Tweet This
Facebook This
Stumble This
Email ThisAugust 11, 2009: Equality, January-February 2009
Why feminists need to take the “men’s rights” movement seriously
Many ‘men’s rights’ arguments are thinly veiled misogyny. But not all.
Feminists need to listen to the "men's rights" movement.
It’s hard to listen to someone who compares feminism to “the historical rise of Nazism in Germany,” a phrase once written by prominent men’s rights activist David Shackleton. But while the men’s rights movement does have more than its share of extremists, that doesn’t mean feminists should dismiss the whole cause.
I believe that some moderate activists have made some sensible points and that we feminists ought to engage with our detractors if they’re willing to engage—reasonably—with us. Comparing their arguments with our own ensures that feminism remains relevant to our time and place.
One such argument is the concept of equal parenting: the idea, advocated by many men’s activists, that both parents should be equally involved in their children’s lives postseparation. Some feminist critics find it a dubious concept. Pamela Cross of the Ontario Women’s Justice Network has pointed out that equal parenting doesn’t account for domestic violence issues and is often accompanied by questionable ideology. Still, changes in family structure—and skepticism about the women-as-nurturers assumption—make the issue worth considering. “You’ve got women who I’m sure would love to have the opportunity and the freedom to enter into the workforce on a full-time basis, who are being saddled with full [custody] … It should be a joint responsibility, as well as a joint right,” says Kris Titus, national coordinator of Fathers 4 Justice Canada.
Another popular cry in the men’s rights movement is that domestic violence affects women and men equally. A 2005 Statistics Canada survey did find that 653,000 women and 546,000 men had been subjected to spousal violence over the past five years. Feminists have since questioned the study’s methodology and critiqued its numbers as deceptive (women are more than twice as likely to suffer an injury or be the target of frequent attacks, and far more likely to be murdered). But while flawed, the study does highlight that men can be victims, as well as knock down the stereotype that women are never aggressors. With some 90 per cent of shelters refusing to admit men, it’s clear the issue warrants serious consideration.
Undoubtedly, misogyny (or pure bitterness) motivates much of men’s activism, but beneath the often ludicrous rhetoric are some legitimate issues that we feminists shouldn’t be wary of addressing. The trick is to figure out where fanaticism stops and the real arguments begin.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:19 pm
(this will take a few posts)
I am an MRA and while this article does, finally, START to highlight what MRAs are about – it tap dances and misaddresses who we are.
I do not speak for all MRAs, nor claim to. But, that said I can address some of the topics.
I came to be an MRA for 2 reasons.
1) First I was a child denied his father (who was demonized by my mother) and who lost out on a lot because of that. What I lost out on would take pages to describe, but it galls me that if a girl lost out on being with her mother due to a father the empathy and understanding from women would be evident, chronicled on Lifetime, the subject of books and essays, and have laws named after her. It's not different for boys.
2) I was falsely accused of rape in college. I am not ashamed of what happened to me. Like women who went on a date with the wrong guy, my "crime" was to trust someone who betrayed me in an incredibly intimate way.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:20 pm
Now, as to MRAs – "where fanaticism stops and the real arguments begin."
Hmmm, mentioned in the article is how men are denied access to 90% of the shelters. I've heard ALL the arguments as to why this is "necessary". Most are ideological and indefensible. Even the ones that sound logical can be taken apart and easily solved if the shelter organizers WANTED it solved. In areas where men's and women's shelters have been set up, without the "Duluth Model" "male perp/female victim" ideology at the core – these problems were solved, and solved quickly.
Anyone who can ONLY find problems with setting up shelters that can take help protect both men and women or who "it's being talked about" is at best delaying for the sake of delaying (to keep the status quo) or is flat out unable to see men as victims of DV or as real human beings in need of help.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:20 pm
One quote from this article does explain some opposition to shared parenting, a serious concern for MRAs:
"Pamela Cross of the Ontario Women’s Justice Network has pointed out that equal parenting doesn’t account for domestic violence issues and is often accompanied by questionable ideology."
The fact that DV is even alleged in very few cases and yet still women get more than just a vast majority of custody cases in their favor shows how this is viewed through the lens of those in power in gender advocacy groups. Bring up shared parenting and DV is brought up immediately.
