Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
AlexReynard

A Gender Parable

Picture this: A schoolyard full of children, girls and boys.

They are kept in line by their principal: Genetics. The principal enforces rigid standards of gendered behavior onto the kids and has done so for longer than any of them could hope to remember. For so long, actually, it seems invisible to them. Each side is genuinely disadvantaged by these roles, but are benefited in other ways. The boys are given more freedom to play and explore, but are also ignored and mocked when they get hurt. They aren't allowed to express their emotions openly the way the girls can. The girls are catered to like princesses, but are overprotected stiflingly. They aren't allowed to do the exciting things the boys get to do. Both sides are blind to the ways they've got it good and see only the ways the other side has it better. So they bicker endlessly. They blame each other for their unhappiness. They hurt each other. Genetics allows this so long as they always follow their roles.

Into this mess comes Religion; the gym coach and sex ed teacher. He tells the boys what they want to hear. That boys are strong and girls are weak. That there is a magical god called Male Authority that everyone must worship so they'll be happy forever. That sex is gross and will give you cooties, so good boys and girls should repress their desires and never be honest about them, especially with each other. Also, that if a boy gets a stiffy from looking at a girl, it's the girl's fault for looking like a whore. Religion says his morality is so perfect that anyone who disagrees with it must be evil, and therefore has to sit on the Sinner's Bench and be shamed by everyone else.

Neither the boys or the girls need Religion, but he's so convincing because he scares them with tales of eternal punishment when they are bad and promises if they are good that angels will give them candy and ice cream after they die. The boys obey because him they like what he says, and the girls obey too so the boys won't treat them too terribly.

And to make things even more complicated, someone else arrives: Feminism, the school counselor. Feminism tells the girls what they want to hear. That they are unfairly victimized and that nothing is more important than their self-esteem. Feminism tells the boys that every part of them is dirty, violent and offensive. Feminism teaches both sides that boys, by nature of being boys, oppress girls, and that girls are entitled to take all the boys' toys and books to make things fair. Feminism says her morality is so perfect that anyone who disagrees with it must be a misogynist, and therefore has to sit in the Bigot Corner and be shamed by everyone else.

Neither the boys or the girls need Feminism, even though she's so convincing because she looks so sweet and innocent and insists that all she really wants is equality for everyone. The girls obey her because they like what she says, and the boys obey too so the girls won't treat them too terribly.

Now let's change things a bit.

Let's pretend that these boys and girls are actually fully-capable adults who've been held back so long they have no idea how to live without the school's paralyzingly divisive, tyrannical rules. If they would all wise up and ignore the gym teacher and school counselor, maybe they might actually have a chance to collectively defy the principal, to cast off the control of biology and dogma, and be free to be whoever they damn well choose to be. Like the adults we are.
Viewed: 187 times
Added: 5 years, 5 months ago
 
Beo
Beo
5 years, 5 months ago
Do you still have hope in a happy ending? I've given up and just wanna see the world burn <3
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
Oh, absolutely. Thankfully, there's two very bad children called Atheism and Men's Rights who are doing their damndest to tell the other kids that the coach and counselor are no good for them. Naturally, plenty of kids call them crazy, offensive or 'too militant', but some are listening. Atheism actually seems to be getting a solid foothold, and Men's Rights is just beginning to attract notice from the school counselor as well. Of course, she says she was on his side all along so he should just join her in her path to equality, but he doesn't buy it.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
I was with you until you invoked Men's Rights. It's just another shortsighted counterculture with the same roots.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
The MRM is different from feminism in that it has no dogmatic central idea like feminism. There's no 'Matriarchy Theory'. It's just pointing out injustices where they happen. I genuinely like that the MRM is honest enough to say what it is right in the name: 'we care about advocating for men's issues'. Whereas every feminist in the world will say their movement is about "equality". Yet their actions show clear as crystal they only care about advocating for women's issues.

Frankly, my ideal outcome of these two movements clashing is that we end up with two movements who focus on ending sexism against their gender and don't step on each others' toes in doing so. Shortsighted, maybe, but I think it takes a certain narrow focus to be able to advocate *effectively* for something.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Haha, but you just got through telling this other guy that MRM was for equality. I'm sorry, I can't see; was that you, Miss Counselor?

It's two sides of the same coin.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Which, is not me trying to antagonize or anything, I just really thought it was kinda weird to take that lateral step. I get what you're saying, and it's hauntingly true.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>Haha, but you just got through telling this other guy that MRM was for equality. I'm sorry, I can't see; was that you, Miss Counselor? It's two sides of the same coin.

