involving an attractive young woman defendant having sex with teenaged boys lend themselves to visuals showing attractive young women while discussing sex. The fact is that the media likes to include sex in as much as possible. Ask Sarah Jones about that – she is a Kentucky teacher who is being charged with having sex with an underaged student (who apparently is her cousin or something – icky!) – she also was a cheerleader for the Cincinatti Bengals so predictably the story has generated tons of media coverage – all of which feature pictures or videos showing Ms. Jones in her cheerleader uniform. The more usual situation – involving an adult male and a teenaged girl does not lend itself to that. The girl is often completely unknown and thus no matter how attractive she might look is unavailable for media exploitation (not to mention being underaged).
Doubters should note when was the last time you’ve seen substnatial media coverage for a sex crime between an unattractive female teacher and her male student. Or involving a male teacher – the fact is that male teachers being arrested for having sex with students or for possesssion of child porn is so common that it barely even rates a local news story – let alone a national news story.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the 19 year old boy/15 year old girl stories are also extremely rare. And when they do take place, they almost never result in prison time. Most adults arrested for that crime are a decade or more older than the teenagers. The long prison sentences tend to come from adults with very young (13 or 14) year old teeangers – often adult males (and its almost always a male) who are decades older than the girl (and its almost always a girl).
I hope this gives you a better idea of the true situation..
on August 10th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Erika, that sounds JUST like Oberlin ;D
My brother graduated from the Conservatory this year, and he will be attending Westminster Choir College in Princeton, NJ this fall for classical voice.
He’s an operatic tenor!
on August 10th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
CoralSea:
I see your point. The “corporate battlefield” is not to be underestimated. I have had many female bosses in my time in the corporate environment. They’re actually more ruthless than the men. My one female CO put more men in jail than any of my previous male COs, the ability to compete with the ruthlessness of males is there.
But I’m still talking what it boils down to and to me that’s violence. Who would be more apt to push that button first?
War is political either way you slice it; politics, religion or real estate, carried out by violence.
Consider this: I had a female Assistant Aircraft Commander (AHAC) and a male Aircraft Commander (HAC). The female pilot was more aware of collateral damage than the male was, and she cared more about it.
Also, if you consider the violence we do to ourselves, in that we are our own worst critics, I have found that male suicides are on an average more violent that female suicides.
I am not taking away the female propensity for violence, especially when it comes to psychosis. Anyone can be psychotic.
My point is we would be less prone to war with female heads of state? But bear in mind, less prone does not mean, not at all. But any decrease in the amount of lives lost is a positive in my book.
on August 10th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Another reason hot teacher/teenage boy gets this kind of coverage is that it fits in so well with porn fliicks, with the fantasies of teenage boys, and with the fantasies of male judges and newsies who used to be teenage boys. A certain local gentleman of the bench, herein unnamed, who saw “Never on Sundays” as an adolescent was so imprinted by Melina Mercouri that…but here the tale ceases that Turoldus set down.
on August 10th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Erika,
What we perceive and what is true are most often very different things. In fact, from a philosophical standpoint, the bulk of science suggests any act of observation interferes with the result, even extending to the nature of reality itself. In other words, in a broad sense, there may be no such thing as objective reality at all.
I spent twenty years as a journalist so I am aware of how stories are manufactured. CoralSea has obseved the very same thing, and what you mention certainly seems like a factor to consider. However, I disagree in that I have seen plenty of media coverage to both male and female offenders, and since I spend a lot of time reading the news, my perception is that there are far more cases than just a few of female perpetrators.
Nor are they always attractive at least by conventional standards, and if you ask me even the “beauty” of some is obscured by revolting behavior. Certainly a few cases stand out like the scenario you describe, I just don’t know if your view is any more or less of a correct generalization than my own.
The other consideration I think deserves mention is that if you read public comments on stories involving female perpetrators, commonly many will be of the kind “way to go kid” whereas for male perpetrators we’ll see an abundance of “wait till Bubba meets him in prison.” I don’t consider this scientific analysis, but I would be very skeptical that the same sorts of attitudes we see in public commentary don’t also make it into the courts.
Truly, in order to know for certain, we would have to have statistical data that shows gender of the offender, conviction rates, and sentencing. That kind of analysis is beyond my reach at the moment but perhaps someone has better data available. I try to keep an open mind on the subject.
I still believe that a woman tried for statutory rape in the United States is likely to receive a lighter sentence for a man tried for the same crime. I also believe the problem of female sex offenders is much more widespread than many of us, as feminists and progressives, like to believe. Those kinds of notions are not popular, even when coming from diehard lefties like myself, because they challenge progressive orthodoxy.
Generally, I feel many of these crimes are overprosecuted and think that probably in some cases jail time is not appropriate, regardless of the gender. I think American social mores are extremely prudish, especially when concerning adolescents. Sex is just not a big deal to me in a moral sense (and I mean by sexually mature people, regarding children I think almost no penalty is too severe).
Please don’t interpret this as an apology for statutory rape…it’s just that there is a big difference in my mind between a pedophile or violent rapist, and consensual sex involving adolescents who are sexually mature. Both end up with the same social stigma for life as a “sex offender”. I just don’t think every case of sexual behavior fits our current legal structure for determining what is acceptable and what is not.
By the way in my area there are quite a few cases in recent memory of 19 year olds being convicted of sex with adolescents. Again, without clear statistical data it would be hard to know how many…and it’s kind of an icky topic to be googling for anyway.
Naturally I welcome any hard data that challenges my perceptions, as well as differing points of view based on opinion.
on August 10th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Joseph I have a friend in the FBI. He told me once of a case he knew of where a woman allegedly killed herself by shooting herself in the face (with a shotgun). The investigators immediately suspected homocide because it didn’t fit the profile of woman’s suicide. Of course violence is violence no matter how we look at it. Violence begins in the mind.
on August 10th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Aron, obviously it wasn’t Oberlin :)
An opera singer? While just about everything I know about opera comes from Bugs Bunny cartoons, I still think it is likely to be more employable than a degree in military history
and before you get too upset, my undergraduate degree is in history :)
on August 10th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Reynardine, that becomes obvious whenever you view the comments on such stories.even on legal news sites even conservative attorneys who favor locking up every criminal and throwing away the key seem to be thinking with a part of their body which isn’t the brain whenever such a story comes up.
on August 10th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Aron –
Congrats on your brother. I didn’t mean to smear Oberlin — I just know that it is a rigorous school that attracts serious students. I, on the other hand, attended Southern Illinois University as an undergrad, which was considered a notorious party school (though significantly, when things went totally out of control [which they always did] on Halloween and other designated party days, the ones who did the most damage and were arrested were almost always from the much snobbier University of Illinois, which looked down on SIU for its hard partying ways — but participated in the mayhem). I, of course, sat out such shenanigans and instead devoted my time to exploring the countryside with my dog and visiting historical sites (really).
Joseph — You are right about the actual physical violence. However, I wouldn’t put it past sociopathic Queen Bees who made it into high office to pull a Bush with the whole, “Let’s you and them fight.” (Most politicians don’t want to get their hands dirty themselves — that’s what the cannon fodder is for).
Overall, however, I believe that women can bring some good things to the mix in terms of management, although simply because I enjoy diversity, I prefer to work with men and women and people of many backgrounds (environmental consulting attracts a veritable United Nations of employees — which is one of the things that I always have enjoyed about it).