It's a valid point, in a SMALL % of cases, but not in over 90%. So, in an honest discussion let's lay out some facts and reverse some things.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:21 pm
Depending on where you live, and accounting for all factors like that, less than 1/2 of all restraining orders even ALLEGE violence. Look it up. And many, many, many of them, just coincidentally are alleged at the beginning of divorce proceedings. Now, some may say "well, genius, duh, that's why she's divorcing him". Fair enough. But, then how come when children are not involved there are less restraining orders and less often applied for during a divorce?
To many MRAs the unpunished tactic of some women to use allegations of abuse, done with impunity by some women, is pure evil. And it's an evil that no one goes to jail for, pays a fine for, and certainly is not penalized by removing the children from a person who's moral compass is so screwed up that they have no business teaching/nurturing children to grow into productive members of society that values other peoples rights.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:21 pm
Most MRAs I know got into this not because of any pre-felt misogyny, but just like women who endure abuse and become advocates, they want to stop what happened to them from happening to others. Do some of them sound angry? Sure. You betcha. And why is that hard for the "empathetic gender" to "get"? I mean, when women are angry or hurt people ask why…. not so much from most women, and especially not so from feminists in leadership/policy positions. Give THAT some thought. Either we are as as feeling, frail, scared, angry, and human as women who are mistreated, or we're not. And those that think that men are not – well, that's bigotry and dehumanization.
And if we want to have an honest discussion we need to address some basic things – men and women commit their wrongs or their violence in different ways. Men tend to be more direct in their violence, while women tend to be more indirect.
LSBeene on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:21 pm
Women who abuse isolate their men through different methods than men who abuse do. Women tend to abuse and then play the victim – assassinating the man's credibility so that if he reports the abuse he'll not only not be not believed, but possibly face punishment AS the abuser. It's pretty twisted.
We've had our talk about men and violence – now maybe with honesty and openess we can discuss equally the way women abuse, how to stop it, and how to recognize it. It's not pretty, it's uncomfortable, and it'll take introspection.
Men have been asked to do this – programs set up, education in schools and at work, prime time specials, movies – but we have yet to have the same honest discussion about women's violence, and it needs to be addressed.
In the future – it might be your son or friend who suffers through it – and is even jailed after it happens.
I hope I have added to this discussion.
L. Steven Beene II
julie whitehouse on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 4:54 am
I think it would be wonderful if feminists listened to MRAs. I too think they are speaking up about issues that are relevant and unfair.
Yet I don't think feminists can listen to MRAs when the feminist movement is based on radical assumptions of women being victims to men. No matter what negative action a woman makes, it is always a man's fault. And any move a man makes in questioning a woman is abuse.
I do consider myself a supporter of men's rights and have been for a couple of years now. I started becoming active when I listened to the men's side and I have discussed this matter with women's refuges and other women and children's services.
It's going to be an uphill battle to stop radical feminist ideology but I for one am going to continue to say something should be done. I passionately don't want our children dragged into this in primary schools.
http://tinyurl.com/mpadqt
I do hope you will keep looking at the situation. It's very sad to see the discrimination. IMO
Denis Pakkala on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 8:13 am
LSBeene, you have made some very important points. Thank you.
This article essentially admits the very real discrimination established and maintained by ideological feminists and then accuses their detractors of misogyny.
Why should anyone be surprised that men want the same equal rights as women and to be treated as lesser beings.
What feminists fail to realize is that anger is a very natural reaction to discrimination against men in Family Law and treatment for Domestic Violence.
Anger at ideological feminists who support the status quo of discriminating against men should not be confused with misogyny. I have met very few people claiming to be feminists that have any empathy for the plight of men and fathers.
BTW, feminism is a socialist theory promoted by Karl Marx, it has very little in common with Naziism.
Mike Murphy on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 1:24 pm
I would challenge your assertion that misogyny is what drives most men's activism. The corollary of that is most women's activism including feminism is misandrist. I don''t think anyone believes that. I'd like to see the study to give rise to the credence of such an assertion.
The motives behind fathers asserting equality as parents post separation and divorce are simply the passion and love of their children. It is no more complex than that. They are driven by this passion because like most they believe it is discriminatory. Did Martin Luther King hate whites to get emancipated or did he do it because discrimination is wrong? Did he take direct action to draw attention to his cause because he was a radical. I don't think so although many tried to paint him as such including the FBI.