Did I? I don't think I did. But it's also important to define "equality". As I've seen mentioned a lot among MRAs, there's a difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Feminists see a gender difference in certain jobs, pay, crime statistics, and think sexism. They don't control for natural variance. Equality of opportunity means everyone gets the same chance. Then whether you succeed or fuck up is up to you. That sounds far more appealing to me.

>Which, is not me trying to antagonize or anything, I just really thought it was kinda weird to take that lateral step. I get what you're saying, and it's hauntingly true.

Thanks. And no worries; I adore arguing with someone who's a worthy opponent and debates with honor. ;)
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Okay, I... I see what you're trying to say, but. There's a problem, here.

Feminism is shaped not by what a well-meaning individual may want it to be, but what the majority of the self-proclaimed decide that it is. And just like I've heard many feminists say, "Well hey, no, we're actually for equality," the reality of the membership is that it's become a platform with which to air grievances against men. I hear you saying the same thing, giving me exceptions in philosophy and all sorts of wonderful things, except I know the masses behind you don't feel that way- it's their platform to air grievances with women. You can try to make it not that, and you can want it to be something else, but in the end you're just like the well-meaning feminist- "one of the good ones," the exception that makes the rule.  
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
All that I can concede, but there's a big difference. Feminism and the MRM have a large amount of members who all bicker. The MRM, however, does not have massively-funded "charitable" and political organizations who have the ear of The Effing Entire Government. This is the real feminism I oppose, in the same way that, as an atheist, it's not the masses of Christians I hate but the small amount of politically-powerful ones whose agenda is far darker and self-serving than the average worshipper's. The average feminist would likely not approve of suppressing research proving gender symmetry in domestic violence and rape, but academic feminists and Washington feminists did that shit for decades. The average feminist wouldn't have the *ability* to, either.

This'll piss you off: http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/cdc-being-m...
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
" AlexReynard wrote:
All that I can concede, but there's a big difference. Feminism and the MRM have a large amount of members who all bicker. The MRM, however, does not have massively-funded "charitable" and political organizations who have the ear of The Effing Entire Government.


*sigh* And Feminism hasn't had an entire species' worth of development to introduce insidious, passive prejudice into the minds of proto-cultures that informed the rest of our society; Feminism only has the ear of one party, whereas the other regularly, if stupidly tries to represent men; I could honestly go on and on, but even arguing this much into it has made me ache with weariness. Why? Because both sides of that ultimately boil down to "my side has it worse." Which is worse than pointless- it just adds needless, divisive tension. As you, yourself said in your journal!
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>*sigh* And Feminism hasn't had an entire species' worth of development to introduce insidious, passive prejudice into the minds of proto-cultures that informed the rest of our society

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this.

>Feminism only has the ear of one party, whereas the other regularly, if stupidly tries to represent men

Oh really? I found this without even trying: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/governor-s... Notice the last line: default joint custody. One of the MRM's biggest issues. Republican says "Nope!"

Republicans do not support men. They support traditionalism and the wealthy. Their apparent 'war on women' is simply because they support churches more than feminism.

>I could honestly go on and on, but even arguing this much into it has made me ache with weariness. Why? Because both sides of that ultimately boil down to "my side has it worse." Which is worse than pointless- it just adds needless, divisive tension. As you, yourself said in your journal!

No, I will not accept that being divisive is 'needless'. Vigorous debate is fine, so long as it's arguing from facts and not dogma.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
" AlexReynard wrote:
Republicans do not support men. They support traditionalism and the wealthy. Their apparent 'war on women' is simply because they support churches more than feminism.


Don't you get it? That's the entire point. Republicans don't support men, not really, and Democrats don't support women- not really. They push things that don't work in their favor, just like Republicans do. This is the same stupid, misguided push that doesn't help anybody in the end. Short. Sighted. Counter. Culture.

" No, I will not accept that being divisive is 'needless'. Vigorous debate is fine, so long as it's arguing from facts and not dogma.


But you can cherry-pick facts all day to support whatever you want them to- Feminism, MRM, whatever. Facts aren't inherently some kind of beacon that will guide you to the truth if you just have enough of them; they have to be taken with serious analysis, but presented purely on their face, they're worthless.

And in this case, being divisive is not just needless, it's counterproductive. The only way to further the cause of both well-meaning feminists and MRAs is to bring everybody to the table, and convince the majority of people that what's there benefits everybody in the end. Anything else is a fool's errand.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>and Democrats don't support women- not really.

How so?