Reynardine and Erika — The media definitely seeks out the sexy stories. As a former reporter and someone who still follows the craft of journalism very closely (actually, I won yet another award for my writing on environmental issues), I often find it interesting how coverage is given based on a variety of factors. Sexy is great. Stuff with good visuals is desirable (did you ever wonder why TV news shows so many fires? They often aren’t that important, but they have visual impact, while many of the far more important stories, like on endemic corruption, are slow moving and just don’t make the right “splash.”
One of my personal favorite examples of one sensational story edging out coverage of another occurred surrounding the Brown’s Chicken massacre in Palatine, IL (near Chicago). This crime, which took place in the 1990s, involved a couple of robbers who hurded several employees and the franchise owner into the cooler and executed them. A very gruesome crime, and one that wasn’t solved for a number of years. Obviously, it received a lot of coverage. But I’m sure the news people were torn — because they ended up giving short shrift to a sexy story about a sex and pornography ring operating in the affluent village of Barrington that was busted a day after the Brown’s massacre. Normally, the sex ring, particularly because it involved wealthy people in a wealthy area, would have been front page news, but in this case, it was not.
One of my first assignments as a reporter was to interview the family of one of John Wayne Gacy’s victims. I did, and it was awful. The family was traumatized, not only because their son was murdered, but because he was involved in prostitution. After some discussion with the editor, we opted to put the story on an inside page, below the fold, in the edition of the paper that circulated in the family’s area. Of course, our parent publication and the news service that owned it ran with the story and put it up front with all of the other splashy, John Wayne Gacy serial killer stuff.
That was the only time the editor agreed to bury a story. I stayed in reporting for a while — it was certainly interesting — but dealing with crime victims and the families of some criminals (whose health was literally falling apart because of the stress and horror of it all) pretty much drove me out of reporting (although obviously, I still write).
on August 10th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Does anyone have hard data on gender, arrests, and sentencing for statutory rape?
on August 10th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Aadilla, unfortunately while its easy to know who is being convicted of sex offenses thanks to the sex offender registratiry and FBI statitstics (both of which will reflect that more than 90% of people convicted of sex crimes are male) that does not reflect actual offending rates.
Now there are some things we do know:
1) an extremely large number of teen pregnacies are the result of teenaged girls having sex with adult males. I do not know the exact percentage but I believe that a majority of cases involving fathers who are over the age of 21.
2) It is likely that a large number of charges and convictions for consensual sex offenses between adult men and teeanged girls do result from teen pregnancy.
3) state statutes tend to have an age range below which if it is a crime at all it will be a misdemeanor. It is often 3 years. Hence, an 17 year old with a 15 year old may not be a crime while a 19 year old with a 15 year old would be.
4) it is a scientific fact that women/girls mature earlier than boys on average. that includes both appearance and mental maturity levels..
5) Internet sting cases very rarely have picked up females.
6) A very large percentage of female sex offenders act in concert with a male – often in teh creation of child pornography one particuarly horrifying case in Virginia involved a husband and wife pair where the husband filmed his wife having sex with their teenaged son and pre-teen daughter. In other cases, convictions stem from knowing about sexual abuse of a child and helping hte man cover it up.
Looking at these factors, I do believe that the 90% figure for male sex offenders probably is fairly accurate as to actual offense rates.
My view of sex offenses is that the determining factor should be does the offense involve predatory behavior. In the statutory rape context, that would cover certain relationships (teacher/student) and age differences that are such that one can reasonably imply a difference in maturity level. Generally, that line has been drawn at three years and I believe it is a reasonable level. I do believe in some cases which involve high levels of predatory behavior (generally involving a trust relationship and multiple children) statutory rape charges should result in long prison sentences.
on August 10th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
aadila —
You might try the uniform crime reports compiled by the FBI from information submitted to them from law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S.
However, I read something a couple of years ago about how the FBI had only just changed their definition of rape/forceable rape. (I think that they had counted “forceable rapes,” but not date rape — something like that. I’m sure that it is footnoted.) I expect that they also collect statistics on statutory rape, however I believe that the age of consent continues to vary among states (I expect Erika would know).
I also believe that it is silly to prosecute young people who are within a few years of each other, but where one party is below the “age of consent” (or both are). I think that this is also handled differently from state to state.
There has been a fair amount of coverage (I believe SPLC has touched on it, too), regarding the large numbers (comparatively — it’s not an epidemic) of Latino men who are prosecuted for statutory rape because of cultural norms whereby men court young girls. That is also a difficult situation, since one is dealing with cultural differences.
Tough topics, to be sure.
on August 10th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Alright before anyone gets out the rolling pins, allow me to self flagelate and admit my mistake. Erika was correct regarding the data. I found a document to substantiate it: thhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf
So first allow me to say (1) ONCE AGAIN, the progressive hive mind is correct on everything (or almost everything) and (2) ONCE AGAIN, a progressive, when confronted with facts that challenge opinions is the FIRST to admit the mistake, and (3) unlike right wingers, ONCE AGAIN progressives SELF CRITICIZE in order to further our movement.
That said, this document has only crimes that are reported as it mentions in a carefully worded caveat about female offenders.
So, at the risk of stirring the beehive at the same moment as I grovel for forgiveness, just how many 16 year-old-men are reporting their sexual escapades with women of legal majority?
on August 11th, 2012 at 7:13 am
There is a new group of men emerging besides the ones
I mentioned earlier: The Zeta Male. In Japan they are
called “grass eaters” because they reject the high stress
corporate jobs and traditional roles for men as appliances
or ATMs. The so-called “male privilege” actually benefits
a small group of Alpha males and by extension their Beta
enforcers who wait for fortune to trickle down like roadies
in a rock band. We can be our own worst enemies because
we have been taught to buy into this all our lives. Zetas
don’t want power but justice. We are not trying to tear the
system down, we won’t stop it from collapsing on it’s own.
on August 11th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Wes,
Any time you try to categorize a species as complex as humanity into three or four social roles, you are starting out doomed to failure.
Alpha and beta behavior has been observed in animals but it strikes me as particularly asinine to attribute this to humans. The idea of raw physical or political power as the only delineator of power and authority in society is a concept based on the omnipresent fear in the male mind of the flaccid penis. It is a construct by men and for men, and your entire argument hinges on it.
Women exercise far more power in society than is apparent through male-dominated social institutions such as political figureheads. Most people are aware of this intuitively if not intellectually. My guess is that you are uncomfortable with notions of power and try to assuage your feelings of impotence by the reassuring but erroneous belief that you are genetically entitled to some kind of social supremacy one way or the other because of your unreliable appendage. The historical effort to subjugate female power is a symptom of this profound male neurosis.
I suggest you read a little Nietzsche:
“I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness.”
on August 11th, 2012 at 11:10 am
The missile, the rocket, the tank barrel, the gun, the bayonette, the flag pole, the Washington monument. These are all symbols of nationality and military power which assuage the deep and unsettling male fear of impotence. The Mens Movement is really just another name for performance anxiety.
on August 11th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Wes –
Once again, I found your post very interesting. I believe that I am something of a Zeta female, in that I participate in the “dominant economy” primarily from the sidelines, because I know that I don’t want to fight my way into the corporate lifestyle. I know others, both men and women, who are doing the same thing. I think that many of the people who have followed this path are intelligent thinkers, who also have a creative element to them that makes it difficult for them to “give” the phony allegiance required to play the corporate (or, I suppose, government organization) game.