Your 90% figure related to DV shelters is a bit low. Of the over 550 tax supported shelters in Canada I am not yet aware of one that provides similar services for men. If you are this information would be very useful and I will ensure it gets out across the country immediately. I understand there may be 2 privately funded DV shelters in Calgary for men. As a person who has suffered financial, emotional and physical abuse I can attest there are no services for men in my city.
On the whole your column takes a more reasoned approach than does the mainstream tax supported feminist movement. Their view that DV is problematic with equal parenting is fallacious and quite simply a canard. More children are killed and abused by their moms than by biological fathers as evidenced by statistical analysis in the USA and Australia. A commenter earlier discussed Canada. Women are equal or greater instigators of DV (in one study by the CDC it showed a rate of 71%) and recent studies show their injury rate is reduced if they simply arne't the first one to start beating on their partner.
These kinds of red herrings prevent reasoned discourse on the equality of genders when it comes to equal parenting for fit moms and dads after divorce. The proposed legislation has the fitness aspect built in to prevent children coming to harm and it applies to both partners.
Although your article still contains misconceptions about the motivations behind fathers and many moms and grandmoms, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters who want equal-shared parenting with co-residency it is much closer in tenor and tone to parties being able to present a case reasonably.
The other parties I've mentioned are extended family members who also want to see it so they can participate in the lives of their kin again as many dads cannot see their children at all because of gatekeeping. and alienation. (this is not gender specific as some of the small number of custodial fathers – about 7-8% in Canada – do the same thing). In fact some of the most passionate members we have are second wives who directly see the emotional impact on their male partners and are wanting to change the system.
Here's to more discussion like this.
Bob on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 8:06 pm
Feminists need to do much more than just listen to MRA folks. They need to realise that we are not looking for concessions or to discuss things in a debate about who has it worse. Equal treetment under the law, fairness in family court proceedings, equal access to health care, and reproductive rights (just to name a few items) are things that all people have a right to demand!
DenisPakkala on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 11:55 pm
Alex, I suggest that you and your feminist allies engage in intelligent debate rather than continuing your campaign of slanderering your detractors.
DenisPakkala on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 11:55 pm
Alex, I suggest that you and your feminist allies engage in intelligent debate rather than continuing your campaign of slandering your detractors.
Eric Tarkington on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 11:59 pm
The chief thing that some feminists have to worry about is men's increasing awareness that they have been the butt of cruel discrimination for their whole lives. I started campaigning in 1997/1998 for equal parenting, not men's rights, because it is in the loss of their rights to give their lives to their children that you can find the heroic motive that might move men to stop "taking it like a man" and start understanding themselves as an oppressed minority. A man won't stand up to the power of the government and the scorn of society to protect himself, but he will stand up, and struggle for decades against impossible odds and unbearable pain to protect his children from losing him, if he only understands how to do it. The ironic thing is that the early form of feminism also saw men as oppressed by gender stereotypes, and saw their liberation as indispensable to the goal of human rights and dignity for women.
There are still feminists who refuse to see freedom and the realization of human potential as a zero-sum game. This kind of feminist has nothing to fear from the equal parenting movement. This kind of feminist has lived to see his or her loved ones abused by gender bias against men, or suffered abuse personally. In fact, this kind of feminist should be looking for the opportunity to sign up with an equal parenting organization.
There is also a kind of feminist who has something to fear from the idea that men might have human rights that are violated by a power structure that often sees them as subhumans, worthless for everything but their money. That kind of feminist trades on women feeling a resentment and fear of men and boys that is totally irrational and that actually diminishes women's lives. That kind of feminist has political office, or a tax-funded job in a biased bureaucracy, or an academic position that pays for his or her political beliefs. Nobody else in society is funded for their politics in quite this way, that kind of feminist feels entitled, and that kind of feminist stands to lose an advantage, for sure.
We are never perfectly in balance. Everyone has grievances in addition to receiving the benefits of membership in society. We are almost all intrinsically good, good for our communities and good in particular for our children, who need both parents. Any movement that loses sight of this perspective runs a terrible risk of becoming oppressive.
I'm getting older, but I feel like I have looked over into the promised land, because I see men and women becoming clearly aware of the situation, and starting to react. They are saying everything better than I ever could. I hope to live long enough to see the suffering largely subside, but whether I see it or not, I do believe that we will get there some day.