>And in this case, being divisive is not just needless, it's counterproductive. The only way to further the cause of both well-meaning feminists and MRAs is to bring everybody to the table, and convince the majority of people that what's there benefits everybody in the end. Anything else is a fool's errand.

I don't remember racial integration or acceptance of gays coming about that way. I'm pretty sure the majority would have gone on ignoring the injustices against them forever if they hadn't collectively begun screaming to get their issues heard.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
" AlexReynard wrote:
How so?


Have you noticed lately that Democrats have done virtually nothing for women? They're out of easy answers. All the big fixes have been made. Anything else breaches into unfairness or a miasma of subtlety. They can't do anything about rape, they can't make the economy work any differently than it does, they just pay lipservice and scare them to get votes, using the moronic bigots that the other side props up to scare up votes.

" I don't remember racial integration or acceptance of gays coming about that way. I'm pretty sure the majority would have gone on ignoring the injustices against them forever if they hadn't collectively begun screaming to get their issues heard.


And neither did Feminism! Which is why I'm so glad you brought that up- the parallels are exacting. There was an initial revolution that required many, loud voices in order to get it put into the public consciousness. But these were things like owning property next to white people. Women getting the right to vote. Homosexuality not being something that got you sent to a psychiatrist.

When these battles for the Big Things were over, was it the crowds of screaming people, the marches and parades and protests that convinced your average person that change was okay? No. It was Black People living next to White People. It was women working alongside men. It was gay people being out and open and not having to care. All of these things introduced normalcy, and it was this normalcy, this soft integration that sealed the deal. If not for the idea that everybody should be at the table- if the women and the men and the blacks and the gays never actually stopped screaming for a second, we'd be in a much worse spot than we are now.

And that's my point. MRM doesn't have any Big Things to win. There's no right to vote, there's no property exclusions, there's nothing legally a man can't do.So if the aim is just to drown out the Feminists and make sure nobody gets what they want, then perfect. Mission accomplished. But anything more subtle than that is going to require a much more pragmatic approach. It may make you feel good to point out injustices and argue along the line of "My side has it worse," while demonizing the 'opposition,' but it does nothing to actually further your cause. Which... again. You pointed out in your journal.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>And that's my point. MRM doesn't have any Big Things to win. There's no right to vote, there's no property exclusions, there's nothing legally a man can't do.

You have NO IDEA how ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY WRONG that is. I am fucking _livid_ with anger right now. I'll reply back later when I cool off.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
And the Principal takes hold once more, to the delight of nobody.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
So my rejecting my instinct to write a hasty, heated response and instead give myself time to cool off is somehow a victory for my genetics? I don't see it.

I moved the reply here because the thread was getting squashed to the side: https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=81981#commentid...
Cryptic
5 years, 5 months ago
The way i see it, is that the rise of the MRM is good, but for weird reasons. Feminism has devolved into a mess that does more harm than good, and covers itself its noble origins to hide this. You can't stand up for it or else you're a misogynist. And they have lobbyists in DC to push their agenda. The MRM provides an equally-stupid counter-group to the feminist party, that if we can get to rise to the same level of infamy the feminist party enjoys, the two voices will basically counter each other back out. My theory is that if we really want equality, than mono-gender promoting groups need to die off in favor of actual equality. Since we can't (metaphorically) kill off the feminist party, the next best thing is to preach equally absurd proposals for the opposite gender to force them both into a stalemate where nether side can accomplish anything anymore. They will have effectively eliminated each other.

Feminism had a purpose, and it was noble. After filling that purpose, it's devolved and twisted itself into a parody of what it was created to solve. If the MRM turns out to hopefully be as batshit crazy as the modern feminism movement is, they should cancel each other out quite nicely.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Perhaps, but where does that leave us? Two groups shouting each other down and poisoning virtually all possible discussion, so that nobody can further any worthy cause they happen to accidentally be correct about.
Cryptic
5 years, 5 months ago
Well that's the situation we're stuck in with the Democrats and Republicans already so i guess people won't mind that too much lol. We can either sit here and let them keep dumping acid into one side of the pool, or we can dump equal amounts of a base on the other and hope they cancel out. Either way we're polluting the hell out of that pool. I mean if we let them continue, it can only end badly. The other way, while also bad, at least has an outside chance of neutralizing both threats.

Of course the third possible outcome, is we end up in a never ending stalemate between both groups like we have with the political parties where neither side is interested in the country or even their own stated goals but only for pushing their own agenda and their own group's power and they fight each other to the detriment of the country for the next hundred years. But hopefully we've learned our lesson with that one? haha
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
" Norithics wrote:
Perhaps, but where does that leave us? Two groups shouting each other down and poisoning virtually all possible discussion, so that nobody can further any worthy cause they happen to accidentally be correct about.