I didn’t know that the Japanese had a word for them–”grasseaters.” I’ll have to look into that. Thanks for the post!
on August 11th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Aadila –
I don’t think Wes is trying to categorize people in some rigorous way — he’s taking about the roles they fill in a particular political/economic/ social system.
His comments about the group that has chosen not to compete in a frenetic society — the “Zetas” (the Greek letter names kind of make be cringe a little because I associate them with fraternities and sororities, but they get the point across quite well) — should resonate with a Buddhist! I know it resonated with me, and I’m Wiccan.
on August 11th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Aadila,
I suggest you go back and read the part about Zetas
not seeking power but justice. We don’t want to control
other people’s lives just to live on our own terms. Men’s
sweat and blood has always been the fuel that societies
run on. Why take part in a system that views you as
expendable? As far as the phallic symbolism I think you
are reaching just a bit. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
In nature, females are the aggressors and initiators of sex
so what does that say about your views of male dominance?
on August 12th, 2012 at 7:57 am
CoralSea, the change in the FBI crime reporting statistics was designed to unify all forcible sex offenses under one heading. Previously the statistics reflected the distinction present in common law – and still present in some states such as Virginia which has different offenses covering forcible sexual assault – rape, forcible sodomy, animate or inanimate object sexual penetration, and aggravated sexual battery. Under this system, rape is reserved solely for heterosexual activity (and under the common law definition only women or girls could be victims).
However, to retain the common law distinction led to many problems in reporting because many states have modernized their law code to remove the common law distinctions and unified all forcible [and age based] sex offenses under one heading – generally Sexual Assault. Iowa’s code is any example of this.
Because the FBI was reporting based upon the common law definitions, it was difficult to get an accurate picture when a state like Iowa would report they had say 50 convictions for First Degree Sexual Assault – the FBI would have to insert those 50 convictions into the proper category (rape, forcible sodomy, or object sexual penetration).
Other states continued to use rape as the term but removed the gender and hetero/homo/sexual distinction. And again, it was difficult to place the offenses in the proper category.
And again you also have the issue of gender – under common law rape, only women or girls could be victims or rape. Modern statutes have changed that, but rape still only covered hetereosexual activity..
What the FBI did was remove all of those distinctions – now I am not sure why they used the phrase “rape” as the umbrella term. Maybe to see the entertaining freakout that resulted from the men’s rights bozos and the people who inheriently see anything that the Obama Administration does as having sinister motives. But really, it was just making the record keeping easier and more accurate. The men’s rights bozos should have actually appreciated that the FBI was finally saying that men could be raped. Personally I think they should have used the more generic and accurate term of “forcible sexual assault” as the umbrella term rather than rape which has a very specific meaning. On the other hand, it was a very entertaining freak out.
on August 12th, 2012 at 8:16 am
aadila, its important to keep in mind in looking at statistics for sexual assault that all forms of sexual assault and rape tend to be dramatically underreported. Even if reported, the number of arrests and prosecutions are going to be lower simply because many prosecutors will not proceed with cases which they know are next to impossible to win [I have a major problem with that btw, because it is supposed to be up to the fact finder to decide credibility of witnesses and this practice means that women are raped even if they report it to the police aren't even able to get their day in court. I don't have a problem with a jury or a judge saying "we can't tell what happened here, so not guilty" because that is what is supposed to happen in those type of cases - but to not even bring the case - especially since they are usually not brought due to "credibility" issues of the woman [or man] – like mental illness, intellectual disability, drunkeness, use of prescription medication, or whatever which leaves especially vulernable groups extra vulerable]
If you go to the previous men’s rights thread you can see that the male supremacists are obsessed with the idea of a woman forcing them to penetrate her. My belief is that this is what they think of during their visits to Onancock because their obsession with it really does sound like its a fantasy of theirs to be dominated sexually by a woman. Of course, to have those fantasies makes them feel like less than a man [and I'm guessing that they are size deprived as well] so they overcompensate by acting extra myognistic
And I completely agree regarding the “performance anxiety” part.
on August 12th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Wes, the best way for men to not have to feel financial obligations to take care of women is to support equal employment opportunity for women. The more male dominated a society is the fewer economic opportunities for women – the fewer economic opportunities for women, the more obligation is placed upon men to take care of his family.
It seems pretty obvious to me :)
on August 12th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
@Aron
His choice to live, nothing sad about it. What’s sad is that you want him to be a sacrifice should an event ever happen.
on August 12th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Erika:
Do you really think women have fewer opportunities
today than men? As I have said before I believe in REAL
equality where everyone is equally responsible and no one
gets a free pass. Supporting a child is the responsibility of
both parents but alimony needs to go. If you take alimony
you are saying that you are not adult enough to take care
of yourself and need someone to hold your hand. If men
tried to get alimony from their wives in court what do you
think the response would be? They would be vilified as
“not real men”. It’s an archaic holdover.
on August 13th, 2012 at 6:01 am
Wes, all I have to say in response is that there is a reason why any legal job where you actually have the opportunity to have a life outside of work is derisively called a “mommy tract” job and is generally considered a dead end position.
It is really the same in industry – the glass ceiling is still real. Women may be beating men in any sort of academic achievement now, but the upper echolon of business is still largely an exclusive male perserve.
And there is nothing unfair about alimony. See, it is based upon what the parties make and need. The fact that the man usually makes more – often much more – than the woman is hardly reason to call alimony unfair or anti-male. In fact, the fairest way to do things is probably what is called “community property” which is where the assets of the marriage get split in half.
on August 13th, 2012 at 6:35 am
Wes, one other thing the male supremacist obsession with the idea of alimony likely comes because the male supremacists want women to remain in the homes barefoot and pregnant (which also explains the obsession with child support). You can’t both want women to have no employment opportunities or education and for men to be free from having to support women. That is an inheriently contradictory idea. In many cases today there is no alimony simply because both parties work and have substantially similar incomes. Like the idea of a single earner being able to support a family, alimony is outside of the wealthy elite largely obsolete. Of course, in those cases it is perfectly fair – especially in cases where one party (almost always the woman) gives up employment opportunities to support the other party (almost always the man) or as is often the case works to put the other party through school and then gets dumped when the dollars start flowing.
Oh and Wes, don’t forget the real issue that the men are feeling is that middle class wages have been going down for years, job opportunities are disappearing, women are achieving more educationally than men, and prices are increasing. Economic pressures are real – and may even get worse.
As I said before Romney reminds me of a Gilded Age politician who has no agenda other than personal profit and no loyalty other than to the almighty dollar. However, it may even be worse than before. In 1896 the Republicans merely wanted to crucify humanity on a cross of gold. Today mere gold is not sufficient for the Republicans – they want to crucify humanity on a cross of diamond encrusted platinum. The Republicans philosphy of funnelling all wealth upward and destroying the middle class is primarily responsible for the pressures placed on men – yet the men’s rights bozos show their wage at feminists and women and not the men who are systematically demolishing this country to increase their personal profits. It is safe to say that almost all of the angry primarily white men of the men’s rights movement will vote for Romney who will then enact policies which incresae their wage. And of course, it will be the women who get raped and beaten and the children who get raped and beaten who will pay the price of the male supremacist fury. And the ultra rich will laugh all the way to the bank as they lock the male supremacist up in a for profit private prison for domestic violence or child abuse.