Mark Bogan on Fri, 14th Aug 2009 12:07 am
The time has come for gender equality. The misandry must stop. Children have the right to be raised equally by both parents. Domestic violence must also be treated properly and fairly. It takes two to tango.
All this bias in the Courts is not5hing shy but UN-wanted wasted taxed based dollars. Fix these systems and you will see healthier communities and moneys available to address other social problems..
DenisPakkala on Thu, 13th Aug 2009 11:50 pm
The statistics on Domestic Violence show that it is nearly gender neutral with women more often the victims of severe physical violence (a small percentage) and the CDC study shows that 70% of Domestic Violence is reciprocal. There is no access (except for the shelters mentioned by Mike Murphy) for most male victims of domestic violence, while the majority of female clients at shelters have few or no physical injuries, only stories.
Considering the Family Law statistics that in over 90% of disputed custody cases, full custody is awarded to the mother and that domestic violence against women is taken very seriously, while male victims are ignored. It only seems obvious that many female perpetrators of domestic violence are using the courts to further punish their victims.
It is not in the best interest of anyone, especially children, to give full custody to abusive women with a vengeance. Ignoring male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence only perpetuates the cycle of family violence which is taught to children.
Feminism is quickly losing credibility in Canada because of the discrimination that it supports.
kathryn on Wed, 9th Sep 2009 6:54 pm
Alex, just look at the smart ass answers you get when you try to do what these pseudo activists claim they want. That being dialogue and debate. They are impossible, and a quick read of their web sites will show their true issue. They hate women. Period. I've yet to find a men's rights forum that doesn't have at least a half a dozen calls for rape, beating, or verbally abusing women. ALL women, and not just feminists. They don't want equality. They want us to go back to where we were before our feminist mothers secured our rights. So who cares if they have legitimate complaints? You have to wade through too much misguided hatred to figure out what the hell they are so hysterical about. Even then, it becomes obvious that the issues which seem valid are just a front for their weird little club. This is exactly why nobody takes them seriously.
Really Alex, you are wasting your breath.
LSBeene on Wed, 23rd Sep 2009 12:59 am
Kathryn,
I'm sure if I looked, and I have, that I could find women's sites that bash men. So, what exactly is your point? Do you have one?
Kathryn's next lie is telling:
"I've yet to find a men's rights forum that doesn't have at least a half a dozen calls for rape, beating, or verbally abusing women. ALL women, and not just feminists."
Yea, right. Tell ya what there bigot-girl – go and find me those sites and do be sure to post some links. Meanwhile, the adults are talking, k?
Kathryn's next cute comment is VERY telling:
"So who cares if they have legitimate complaints? You have to wade through too much misguided hatred to figure out what the hell they are so hysterical about."
(cont below)
LSBeene on Wed, 23rd Sep 2009 1:06 am
Ahhh, now we get to the gist of it.
The men may be angry. See, when women are angry, hurt, damaged, or treated wrongly Kathryn actually feels, …. hmm, what's that word I'm looking for? Oh, yea, EMPATHY.
She wants to know WHY they are angry. What made those women angry? How were they hurt? And, most importantly, what can be done about it.
But, see, for the bigotry-challenged among us (that would be Kathryn) since it's just men, who cares if they have legitimate concerns. Let them eat cake.
(cont below)
asd on Sun, 4th Oct 2009 12:18 pm
Yes and feminism is motivated by its fair share of man-hating feminists, of course you couldn't mention that out of your own fear towards being branded as sexist.
LSBeene on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 7:50 pm
Oh, one last critical point:
Ever notice that it is feminists (self-described no less) who deny deny deny false accusations happen, but they (like Kathryn) are the first ones to use them? She said that MRAs call for the beatings and rape of women – provides no proof, and just goes on from there.
It's not a wonder why feminists don't want false accusers punished …. they're the ones who often do it.
Steven
LSBeene on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 5:07 pm
Finally the hair flick and dismissive head bob from the bigot Kathryn:
"Even then, it becomes obvious that the issues which seem valid are just a front for their weird little club. This is exactly why nobody takes them seriously. "
Oh, their weird little club. So cute. So dismissive. Women being stripped of children – tragic. When it happens to men – Kathryn the bigot smirks, dismisses, and lies.
Isn't-that-cute. Kinda like men who dismiss women's concerns as PMS. And about as grown up.