There is no discussion if only one side is allowed to speak.

Feminism says "Women deserve equal rights and treatment to men."

Men's Rights Movement says "okay sure, but here's a lot of stuff where men aren't being treated equally to women, let's get that evened out too."

Feminism says "no because women have had to deal with inequality all throughout history, so men can't take away the inequalities in our favor, you have to accept it because we have to balance things out."

If we have to consider the whole of history, rather than looking at the here and now, then we'd have to have a total flip and live under an oppressive matriarchy for a few thousand years before things are "even." That's obviously retarded, so why do people accept even the more short-term nonsense about injustice in the other direction being acceptable?

How about we all agree that gender inequality is a bad thing, and should be fought against, in any situation, regardless of which gender is the one getting the short end of the stick?

The modern feminist movement says it wants equality but what it really wants is payback. Retribution. It's not enough for people to be realizing how wrong things were, to acknowledge and apologize and end these inequalities, no. Feminism demands to give men a taste of it. There's this notion that because women throughout history have suffered these injustices, that for it to be fair, men have to suffer some injustices too. If we just went through and slowly but surely set everything nice and even and level, that would not satisfy the bulk of the feminist movement because (like most movements for equality) it eventually reaches a point where they want more than equality, they want retribution.

So men are becoming more aware of how wrong inequality is, and saying "okay, yeah, we need to fix this," and then when they get some inequality tossed their way, they say "hey, uh, hang on, isn't this the kind of thing we're all agreeing is bad?" The general response is "look, you can't complain about this because this little thing of >you< being passed over for a job you were more qualified for because they needed to meet a quota of female employees is NOTHING compared to how many women throughout time have had to deal with that in favor of men."

To every individual who is treated unjustly or discriminated against, it is the same god damned fucking thing, and it is always equally wrong.

History is full of horrible shit, of people doing terrible things to other people. We're little by little getting better. But this notion that wrongs of the past excuse or justify wrongs in the present needs to be snuffed the fuck out. Look at Israel. How many people killing and dying because of shit done thousands of years ago? People being exiled from their homes, forced at gunpoint to pack up and leave and if they try to fight for their land, they get killed, and people say it's okay because this is only what their ancestors did to the ancestors of the people doing it to them. It's somehow supposed to be acceptable to wrong innocent people now because of wrongs committed by other people throughout history.

An extreme example, but it is the same basic point. Nothing is solved by doing wrong to someone because of other wrongs they had nothing to do with. Yes, there are INNUMERABLY more ways in which men have it more favorable than women, and those circumstances are unjust. But no matter how comparatively few the ways women are favored over men may be, each of those circumstances are every bit as unjust.

No allies are going to be won by an argument saying how terribly wrong it is if A does it to B, but it's completely dismissible if B does it to A sometimes, and B needs to just not argue with A.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
BTW, do you also believe atheism is a shortsighted counterculture with the same roots as religion? If not, why?
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Yes it is shortsighted, because while it fights against organized religion, it also is weighed down by the assertion that it can know the unknowable in the negative rather than the positive, rather than positing that it's worthless to even pay contemplation to the existence of a deific figure, as there's no way to prove it. However no, it doesn't have the same roots as religion, because that's like saying Feminism has the same roots as... the institution of society, I guess, which is not what I was arguing. MRM = Feminism is what I was saying.
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
I think on this one point, I'm going to have to agree with her.

There are those who say "science is just another religion" and "atheism is just another religion" as if the two accusations were interchangeable. Clearly, those people have no idea what the fuck their talking about, because former accusation it utter bullshit, while the later actually has some merit.

Let’s look at the first accusation.

Science is a system designed to constantly change. It does so by constantly questioning its own findings. A hypothesis is formed based on evidence. To graduate from hypothesis to theory, it must testably falsifiable. It must pass those tests, which are performed by third parties actively trying to disprove the hypothesis. Only if the hypothesis passes this test does it graduate to theory. But the theory can forever be tested again by new parties, and in new ways. Thus, in science, you can prove something with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt,—what they call a scientific law—but the shadow of a doubt will always exist. You can never prove something absolutely.

And even these so-called scientific laws can be overturned! It was once beyond a reasonable doubt that atoms were made of subatomic-particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. But the shadow of a doubt came out and bit it in the ass with the discovery that protons, neutrons, and electrons themselves are made of sub-subatomic particles, quarks.