Male supremacy is no different from white supremacy in that regard – it is simply a tool that the ultrarich elites use to gain and maintain power. Rather than blaming the powerful for your ills, the men’s rights movement says to blame women who are under the same economic pressure that men are but thanks to the elite’s use of sexism and mysogny and imposition of the glass ceiling have even less power than the men. Its an old trick – they did the exact same thing with race in the 1920s. In the 1920s through 1950s factory and mine owners used to fund the Ku Klux Klan to fight unions. The same thing is going on now with gender rather than race.
on August 13th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Wes, let me use my little sister in your alimony example. She is beautiful. She comes from the same shytty neighborhood that I do. Broken home, acholism, beatings, pedophilia, the whole 9 yards.
When each one of us got out, we did it our own ways. My oldest sister got married, got divorced, then moved to New Jersey, where she still is.
My second oldest sister was a teeanage mother, got married, never really held a job, got a divorce, has two different fathers for her children, and still lived in Houston.
I joined the Navy and have been with the same woman for almost 20 years and we have two kids.
My baby sister became a dancer. Like I said she is beautiful and garnered attention. Eventually, she met, fell in love, and married into a “very” affluent family in Houston. They have a street named after them.
In the past 7 years he has not allowed her to work, and even fights her going out with my wife. He has mentally abused her, physically abused her, and to this day has her tailed by a private investigator.
She has tried to go to work, but unless she works at “their” company it always ends with her having to take care of their kids, and not being able to work due to his “scheduling conflicts”.
He’s had her put in jail buy their little town cops, he’s had her credit cards cancelled, he’s done just about everything in his power to prove that she needs him, but not vice versa.
She even got her real estate license and when she tried to go work for my wife’s grandmother she mysteriously ended up in the hospital with a concussion.
So you see, my disdain is not for women, but for the men who abuse them. I live in Dallas, 250 miles north of Houston, for a reason. Because my two children need me, and my wife needs me. I have a long memory, that works in my favor.
But I tell you what brother, she has an attorney, and from a distance, I am helping my baby sister take this fool for everything she can. And I don’t feel one iota of pain about it.
My brother-in-law didn’t start this company, his great great grandfather did, and from I understand, he used to beat his wife too.
They can all do straight to hell, and I will be there to make them put their gasoline drawers on.
on August 13th, 2012 at 8:00 am
@Erika very nice thank you. How do we know how much is under reported though? I guess we could look at police reports and compare with prosecutions to see how many claims proceed to court, but it still seems like guesswork to determine under reporting. It does make sense, but I would be very interested in gender difference on reporting of crimes of this nature, since the urban myth of the sexualized high school teacher (female) seems to fit perfectly with the stereotypical male sexual fantasy. As with every stereotype we need to observe (1) how it affects attitudes and (2) the relationship between individual behavior and societal attitudes.
@CoralSea yes in one sense the grasseater notion does resonate with me, but I am far less of a passive/nihilistic buddhist than an active/socially engaged one. I like to remember the term “karma” (sanskrt) or “kamma” (pali), means “action”. It’s what we do, not what happens to us that defines karma in a strict sense. I also believe that there are no enlightened people per se, but only enlightened action. When you are being generous and tolerant, you are an enlightened being, but being generous or tolerant last week doesn’t necessarily make you enlightened today. I think grazing off the edges of society is a statust that may be a choice for some, but not for others. I am concerned with the latter, and don’t judge the former. But I do think “dropping out” is not going to make the world any better. I love finding out more about Wicca and your views by the way.
@ Wes, per your reasonable suggestion, I will read your comments again and consider them with a positive frame of mind. That does not mean I agree. As to what we see in nature, I am far more concerned about what we see in our own mind. An ant hill looks very different to an ant and an anteater. How you look at society interferes with what you experience. That’s what I meant earlier about the difficulty of identifying objective reality, if there is indeed such a thing. Some may interpret that as stupidity, but some of the most brilliant scientists of our present day would likely agree.
on August 13th, 2012 at 8:55 am
On a lighter note, has anyone seen the Summer’s Eve
“Hail To The V ” commercial? This may be the closest
to truth in advertising I have seen. Men have fought and
died over it, and it has always been a source of power
for women. The problem is that we all have been taught
to pretend it doesn’t exist. Even though women are
capable of multiple orgasms and are more sexually
stimulated, men are supposed to be the initiators and pursue them. Then we are chided as aggressors ..
on August 13th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Florida law categorizes any forced sexual contact as sexual battery, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or the victim. Degrees depend on such factors as the age and abledness of the victim, whether there was a penetration forced by either party, the degree of violence or cruelty in the attack, and whether the perpetrator was in a position of power or iinfluence over the victim. This is pretty comprehensive, and it had to be reworded several times so as to rule out French kissing, genuine breast-feeding, and doctors looking into people’s throats or ears. Under this redefinition, the number of male victims has increased, as well as female perpetrations on minors, but there has been no whatever surge in “rape by envelopment” on adult victims. The only place that gets reported much is on porn sites.
It’s difficult to assess the number of sexual batteries committed versus those reported. Mostly, it is based on (a) the number of rape crisis clients who decide to report v. those who don’t, and (b) data collected by psychotherapists. Personally, I have known quite a few people who have suffered sexual batteries and never reported them. My ball-park guess is one in twenty, and quite a few of those have been victims of either self-evident violent rapes, or child victims who didn’t know how to conceal their victimization. Too many children do know how, and it is the perpetrators who teach them.
on August 13th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Wes, my dear, the exalted “V” is not an object, much as you and TV advertising geared toward your putty-like mind would like to suggest.
Sexuality has no power over you except in your own mind and your own attitudes, conduct, and desires. It is you who are unable to stand up to your own mind, and therefore you feel powerless, but this is not due to any external person, place or thing.
Your mind is therefore revealed as the source of your own power or powerlessness.
on August 13th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Wes, you have just made me glad my TV is broken.
on August 13th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Alimony isn’t called for where both partners are able-bodied, gainfully employed, and pulling their weight, but even today, a lot of marrriages aren’t like that. Consider the following, fairly common scenarios:
A. Husband insists on “traditional” marriage and wife gives up her career, becoming Betty Crocker/June Cleaver for a couple of decades. Then the husband has a midlife crisis and has to “find himself”.
B. Husband is in a professional school and insists his wife drop everything to “put him through” with the implicit promse that once he graduates, things will get much better. They do-for him. Then he ditches his drab, workhorse lttle wifey for a shiny, upscale model.
I realize the shoe can be on the other foot, but still, not so much.
on August 13th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Aadila — I think you may wish to consider your own use of stereotypes (e.g., missiles, flag poles as phallic symbols, performance anxiety and all of that). I remember how some early psychiatrists attempted to show that, when given blocks, girls would build tunnels and other structures that were low and had entrances, while little boys built skyscrapers, and this showed how children were inherently aware of their gender; except that further scrutiny of their “studies” revealed that little girls also built skyscrapers and little boys also built tunnels.
And how are missiles and flag poles supposed to shaped? The “snowball” bomb delivery system would have a limited distance and/or take a lot more energy to fuel (although you could bury a rock in the middle of it along with a bomb for good measure, I suppose). As for the flag pole — the idea is to place the flag somewhere where people can see it above the ground or above a building. Again, one could have a flag mound, but this might defeat the purpose.