Really Alex, it's not the MRAs who are the problem – it's the bigots like Kathryn who, while admitting that MRAs actually have a valid point, could care less about her fellow human beings known as men.
Sorry Kathryn, but the salad days of man-hating are over – and we having such fun pointing out your sexism and hatred. And you make it so EASY. Your own words are the best recruiting tool MRAs have, and prove out point to boot – NICE one genius.
Are you a "Womyn's Studies" graduate? (IOW: unqualified to hold a job other than "Cat Box Scooper")
Nothin' but love for ya, Kathryn, lol.
Steven
CLM on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:50 pm
Hey All,
There're few things that make me more sick and tired than reading a public blog (which is why I usually never look at them). The American public's (or the living dead, as I call them) lack of ability to think in more than two variables is disturbing.
First of all, what are our terms of discussion? Feminist/MRA, men/women. Nothing but reductive, dualistic binaries with no discussion about the incredibly problematic and varied usage, meaning, and identification of those terms. First of all men/ women are not groups that are easy to define in and of themselves. No one man or woman can speak for everyone, and it would be wrong to try. Often, there is more similarity between a man and a woman than between two men or two women. Even within these so-called groups, men and women have very different concerns, struggles, and experiences, and men and women often share struggles and experiences.
CLM on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:51 pm
When both men and women experience significant cons (and pros) from an issue like divorce, who is to say that it is a man's or a woman's issue? Why can we not collaborate in creating culture and policy instead of participating in infanitle vying for attention and power (we could come to our senses and realize that marraige is just kinda bullshit — for everyone)? Secondly, the terms feminist/MRA could not be more misused and misunderstood here. The stigmatizing of both these terms (thinking feminism is a monolithic man-hating fest and that MRAs is also a monolithic woman-hating fest) is commonly used as an excuse not to engage with ideas in a productive way.
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:16 am
I have met few MRAs who have read enough feminist literature to be informed (it's cheap, easy, and inevitable to take a shot at Catherine McKinnon — feminists hate her too) and few feminists who have ever tried to engage intelligently with a MRA. The truth is that both feminism and MRAs are barely definable, without identifyable unifying ideologies, theories, leaders, or organizations. In the case of feminism, while the mainstream feminist movement continues to be a conceptually liberal one with a concentration on normative legislation, a vast and growing number of people who call themselves feminists today don't even focus on women.
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:17 am
In the end, Americans end up blindly depending on sources like FOX News for their information ("I don't need to be truly educated or engage with the actual argument, because Rush will tell me, and that's all I need to know. Good old privately owned American media!") We all can think of times when we were told that feminists are man-hating, hairy legged, lesbian, nazis and times when we were told that MRAs were hick, gun-toting, misogynists, but how many honest, nuanced, informed conversations have we had that weren't just fuelled by blind anger or ignorance?
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:17 am
Are there women who hate men? Yes. Are there men who hate women? Yes. Few of these people define themselves as either feminists or MRAs. And the majority of people who define themselves as feminist or MRA don't hate either men or women. Furthermore, for every argument and issue cited by either feminists and MRAs, there are problems. Every theory you will ever read about, no matter how good, will always have problems with it and things that can be criticized about it. some more than others. That's why it's important that you did your home work in the first place, and that you've carefully reviewed all available data. To everyone, here's a thought — turn off the tv and the radio and pick up a fucking book. And not just any book, go and look up some reading syllabi at your local university
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:18 am
However, to anyone who doesn't think they're racist, misogynyst, etc., etc., I've got news for you. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has stupid, fucked up views about other groups of people. The important thing is that we strive to educate ourselves and form meaningful relationships across these barriers. Think about it numerically — there are almost seven billion people in this world. Statistically, you and I as individuals don't exist. If you aren't thinking and exploring outside your own personal experiences, you're going to have a lot of fucked up ideas about the world. Not that personal experience isn't important and shouldn't be listened to (and thank you to those people who said that anger is a healthy response to shitty treatment — however, women get the "angry woman" crap pulled on them all the time too). However, just because you get the short end of the stick, doesn't mean that most people in your "group" do too.