Religion on the other hand asserts not only that something can be known beyond the shadow of a doubt, but that circular-reasoning and argument-from-authority via holy text is the means of this certitude. From there, you can state that anyone who disagrees with you is evil and should be shunned, or killed.

So religion and science can’t be more different. But what about atheism?

Atheism asserts not only that something can be known beyond the shadow of a doubt, but that ad-ignorantiam and argument-from-authority via spokespeople is the means of this certitude. From there, you can state that anyone who disagrees with you foolish and should be ignored, or isolated.

Does that sound familiar?

So what stance on the unknown would science produce? It would be something just a wee bit more complicated than agnosticism, but summed up fairly well by my character Ely Rosenburg.

“it wasn’t that God didn’t exist, but simply that God didn’t matter. The question of the existence, or lack-there-of, of God was something for which an observable answer was impossible. Ergo, the question was meaningless, and a waste of time to consider”
chaosblackwing
5 years, 5 months ago
That... is not atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god(s), not a belief in the lack of god(s). The core idea behind atheism isn't the 'there are no god(s)', but rather 'there has not been sufficient proof of the existence of god(s) for me to believe they exist', nothing more, nothing less. There are indeed those that claim that there cannot be a god/gods, but personally I consider them just as unsupported as those that claim that there is a god/gods, as both lack sufficient evidence to back up their claims.

Also, love the final quote there, that is so going in the interesting quotes file.
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
If an atheism is not the belief in lack of god, then just what the hell are my aforementioned spokespeople, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? --as opposed to someone like Paul Lutus, who I pretty much based that quote on.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
If memory serves, both of them admit that they cannot say with 100% certainty that a God does not exist, only that they have seen no evidence to suggest that one does.

Everything you said about what atheism asserts is incorrect. It is only this and nothing more: I do not believe in God. Regardless of how individual atheists may act, there is no scripture commanding them to act or not act a certain way. There is only the lack of a certain belief. No justification for anything else. Overused as it is, it's true: atheism is as much a religion as 'off' is a TV station.
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
Give me links to these admissions and I'll apologize for invoking their names.

After a Wikipedia search, I also am forced to admit that you and Chaos were partly right. There are two forms of atheism... at least in as far you can categorize a gradient, which isn't that far, but for the sake of simplicity at the expense of comprehensiveness:
Strong/Positive atheism is the belief in lack of god.
Weak/Negative atheism is the lack of belief in god.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
I can't find Sam at the moment, but here's Richard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage...
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
Then I was wrong about Richard Dawkins and I apologize accusing him of certitude.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
Apology accepted. :)
chaosblackwing
5 years, 5 months ago
Still atheists, as they don't believe in a god.

I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough, so I'll try and explain better. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god, plain and simple. If someone does not believe in a god, that makes them an atheist. Now, they can go from there to claim that there are no gods(though personally I don't think I've run across anyone who's made that claim), and still be atheists, but that has nothing to do with atheism itself, but rather is a separate claim/stance.

Something to consider, as I've watched a few vids of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is that did they claim that there can be no gods, or that the christian god as presented cannot exist? I believe I've heard Dawkins at least make the claim that the christian god as presented cannot exists(the whole 'infinite mercy' being directly opposing to 'infinitely just' being the biggest problem there), but I'm not sure if I've heard him claim that no gods can exist, which is something altogether different.
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
No, your explanation was plenty clear. You just posted that two minutes before I posted that I understood you... if that makes any sense.
chaosblackwing
5 years, 5 months ago
No worries, that's just the kinda muck ups that can happen in a delayed conversation like this.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>Yes it is shortsighted, because while it fights against organized religion, it also is weighed down by the assertion that it can know the unknowable in the negative rather than the positive, rather than positing that it's worthless to even pay contemplation to the existence of a deific figure, as there's no way to prove it.

Actually, most atheist speakers will say pretty plainly that atheism is not about disproving the existence of God, but pointing out that the burden of proof is on the religious, and that they haven't met it. You're arguing that the strawman and the real argument are in opposite places.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Speakers, sure, but remember what I said about individuals versus groups. Those speakers can't speak for the majority of their members and their intentions.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
True. But, just from personal experience, I have heard religious people accuse atheists of certitude more often than I have heard atheists saying "I know with certainty there is no God."

And regardless, it's not a 50/50 probability. An atheist who would say there is definitely no God has a much greater probability of being right, based solely on the testable evidence we have, than a believer asserting that there definitely is.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
I can't argue with that probability. I mean, that's pretty solid. I just think that it gets bogged down when it comes out, is all.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
Fair 'nuff.