I don’t mean to pick on you or attack you, but also you make pronouncements about the non-judgmental nature of your religion, you appear to “diss” the concept of people who, because they are disgusted or overwhelmed by social, political, and economic systems, have withdrawn from them. Withdrawing is a valid option — and I would also suggest that many thoughtful people do so (in one way or another) for a time, while they decide how they can either work to fix the injustices they see (through overt activism or through thoughtful commentary) or how they can find a way to live within the society so that they are not violating their own deeply held values.
As for Wes’s mention of the V commercial — did you not see that he was offering an “olive branch” and/or trying to continue positive engagement with you? I realize that one of the problems with Internet postings is that they may “cross in the mail,” which makes a good dialogue difficult, but this gentleman is attempting to engage with all of us, and I, for one, have found some of his ideas–and his openness to the ideas of others–to indicate that he is a thoughtful man. I don’t agree with some of his comments on female sexual aggression or alimony, but I recognize an honest attempt to share ideas when I see them.
Again, I don’t mean to slam you, but please don’t talk about being enlightened (or acting enlightened) and then cavalierly knock down others.
THis is one thing I hate about the Internet — it is very easy for a statement or the intent behind it to be misinterpretted. I prefer to err on the side of cutting people some slack (although I haven’t exactly done so in this post — sorry).
on August 13th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
CoralSea you could be right!
on August 13th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Oh, Great — I have now apparently double posted. Sorry.
Erika, thanks for the information on sex crimes and reporting. Also, I am in total agreement with you in regard to the economic issues, and the affect they are having on all of us — men and women. I also agree with your statements about how those at the top are pulling strings to cause discord among the peasants (us), so we will fight with each other rather than work together to demand real equality for all. This is a message that needs to be screamed from the rooftops, because there are still many, many people who don’t understand this and will foolishly vote for Romney because they have been told that Obama is a socialist, secret muslim, etc. so many times that many of them believe it.
Joseph and Reynardine — I think you have done a great job in presenting the all-too-common (still!) scenarios whereby women end up in marriages where they are, if not physically abused, certainly psychologically and financially abused. I know that many of us (meaning feminists and feminist-leaning people — which actually includes a lot of the men’s rights folks, even if they don’t know it, because feminism is seeking equality–including equal responsibility of women) hoped that, after large numbers of women re-entered the workforce in the 1970s and early 1980s, that the awful incidence of “displaced housewives” — women who had spent a decade or often numerous decades as stay-at-home moms and wives (often after putting hubby through school — you are right about that, Reynardine), and then, due to divorce or the death of their spouse, was thrown into the job market with no skills — was on the way out. Sadly, young women are still falling into this trap. They marry someone who, they find, is overly controlling (Joseph’s little sister is in this situation), and all of a sudden, their ability to function as reasonably autonomous adults is seriously hampered.
Wes — I believe that the scenarios that Joseph and Reynardine spelled out tend to be ones that affect women far more than men, although there are exceptions. None of it is good — for the women and kids, definitely, and at least from the point of view of mental health, it isn’t good for the men, either.
Society is complex, and the complexity includes, but goes far beyond, gender issues.
on August 13th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Wes,
Do you believe the vagina is an object which, independent of the human mind, is responsible for men fighting and killing each other?
on August 13th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Well, Aadila, what do *you* think all those diamond-shaped kites represent?
on August 13th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
I dunno, manta rays?
Besides, we were talking about men waging war, and what would happen if women were in political authority. It wasn’t me who started it. I only mention those oblong, cylindrical war symbols as just that…symbols of the masculine war mind.
After all, the radar dish for example was just as useful in war time, but it’s not like the radar dish is a symbol of military prowess. We’d have to check with Ruslan to see if they brought those out with the missiles and tanks on May Day, but I think not.
What about bikinis being called bikinis because of the islands where the nuclear bomb was tested. And uh, Big Bertha…how do you explain that if not in Freudian terms? The deeper you go, you see, the more slippery it is to really pin it down.
To be fair, I suppose the reflecting pool on the national mall is a yonic symbol, but even that was clearly designed to reflect and magnify the great white phallus. I thought I would just point that out.
Oops there I go again.
on August 13th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Aadila:
I believe as men we have been programmed by
society to compete for it at all costs.Whether it is
worth the competition is open to debate. If we want
to make any real progress as human beings we have
to discard a lot of the old notions that have held both
men and women back. The whole “us vs them” mentality
is self defeating. What we should be concerned with is
the system that puts us at odds. This goes for gender,
race or religion as well. As for the commercial I just
thought it was funny how straight-faced it was.
on August 14th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Wes, your last entry was well-spoken, and if that is what they have on TV these days, good thing mine zonked out. (Miss it, though).
on August 14th, 2012 at 9:44 am
Wes — Thanks for the post. I agree with you 100% — especially the way people (and particularly men) have been programmed to “compete” in such a manner that they (and women, too) rarely take the time to consider just what the heck we are all competing for. More people need to start asking such questions. This isn’t a matter of laziness, it’s a matter of meaning and inquiry into what it means to be human.
There are a lot of stupid expectations of people. I know that as a female, there are all of the “appearance” oriented expectations. Also, there are expectations about getting married and having kids, never mind whether the marriage was hasty and blows up. People are still wrapped up in the fantasy of marriage. And then, most women are in something of a bind. They have to work, because one paycheck rarely cuts it anymore, but in doing so they risk disapproval for not putting in sufficient “mom” time with the kids.
Although I grew up at a time when girls couldn’t be in little league (we had some lame girls’ softball, where you could only run one base per hit so you wouldn’t get “worn out’) or compete in soapbox derbies (something I desperately wanted to do), a decade later, such options–and more–opened up for girls.
Boys, however, still tend to be shoe-horned into the “boy” role as athletes and math whizzes. At this point, I think boys are a lot more constrained in what they can do that is appropriately “boy” than girls are — at least in the majority of households. Men are also subject to rather brutal expectations, particularly surrounding work, that women typically are not. The artistic man, who prefers to put his efforts into endeavors that don’t involve earning mega-bucks, is still frequently viewed as “not very manly” (Not by me, though, or my friends, both male and female, most of whom have an artistic and whimsical bent). Women had a lot more latitude to live lives that aren’t dominated by careers or money — or we CAN pursue those things now.
Stay strong, Wes. And live your life your way. It is, after all, your life. Good luck to you!
on August 14th, 2012 at 10:59 am
“I believe as men we have been programmed by
society to compete for it at all costs.”
Wes out of respect for CoralSea I am trying to be reasonable with you. But when you start talking about an “it”, it is pretty clear you are objectifying women.
I don’t think you are being at all gentlemanly to refer to women in terms that are grossly dehumanizing and reduce femininity to an object for your sexual gratification. I suspect you spend a lot more time with a fleshlight then you are letting on here…an “it” is something you own or have, not a human being. This is the same type of attitude as “she was asking to be raped because of her clothing.” It’s a total cop out on responsible behavior.