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:18 am
The sad and, for some, inconvenient truth is that, for literally all standards measuring quality of life (created by mainly white males that were members of the UN) men fare better than women world wide. Yes, these measures are incredibly reductive and crude, and yes, there are many, many issues they don't cover. However, this does mean that there is a great amount of empirical evidence to say that, overall, most men's standard of living is higher than women's world wide. This is not to say that men do not have a problems that are of global concern, or that they are not systematically oppressed (though some would argue that they are not — on the other hand some people think women control the world; the point is that people are fucking idiots).
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:19 am
There are many sources of privilege to consider in this matter — white privilege, socioecomonic privilge, geographic location, etc. Yes, there are spoiled suburban house wives that sit on their fat asses all day, and there are men who make less than minimum wage working in coal mines. There are also twelve years old girls working in sweat shops, and male executives that make millions by doing no work. The point is as Frank McCourt says, "It is hard to be anything in this world." Oppresses people are not all equal. Some lose more so that others can lose less. Generally women, non-heterosexuals, and people of color lose more. Once in a while, white males lose more so others can lose less. The truth is that EVERYONE loses in our current system on issues ranging from war to work, and that only a small percentage of people (the 2% of the American population that owns 98% of the country's wealth) benefit tremendously from everyone else's oppression.
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:19 am
One thing we would do well to pay attention to is that feminists and MRAs have claimed many of the same issues. For intsence, both groups complain about the limiting effects of fashion on men and women. Men are socially or otherwise punished for transgressing social norms — so are women. This, I think more than anything, highlights the need for collaboration not based on identity, but shared goals for bettering people's lives. It's not that there is any one way to look at the issue. One will experience things very differently depending on how one identifies (male/female) and people within those groups will also differ greatly. All experiences are valid. Let's start listening to each other, and trying to understand each other's pain and anger. Let's not get defensive when the data doesn't support our opinions, but engage productively, rather than simply resist ideas. Feminists, the data shows that women are just as abusive as men are, and MRAs the data shows that white middle class males are doing just fine in school.
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:21 am
Another note to ruminate on: humans are one species. We are all capable of very similar things. And most people are none too bright. One thing that has been consistent for all of human history is that people have always treated each other like shit. Lets face it — humans are nasty. We are highly judgmental of each other and lack empathy, especially when we perceive our own agendas to be threatened. Many Americans are concerned about the over-blown issue of H1N1 but couldn't care less about the multi-generational genocide of indigenous peoples that is still occurring today. Many people can't tell the difference between substantiated and fabricated information. Going back to our ridiculously drawn battle lines, I was recently on a website where MRAs were dismissing disproportionate consequences of climate change on women as feminist propaganda (again, using feminism as a buzzword is a useful way to avoid actually engaging with the argument and data). I was also just on a website where feminists were dismissing reports of wide spread sexual abuse of men (of course, they chalked it up to emasculated hicks, and did not engage with the argument or the data of the issue).
CLM on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:22 am
(last page in my book — promise)
People who don't know what they're talking about bicker over stupid shit while people are beaten in the streets, sold into slave labor, have their families torn apart, and while most of the worlds children die before the age of five from completely preventable causes. There's a lot of nasty stuff that goes on everyday, and it's not the fault of either men or feminists. We're ALL implicated in violence against others, each one of us. Whenever we throw a plastic bottle in the trash, buy a shirt from WALMART, directly assault someone, or even simply occupy a certain space, no one is guilty or innocent. Our problems are a lot more complicated, deep rooted, and fucked up than we imagine they are. And most of them are out of control. A white male soldier is ordered to commit atrocities and poor brown woman gets raped and killed. Who is the victim? The answer is: EVERYONE.
L. Steven Beene II on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:43 am
CLM,
"white privilege" huh? Yea, right.
1) Nice of you to say that no one man or woman can define people and then to grace us with your inestimable wisdom in 10 straight posts. Hypocrisy much?
2) The problem isn't really MRAs or Feminists, but rather those who would sell an agenda of victimization based on color, gender etc etc. Which from your usage of "white privilege" you seem to not only buy, but sell. Sorry, but the "hatred of the other" crap is how we got here in the first place.
L. Steven Beene II on Sat, 14th Nov 2009 3:43 am
3) While you may be "in the know" or not – todays feminist ideology was rooted in class warfare based on Communist ideas – did you know, for instance, that Betty Friedan who wrote the "Feminine Mystique" was (no, I'm not kidding) a card carrying Communist who then applied it to feminism.