A semi-related thought occurs: I've noticed a lot of people think it's sad that there's so much contentious debate over issues. Frankly, I'm kind of glad for it. A lot of yelling is at least healthier than no discussion at all. And when there's a public shouting match, it's like natural selection for ideas. The stupid ones get all snarled up in each other. The bright ones get stolen and passed around, and often refined into something even more true or concise. Not always, but often, the best ideas move into the mainstream consciousness as the default position. And I think that it's no coincidence the rise in communications options has coincided with statistics showing humanity's violence towards one another gradually decreasing. Another thing that an internet flamewar is better than: hitting someone in the face with a rock. ;)
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
If I may add...

The Principal thought he was doing the right thing. When that first class came in, he wasn't sure any of them would graduate- that they'd all drop out before they had a chance to even exist. Given a choice between existing and not, he put up stiff rules guided everything. But now, the classes that come in seem to need him less and less. In fact, to his chagrin, they don't need him anymore.

The Gym Coach believed he was doing the right thing. When he first saw those kids, they were apt to do things that were going to get themselves hurt, so he justified filling their heads with fear and fairy tales. Surely they'd at least stop being total animals. But as time went on, he couldn't relent; everybody's pretty sure he's full of shit, but half of them are so afraid to say so that they can't make any headway. He won't let go of his fairy tales, and they won't listen to anyone that says he has to. They don't need the Gym Coach anymore.

The School Counselor believed she was doing the right thing. The Girls had nobody to turn to, and no real force to tell them to ask for anything more than the heap of dirt they'd inherited. At first, her strong arm tactics were a definite win, earning the girls a foot in the door! But as time goes on, the way she frames the argument makes it impossible to talk about the real problem, which is the stifling set of rules the Principal first came up with. But she's convinced that it's a conscious effort by the boys to hang onto their piece of the playground, and with that frame of argument, the boys can't help but argue that the girls just want revenge. Her tactics make it harder, not easier, to achieve equality, because nobody can be fully, non-selectively honest. The kids don't need her anymore.

But everyone's afraid.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
Extremely well said there. Impressive you could empathize with them so well (Though not surprising; you're also Dr. Gwen after all.)

The thing is, all three are not people. They are ideas personified. WE are people, and we kind of don't have to care about how they feel.

I will accept that all three of these ideas was scaffolding at one point; something necessary for us to reach a certain point. But scaffolding gets torn down when its purpose is served. That's also part of its purpose.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
But... *creepy glass chimes* I'm not Doctor Gwen...

Haha! It's important to see things holistically, but even if they were people, we abandon old, useless gods for a reason- they serve no great purpose for us.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
"I'M NOT STU!"

Mythology's fine when you acknowledge them as mythology. If you can learn from them without taking them literally and forcing your brain into the contortions of reconciling them with reality. I love Greek and American Indian mythology stories.
sigmaweapon
5 years, 5 months ago
Well... after carefully reading and considering everything you've said, going through all reasons for and against your position, and analyzing their merits, there's really only one pressing issue that is still left unresolved.

When are you finally going to do the next 'Alex Answers Your Questions'?
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
Good point. I really should.
Relee
5 years, 5 months ago
He already did! But only the wisest men in the land can see it. Look again, I'm sure you'll see it.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
You're mean. :)
WhyteYote
5 years, 5 months ago
A lone light in the darkness, but a light all the same.
Shokuji
5 years, 5 months ago
[hugs]
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>But these were things like owning property next to white people. Women getting the right to vote. Homosexuality not being something that got you sent to a psychiatrist.

All of those are worthy causes. But one of these things is not like the other. How many blacks were lynched in public? How many gays have been beaten to death? And how many suffragettes were beaten or murdered? Not a single one that I can find, and I tried. Something to consider.

>When these battles for the Big Things were over, was it the crowds of screaming people, the marches and parades and protests that convinced your average person that change was okay?

Over is the key word there. I agree completely, but the MRM's battle hasn't even begun yet. Because most people have no idea that there's a battle there to be fought. Feminism has done everything possible to label the MRM a hate group. If the public is aware of them at all, it's the perception that they are loser neckbeard misogynists who are pissed they can't get a date and are butthurt that women aren't being subjugated anymore like the 1950s. The tactic is simple: preemptively label your opponent a bigot to keep the public from listening to their arguments.