Anyway, that was my whole point to begin with: you are attributing male behavior to some kind of external “object” that you think of with regard to women. That is a very telling attitude in my opinion. No matter what you desire, whether it be closeness, approval, or simple gratification, all of these desires and attitudes reside exclusively in your mind.
on August 14th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
aadila — I took Wes’s “it” to mean the amorphous concept of “success.” I made this assumption based on some of his other posts, where he talked about dropping out of the whole competition in the corporate milieu thing.
If I interpretted him correctly, I don’t think the “it” was an object, but the concept that one has to live up to a very plastic and often abusive and materialistic ideal that does more to enrich others than to feed the soul or help one live a meaningful life.
Objectifying women is a nasty thing — I agree with you completely there. And this trend seems to be on the upswing just now among some on the Right. However, I don’t think that was Wes’s intent.
on August 14th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Aadila:
Sorry you took it the wrong way. As for objectifying
that goes both ways. What about women who only see
men as status/success objects to fulfill their needs? No
one is blameless here. Real equality begins by recog-
nizing we are all flawed and far from perfect. You may not
agree with what I have to say but the personal comments
are an example of what some feminists use to shut down
honest debate.
on August 15th, 2012 at 9:26 am
Well Wes, I will reply:
If men had not been trying to own women for virtually the entire history of our planet (with a few notable exceptions of matriarchal societies, particularly among the indigenous of the Americas), perhaps there would be no need for women to see men as status/success objects.
You are not considering the effect of male supremacy, as de facto political authority in almost every culture and every society through time. Women may naturally have adapted to this in order to self-actualize, but if you look at the root cause, it is clear that male domination and efforts to treat women as sexual objects has led to the kind of phenomenon you describe.
More than half of divorces are filed by women. What does that tell you about how the world is changing, Wes? Do you see this status/success seeking view about men you attribute to women getting stronger or weaker? What about how women are objectified? Is this getting stronger or weaker? Look deeper into these questions and you may see that trying to equate oppressor with oppressed is generally bad logic.
Do not think that because I forcefully and willfully oppose your antiquated views that I am shutting down the debate. I merely expose the weakness of your argument and you don’t like it.
on August 15th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Joseph:
On several occasions you have asked why a men’s
rights movement is needed. On a recent Virgin Airlines
flight a 33-year old firefighter from Sydney Australia was
asked to change his seat because he was sitting next to two unaccompanied children. When he asked why he was told it was policy “for the safety of the children”. For no other
reason than he was a man he was automatically assumed
to be a predator and dangerous. Don’t think for a moment
this can’t happen to you. It is a clear case of guilty till
proven innocent.
on August 16th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Wes, silly example. Policies and laws related to day care require there to never leave a child alone with an adult – they require two adults to be present – the caregivers in those situations are generally women. There is more than just sexual abuse of children people have to worry about
It has nothing to do with him being a male,
Its also a silly example because a common carrier like an airline does not conduct background checks of the passengers. All they know about him is that he paid the fare to ride. I’m guessing it was an international flight, so I guess they know he also has a passport.
on August 16th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Wes,
Have you ever sat next to small children on a long haul flight (speaking as a parent myself)? The first thing most people think when small kids get on board is, oh God, this is going to be a long flight. That fellow ought to have thanked the airline.
Is that really the best you can come up with to defend your he-man woman-haters club?
on August 16th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Okay so I see a news story this morning regarding a women’s t-shirt which Nike is saying in connection with the Olympics which says “Gold Digging” – really???
But I’m kind of confused over whether to be more appalled at Nike for selling such t-shirts or at the fact that there are actually women who have so little self worth as to actually wear them. I’m also confused over the fact that I look at the shirt and think what a perfect gag gift that could make.
I also wonder whether someone who would totally buy and wear bikinis with radiation symbol patterns, mushroom clouds, atomic bombs, or the slogan “Find Radiant Joy in Peach Bottom” should be commenting upon other people’s tastes.
on August 16th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I can’t go into the kids’ sectiion of the library without being conducted thither by a kid any more, and neither can any other adult, male or female, who is not a library employee. There has been trouble of this kind for ages (look up William Hickman/Marion Parker, somethiing which will also give you a stark view of Ayn Rand’s philosophical roots) but people are far more aware of the possibilities.
on August 16th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Erika I am quite sure those guys can think of nothing else but your “Find Radiant Joy in Peach Bottom” bikini, but maybe the “Gold Digging” tee-shirt is a helpful warning label to the MRM folks who seek full disclosure of feminine wiles.
on August 16th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Aadila:
Believe it or not I don’t hate anyone. As I said before
I hate the same system you are railing against that chews
up and spits out men every day. But blaming all your
problems on “the patriarchy” is a cop-out. Women can
lie, cheat, kill and abuse their children as easily as men
but get a free pass from society because they are women
or “it was a man’s fault”. Whether it’s gender, race or
religion people always have ready made excuses to
justify their own bad behavior.
on August 16th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Sorry Wes, but the default and indeed only position of the male supremacists of the men’s rights movement is that it is always a woman’s fault and that somehow women actually control everything.
It is essentially the same position of the white supremacists who argue that nobody has it worse than white people. And its just as ludicrous. You just want to go back to the bad old days where men controlled everything and women were legally property of their husbands.
BTW, substantial research has shown that women who abuse or kill children are punished much worse on average than comparable men.
on August 16th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Aadilla, you make a good point – since the male supremacists believe that all women are gold diggers it is quite possible that some women may wear the “Gold Digging” shirts because they find them funny or to make fun of the male supremacists perception of women.
Of course, I still say that Nike is horribly sexist unless they come out with men’s shorts which have “Extra Small” written across the front
on August 16th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
“But blaming all your problems on “the patriarchy” is a cop-out.”
Wes,
Were I blaming all my problems on the patriarchy, I would most certainly have to agree with you, you little darling you. However, I blame all my problems on myself. Is that also a cop-out?
You asked me:
“What about women who only see men as status/success objects to fulfill their needs? ”
Ok, fair question. There may well be such women. So I responded:
“You are not considering the effect of male supremacy, as de facto political authority in almost every culture and every society through time… [I]t is clear that male domination and efforts to treat women as sexual objects has led to the kind of phenomenon you describe.”
So, my dear, I was not blaming all my problems on the patriarchy. I was illustrating how the patriarchal system has been one of the principal causes of your complaint. Would you care to respond to that?
on August 16th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
As if on cue regarding the sensationalization of the news in regard to stories involving sex between female teachers and male high school students this appears:
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc.....ories.html
Is this 300? :)
on August 17th, 2012 at 9:45 am
Erika: If you have really read any of my posts you would
know I am against control in any form. As a Libertarian I
have no desire to be anyone’s “property” nor do I want to
make anyone mine. I never said women control everything.
It is the Alpha politicians (men and women) that are the
problem.
Aadila: The patriarchy you mention has also caused more
men to die from war, heart attacks or suicides than women.
Only a small number of men benefited. Next time you see
a homeless man ask him how he is enjoying his position
of dominance.
on August 17th, 2012 at 9:47 am
Erika,
Your sunny radiance inspires me to begin marketing the “Unreliable Appendage” slogan for tee-shirts, swim trunks, briefs, boxers, and bowties.
Remember one of the great lessons from the 90s: epithet reclamation. In hip hop we saw the term “nigga” being taken back from a slur into a term of endearment. The same can be done with “fag” “bitch” “dyke” and “queer”, none of which have any meaning unless we accept the phrase as taboo.