4) Think I'm wrong? Ok, how about "Social Justice" and all of the others like it – ***CLASS WARFARE""".
I mean, really … are you that blind on purpose or did no one ever explain it to you.
It's like a bright but ignorant child walked into the room and wanted to spout off to all the adults.
Nice to meet you, welcome to the party, listen and learn before spouting off about "white privilege" … wow.
Indoctrinated much?
CLM on Wed, 6th Jan 2010 6:36 pm
Unfortunately for you and your "arguments," you made several assumptions that show your own ignorance. I will address your numbered points one by one.
1. Before you personally attack people expressing their freedom of speech on the internet and who are interested in engaging in an intelligent debate, I would consider exactly why you feel the need to shut down conversation. Because someone writes ten posts or a whole book does not mean that they are forcing their beliefs on you – but it is wise to actually consider what that person has to say. Simply pointing out that I wrote ten posts is a convenient way for you to not actually engage with specific arguments being made, and proves nothing. Yes, I said no one can define a human as such. Exactly why does my writing ten posts complicate this argument? If it is simply because I also espouse views that counter beliefs you yourself are invested in, furthering discussion with articulate points and questions is undoubtedly a better response than simply dismissing another person's view point, which basically says you don't have to think about anything uncomfortable for you.
CLM on Wed, 6th Jan 2010 6:55 pm
2. If you think that the only way people can express the oppression they live everyday is through victimization, you are wrong. Indeed, oppression can become a place of privilege. And people who are in typically privileged categories can be just as miserable as people in typically oppressed categories. Their misery and issues are just as important as everyone's. It is a fact that women, non-heterosexuals, and people of color typically make less money, have less representation in government, have less control over their bodily integrity, and do more work than white males. Simply because this is true does not mean that white males do not also have problems that are specific to them. The difference is that the problems white men face typically do not lead them into cycles of poverty, unpaid work, bodily monitoring and violence, and narrowed access to basic kinds of services like health care and unemployment benefits. Do some men face problems that lead to these same 'oppressed' conclusions? Yes. The numbers do not lie, however. At least, they don't lie if you know how to interpret statistics. I agree, "hatred of the other" is, partly how social problems arise, but it also arises from ignoring and dismissing the real lived experiences of many kinds of people simply to bolster yourself and bandage your own wounds. Many people of color do face racism on a daily basis and actions by the state that impede their ability to live the unmonitored and open life most white people can. Simply because you yourself have your own troubles tied to your being a white man does not mean you get shut everyone else up. It seems that you yourself are the one selling an agenda based on the victimization you feel as a presumably white male. An agenda in which only white males are worthy of attention and support.
CLM on Wed, 6th Jan 2010 7:34 pm
4) Yes. You are right. There is class warfare. And the rich won. It pains me to see a public so upset and angry over their difficult situations, but who have fallen victim to the mass media circuit that tells them that thinking about different and new ideas is the last thing they want to do. Consider that 2% of the US's richest population own 98% of its wealth. That's an even greater disparity of wealth than this country saw during the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age sparked a time of mass upheaval among US citizenry, who went on strike, staged protests, and lobbied for basic labor rights, like the weekend, minimum wage, sick leave, pensions, and the right to choose their employers. Many were killed by both private and government armies, shot dead in the streets while asking for simple respect. This movement for humanity was labeled The Red Scare and used to silence workers into acceptance of their dreary state of affairs. Before you dismiss this as the work of so-called "communists," I would consider the gains that you and your family undoubtedly owe to those who were firmer in their principles of fairness and respect than you are. Unfortunately, these people's gains have largely been undone by modern neo-cons marching backward on the line of progress. The blind labeling of people into categories that preclude their right to have their voices heard divides people along racial and gendered lines where there's only enough room for one of us. The frantic and infantile scrambling and scratching for resources at the expense of others that mens rights activists are often engaged in weakens you at every turn, and only empowers your mainly rich white male enemies. Divide and conquer is the motto of Rupert Murdock, owner of the FOX television network. I must say that it frustrates me that had you spent five minutes doing nothing more than a google search for feminism and communism, you would have come up with better information than you presented in your posts. That is a pity.
CLM on Wed, 6th Jan 2010 7:37 pm
Wow, the world sure is easy to make sense of when you refuse to think in more than two variables. Good, bad, wrong, right, capitalist, communist, men, women, better, worse. Oh, please.