And the proof of that is you saying this...
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>And that's my point. MRM doesn't have any Big Things to win. There's no right to vote, there's no property exclusions, there's nothing legally a man can't do.

Are these big enough issues for you?

-Men make up a majority of the homeless.
-Men commit suicide four times as often as women.
-90 percent of workplace deaths are men.
-Feminists continue to push a narrative of domestic violence featuring an abusive man and a victimized woman: the "Duluth model". Many, many studies have since shown that most domestic violence is reciprocal; both partners abuse each other. The Duluth model is actually the rarest type. Nevertheless, it's what most of our domestic violence laws are based on. Leading to Primary Aggressor laws, in which police are instructed to automatically arrest the man when called to a DV situation.
-Feminists have maintained for decades that rape is a gendered crime. It isn't. The CDC performed a massive study on sexual violence, which found a 1.1% chance of rape for both women and men. 98% of women reported a male rapist and 80% of men reported a female rapist. Yet the CDC published opposite results, because they refused to call it 'rape' when a woman forced a man to have sex.
-90% of rapes committed in prison are against male victims.
-Regardless of how often false rape accusations happen, it is far too easy for such an accusation to destroy a man's life regardless of the outcome of a trial. The media reports on such cases as if guilt is presumed.
-Male pedophiles are reviled by society to the point where they have virtually no human rights. But female pedophiles are treated far differently, with some people considering a boy 'lucky' to be molested by an adult female.
-If two teenagers are caught having sex, it's never the female who is arrested for rape.
-If a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, the man is presumed to have taken advantage of her and may be arrested for rape. The opposite does not happen.
-Women have substantially more options than men when it comes to reproductive rights. A father who does not want a woman to abort his child has no recourse. A father who wants to sever parental ties has no recourse. Men can be forced to give child support to women even if they were raped, or even if the child isn't biologically theirs. Also, if child support is not paid, men can be sent to prison (guaranteeing an inability to pay the rest). The same does not happen to deadbeat moms.
-In divorce court, mothers are given sole custody of children in a majority of cases, despite over half of men wanting some part in their child's life. Feminists have opposed on multiple occasions laws that would establish default joint custody.
-Men are still required by law to sign up for Selective Service. Women are not. Not signing up could cost a man five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
-Boys are underperforming at every level of education. Studies have shown that this vanishes when boys are not subjected by the schools to stereotypes that girls are smarter and better.
-Female genital mutilation is considered a human rights violation. Male circumcision is normalized and defended, because it's "not as bad". As if the *amount* of flesh you remove without anesthetic from a newborn baby for no defensible medical reason is the deciding factor of whether or not it's acceptable.

Most of these items are variations on a theme: When men are victims, society yawns. When women are victims, society flings open their wallets. Many of these issues, if not caused by feminism, have absolutely been exacerbated by feminism, through campaigns of misleading information. Humans in general instinctively have a stronger desire to help women in trouble, and feminism has exploited that fact to ensure that they get the largest slice of the victimhood pie possible.

The fact that you could possibly say that men have 'no big issues' is the number one reason why the MRM needs to exist.
chaosblackwing
5 years, 5 months ago
Not sure if it was intentional or not, but having theses as posts, rather than replies, will mean that Norithics will only know they've been posted if he/she checks the page again.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
No worries; I gave them a link.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Also, I just want to add that you said this:
" there's a difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity.

When referring to the aims of MRM versus Feminism.

But there's a clear bent to virtually all of those goals to affect the outcome.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
I didn't mean to give the impression that either side was chained 100% to those definitions. My point was that feminism tends to see an unequal outcome and immediately conclude sexism. There can be no other possibility, and to even suggest that there may be (like natural preference for certain jobs, or inaccurate reporting of statistics) is also proof of sexism.

For instance, I'll concede that men making up 90% of workplace accidents may be something that will never change, because men are more likely than women to value their career over their safety. What I would like to see change is for society to acknowledge this. Maybe put more effort into workplace safety enforcement.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
No. They aren't. Because it is the Men's Rights Movement, and none of these things are rights. Allow me to elucidate:

" A father who does not want a woman to abort his child has no recourse.


So does he need a right, then, to force her to have the child? Would that make it fair? Give men the right to stop women from having abortions. That's what you advocate?

" A father who wants to sever parental ties has no recourse.


Well, neither does the woman, physically, if your previous Men's Right is enacted. That's quite a right to have, to simply saddle a woman with a child that they may or may not be legally able to abort, then sever all ties with them.

" Also, if child support is not paid, men can be sent to prison (guaranteeing an inability to pay the rest). The same does not happen to deadbeat moms.