By stealing the label and using it to further progressive social change, we erase the sting of hate speech and leave bigots without one of the primary tools of oppression which is the slur. .
on August 17th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Wes,
Since I have a lot of contact with the homeless that shan’t be a difficult request. Will you be willing to ask a homeless woman with children how she is faring compared to the homeless man without?
Your comment about war neglects to mention that women have suffered rapes routinely in war besides death, heart attacks, and suicides. So again, it seems, your argument goes limp.
You can take any individual here or there in society and and find an anomaly in any statistic. So let’s look at the more consistent record of large groups of people over large periods of time? The argument is still on the side of male advantage vis-a-vis gender difference in social and political relations, power structures, and mores. This is why the mens rights movement is silly.
on August 17th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Aadila, I think that you have a good business idea there
I’m don’t really remember the epitets thing though – by the time I was old enough to know what epitets are, that trend (and most of the 1990s) were past :)
Wes, the fact is that the male supremacists of the men’s rights movement do repeatedly claim that women control everything – especially the legal system. Really, its that society no longer tolerates domestic violence and child abuse. Okay, society does still somewhat tolerate child abuse a few states which still allow corporal punishment in schools and almost all states have laws protects parents who engage in corporal punishment of children. But even there attitutes are changing. The men’s rights bozos do not like that sort of thing
on August 17th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Aadila: Under “argument going limp” please do a web
search on “Feminist Shaming Tactics.” You might also
look up Men Going Their Own Way or MGTOW. Many of
us have come to the conclusion that marriage is a losing
proposition from the start. Family courts regularly rule in
favor of women on custody and alimony, so from a risk/
reward viewpoint it makes no sense. Would you agree
this is a good thing since they are not “posessing”
anyone besides themselves? Women would be free of
the evil men.
on August 17th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Wes, you don’t have to worry about custody and alimony issues if you get married for love and stay married :P
the men who run into trouble in family courts tend to be men who behave very badly – they commit acts of domestic violence, they abuse their children physically and sexually, they sleep around, they trade in their wife for a younger model, etc. The real and only purpose of the male supremacists of the men’s rights movement is to give those men a free pass.
Thinking its anything else is delusional.
But thank you for making the mature decision to not get married. I just hope you are have made the also mature to refrain from engaging in sexual intercourse and do not expect to be able to be able to play around with no risk which is ultimately what the male supremacists really want.
on August 18th, 2012 at 6:55 am
Who said men are evil, Wes? You are using false attribution, i.e. making a logical mistake. No one on this thread said men are evil or that women want or need to be “free” of men because they are evil.
As I stated before, court settlements take into account the disparity in wages and ability to earn a livelihood and while the system cannot be perfect it strives to make the best possible decisions in each case. Were women and men getting paid equally and having the same opportunity to occupy positions of responsibility equally in the workforce it would go a long way toward leveling out court rulings on a gender basis. In fact, as I mentioned, this is already happening.
In terms of custody courts frequently make use of amicus briefs, i.e. friend of the court findings from psychological and child welfare experts. While not impossible for these views to be informed by stereotypes or antiquated notions that males are less able to care for children than females, they are also experts in their fields and for want of a better system that is what we have.
I am no great believer in “marriage” per se, so perhaps we agree on that. I think the focus on the legal institution (or as is most likely, the religious view on the institution) does a great disservice to humanity because the basis for a stable and loving relationship has nothing to do with the legal status of being married. It has to do with putting the other person’s needs on a level with our own. Some couples who do this never marry and stay together over a lifetime. Other couples who don’t marry and hate each other a short while later. The me-first mindset you seem to be arguing from is part of the latter category.
So I think if we want to discuss the problems with the institution of marriage I would want to go deeper than what happens AFTER the marriage falls apart. I would want to know why marriages are falling apart and I think a lot of it has to do with this “going one’s own way” idea of selfish individualism. Not only on the part of men, by the way, but both men and women who in the most recent generations seem to think very highly of themselves, their own wants and needs, without due consideration to their social obligations in order to make society function as a whole.
Perhaps life has gotten so easy that people like you are drifting into a kind of bovine complacency with the challenges of life. You have food, clothing, and shelter, but lack the ability to face challenges or make sacrifices for the betterment of yourself and your species. So have another potato chip, Wes.
My view is your apathy and individualism will simply make things worse for society over time. Eventually when everybody goes their own way the ability to work together toward common goals becomes impossible. Thus we have a society of selfish, petulant people wanking to porn by themselves and complaining about other people, but not actually having the moral fiber to propose a better system or come up with solutions.
on August 18th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Smart people take CALCULATED risks. This means not
sleeping around to where you catch a disease, not
drinking yourself stupid, and not getting in a relationship
without weighing the pros and cons. Individualism is not a
dirty word since any society is made up of individuals.
“Marrying for love and staying married” is a nice fantasy
that we have all been taught to buy into since we were kids
despite all evidence to the contrary. If you want a better
system maybe it’s time to ask the hard question is
marriage really necessary? “Without due consideration of
their social obligations” sounds like Socialism to me.
on August 20th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Wes,
First you are right about calculated risks. It is very healthy to have respect for our physical universe and to be very discerning in all things.
Second, regarding individuals. You may like to think you are independent from society, but you are far more dependent on the universe than you like to think. The quality of your very food, water, and air depends on how many individuals recognize we are in this together.
Individualism is not a dirty word, but the belief that you are an individual and distinct from society ignores that you received help and assistance from other individuals your entire life, even if you don’t want to recognize it or feel it wasn’t enough. The origination of all things depends on other things.
Regarding marriage, I don’t think it’s necessary at all. I thought I made that comment before. I think what is necessary is to be responsible, loving, and generous in our relationships with others.
And yes, I tend to consider socialism positively.
on August 20th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I never said I was independent of society, just certain
aspects of it like marriage and the current two-party
system that is just opposite sides of the same Socialist
coin. The problem I have with Socialism is that it depends
on the intentions of whoever is running the system. I prefer
enlightened self-interest. If you can’t appeal to someone’s
altruism then show them how they can benefit. The carrot
usually works better than the stick. I give blood on a
regular basis not because anyone made me but it’s
something I can contribute. I’m not rich so I can’t donate
much in the way of money. We all do what we can.
on August 22nd, 2012 at 7:32 am
Giving blood is a generous and noble act, Wes.
on August 23rd, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I can’t believe the outpouring of hatred towards men’s rights activists on this page.
The statements below are vastly unfair and unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, but this is a very effective use of dehumanization of people who hold a different point of view. The sad fact is, already we have one woman responding to the hate speak and agreeing with another based on nothing but hateful conjecture.
I really hope there are at least some people on this thread who can see through this, it seems that Men’s Rights Activists have become like Jews in Nazi Germany, and this hateful and disrespectful talk is reminiscent of how Jews were spoken about back then.
“These guys have monumental chips on their shoulders, and they are obviously full of hate toward anyone they believe gets in the way of what they want to do — which is why SPLC includes them as a hate group. And I agree with Erika that these toads would probably trample everyone else into the ground to get away if they found themselves in this situation.”
on August 23rd, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Erika said: “you don’t have to worry about custody and alimony issues if you get married for love and stay married”
Actually yes you do. A woman can decide to leave a man for another man and make a nice profit from it.
If a man does the same thing he will be poorer for it.
Equality? Or are women “more equal” than men in at least some cases?
on August 23rd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Erika said “given the general quality of men in the men’s rights movement, I suspect that most of them would have trampled several children, knocked over a couple of people in wheelchairs, and strangled their own grandma to get out. In the unlikely event they actually had a wife or girlfriend they likely would have used her as a human shield to save themselves”
Wow, what unfounded hate speech; but unsurprisingly a lot of people have just bought into this.
Erika, your statements are no better than someone saying that all feminists are ugly hair lesbian man haters who would sooner shoot a man than look at him.
You are no better, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your sexist and unsubstantiated hate-mongering of a group of people who happen to hold different views to your own.
To all the people who bought what Erika said, I implore you to use your critical thinking instead of succumbing to the emotion invoked in her comments.
Remember that Hitler used similar words and imagery to stir hatred of Jews.
on August 24th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Mark you may have a point about the tone of some of the comments here, but only in isolation. I think if you look at the entire thread things become clearer.
To recap:
1) Wages and selected opportunities remain in the favor of men, over women, so it would not be unreasonable to see the reverse of this when assets are divided and support payments are settled.
2) Not all states do things the same way.
3) Increasingly, with more women pursuing higher paid careers than their husbands, women are required to pay spousal support to their husbands.
4) Hitler never had the fashion sense to totally wear a Find Radiant Joy in Peach Bottom bikini either, so let’s not get carried away.
on August 24th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Mark, so now you’re comparing Erika to Adolf Hitler?
Get off of this site. Just go.
And take your horrid Godwinian posts with you, vile troll.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
on August 24th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Mark, by the way I was referring to my own comments, not Erika’s. She’s a dear.
You on the other hand are just a bully.
on August 24th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Mark, thanks to your highly convincing posts I have like totally rethought my position on the male supremacists. I obviously was given you male supremacist losers too much credit.
Before, I merely thought that it was likely you male supremacists would trample over others to escape. After reading your posts I now know for certain that you would – and would pick up a small child to use as a shield. And then when you escaped the carnage – pausing the toss the child back into the theatre, you would barricade the door behind you so that nobody else (especially a woman or a child) can escape.
Thanks for opening my eyes :P
on August 26th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
If Feminism was simply about equality I wouldn’t have a
problem with it. What I don’t like is their view that EVERY
man is a potential rapist, wife beater or child molester. That
we need to be constantly monitored or drugged as children
to keep us safe and under control. Just like Socialism it
assumes the “enlighted few” know what is best for every-
one else. Would anyone out there be willing to admit to
this or change their views? This is why many men are
choosing to go their own way. Not because we want to
control anyone but we are simply tired of constantly
defending ourselves. It is not worth the effort anymore.
on August 26th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Mark, it never ceases to amuse me that when extremists of any type are backed into a corner, they whip out the “Hitler zombie,” and try to score points by comparing their debate opponent to Adolf.
And I find it hilarious that “Men’s Rights Activists” portray themselves as Jews in Nazi Germany. That’s even worse than playing the “Hitler Zombie” card.
Only someone with a penknife to grind and very little understanding of history could make such silly remarks.
on August 27th, 2012 at 9:17 am
Wes,
How strange. Do you also have a problem with the view that every woman may be a useful sexual object for male pleasure, but are always a potential mantrap, alimony, and child support vacuum?
By the way where did you get “socialism is the enlightened few” idea? That’s an oligarchy you are describing, with generally capitalist, elitist views thrown in. Socialism has nothing to do with that. Socialism means workers owning the means of production, instead of being wage slaves to plutocrats.
It is for the enlightened many, not the enlightened few.
on August 27th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Our world is a corporate plantation and men are it’s primary
slaves. We have been programmed since birth to be a
slave to a wife, children and mortgage. Marriage is a contract
between a man, woman and the State. Men have no logical
reason to marry and do not “owe” women or the State
anything. Only ultra-religious, rural folk or immigrants
stay married. As far as Socialism, look at Russia or
China. Even in these “workers paradises” there was
always an upper class who lived in luxury. We don’t have
real Capitalism, just Mercantilism that is supported by a
corrupt Senate and Congress.
on August 28th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Wes I think you need to find a girlfriend.
I just hope after all this enlightening discussion you will be man enough to go the feminine products aisle when called on to do so.
on August 28th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Aadila:
I noticed you didn’t address my comments about
Socialism. I really thought we were having an honest
discussion about issues. If I were “man enough” by your
standards I would be a spineless mangina with no life or
free will of my own. Freedom is saying NO to marriage,
cohabitation and kids. Real men don’t let their parents,
girlfriends or society dictate their lives. Don’t you have
anything better than Feminist shaming tactics?
on August 28th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
You are entitled to your opinion about socialism, Wes. It is not as if it was anything original. Socialism is when workers own the means of production, not some antiquated middle-America view on the red scare.
Now then, onto more important matters. I don’t quite see how it is a feminist shaming tactic to encourage you to have the decency to help your girlfriend when she forgets something at the store. So, go on. Do what you are called upon to do. Real men can make a purchase at the grocery store without shame.
on August 28th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
In a truly Capitalist system you would be able to open
and run your own business without government interference
or handouts. There are left-wing Socialists like Hitler, Obama,
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed and Hugo Chavez. The right-wing
ones include Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter,
Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. They are just opposite sides
of the same coin that views you and everyone besides them
as a resource to be used and managed for their own ends.
It’s not just about who owns the means of production. Why
are men always judged by what they can do for women?
Is that our only purpose?
on August 29th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Wes, your ignorance is coming through loud and clear. Hitler was neither a socialist nor left wing – he was a fascist. Fascism is a right wing political ideology based upon the corporate style of government and private property. Hitler was backed and received financial by the largest industrialists in Germany – and many in the U.S. such as Henry Ford. The Nazis during World War II even scrupiously kept payments made to American companies such as Ford, GM, IBM, and many others who supplied the Nazi war machine with materials in separate accounts to be paid after World War II. That is how in favor they were of private property.
Of course, you are about as ignorant about male-female interactions as you are about history.
It doesn’t cost you anything to love, but you have to love yourself first.
on August 29th, 2012 at 8:49 am
Wes, I think you need to decide if all that is more important than kissing a girl. It will make things a lot simpler for you.
on August 29th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
I forgot to mention one of the biggest Socialists of all:
Woodrow Wilson who was also a pious hypocrite who
promised not to send Americans to war then broke that
promise as quickly as he could. His protege FDR did
exactly the same. And every President since then has
repeated the same mistake over and over. By the way,
I like myself just fine and believe it or not I like women too.
I have just learned to filter the toxic ones out of my life.
Just like there are men women should avoid at all costs
there are women men should steer clear of. Why put up
with BS if you don’t have to?
on August 30th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Dear God! Mr. Goldwag, if you consider Manboobz a “source,” you may as well pack up and go home. Your credibility is non-existent. SPLC is a joke. I bought Mr. Dees’ book a couple of decades ago; I want a refund.
Shame.
on November 24th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
I think they are just angry that sacrificing his life is the best thing a man can do with it.
on February 6th, 2013 at 9:58 am
all this is written by a man that takes money from radical feminist hub, and is to cowardly to make replies when I have challenged him directly.
on May 26th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Why should men sacrifice their lives to save the lives of people who don’t give one sh_t about their well being. Are women entitled to life more than men?