They can be, but they aren't. Those cases stack up like pancakes at a waffle house; they sit in the same pile as the untested rape kits.

" Feminists have opposed on multiple occasions laws that would establish default joint custody.


Well, I don't see why, that certainly wouldn't be overreach to demand that the court's judgement be completely overridden in favor of blindly putting children in a potentially dangerous situation.

" Men are still required by law to sign up for Selective Service. Women are not. Not signing up could cost a man five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.


We haven't had a draft since Vietnam, and from experience, I can tell you that while that is the potential penalty for not signing up for SS, it. Doesn't. Happen. Ever. It's, at its worst, something a prosecutor throws on to sweeten the fines.

" Feminists have maintained for decades that rape is a gendered crime. It isn't.


But the law does not maintain this.

In fact, in all of the rape-related points you made, it is either a) the fault of the fact that men do not report rapes due to personal stigma, or b) they are arrested, at which point they have the right to a fair trial, in which case only 63% of rape cases end in a conviction. If most rape cases go unreported, then that's hardly an institutionally-rigged chance of being convicted of rape, whether you did it or not.

Before I go off in any other direction, I want to stop this train right now with this final point: I don't believe that women have it worse than men. I don't, however, buy either that men have it worse than women. There is no way to realistically change any of the things that you have listed by giving men more rights. You cannot stop biased juries, corrupt prosecutors, sexist attitudes, suicides, homelessness, workplace deaths or any of those things by changing the law. Only by changing the way society views the male gender, the male role, can any of that be changed meaningfully. Just like how Feminism can't change centuries of prejudice, MRM can't change it either.

And that's where all the things you're saying- but especially the fact that you got so angry despite the fact that I'm either (robotically) on everyone's side or (cynically) on nobody's- really disappoints me: You don't see it. You blame Feminism for all the problems Men face. You don't see that they're just a convenient strawman that blames you back; the real culprit, as you correctly identified but somehow have forgotten, is genetics. We are predisposed to feel more sympathy for those like us- that goes for gender, that goes for race, that goes for age, everything. You've let this cloud your vision and lionize MRM in your mind. You agree just enough in an argument to make it seem like you've got respect for equality and what Feminism accomplished, but it's all lip service. You don't feel that way at all. Maybe you have an emotionally really good reason to, as well, considering how much you hated your mother... but in the end, the Principal still has those last little fingers in you.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>Because it is the Men's Rights Movement, and none of these things are rights.

Allright, that particular word may be inaccurate and 'Issues' may be better.

But even then, you're still wrong.
-Circumcision: is body integrity not a right?
-Prison rape: is protection from cruel and unusual punishment not a right?

>So does he need a right, then, to force her to have the child? Would that make it fair? Give men the right to stop women from having abortions. That's what you advocate?

No, women have a right to body autonomy too. In this case, there simply is no good solution.

>Well, neither does the woman, physically, if your previous Men's Right is enacted.

Now you're taking your assumption of what my argument would be and acting as if I actually said it.

My actual argument is that, if a woman has a right to an abortion, a man should have a right to legally sever his parental rights and responsibilities before the child is born.

>they sit in the same pile as the untested rape kits.

Fair enough.

>Well, I don't see why, that certainly wouldn't be overreach to demand that the court's judgement be completely overridden in favor of blindly putting children in a potentially dangerous situation.

That's not how it works. Default custody would be presumed unless either parent could be proven unfit. Instead of the presumption that mothers always make better caretakers.

>I can tell you that while that is the potential penalty for not signing up for SS, it. Doesn't. Happen. Ever.

Then why does Wikipedia say it's happened twenty times?

>But the law does not maintain this.

If a law is not on the books, yet exists as an unspoken rule, then is there any practical difference? Show me the number of men put on trial for raping a woman, then compare it to the number of women put on trial for raping a man (and not some other lesser charge: RAPE), and then tell me how much it matters that technically the law allows both.

>the fault of the fact that men do not report rapes due to personal stigma

Victim blaming.

>only 63% of rape cases end in a conviction. If most rape cases go unreported, then that's hardly an institutionally-rigged chance of being convicted of rape, whether you did it or not.

ONLY sixty-three percent!?

Or did you slip when you were trying to type the oft-repeated statistic of a 3% conviction rate? The one where they calculate it by presuming that innocent men never get accused, so the only reason any case would be dismissed is misogyny?

Also, rape has a higher conviction rate than murder.

>I don't believe that women have it worse than men. I don't, however, buy either that men have it worse than women.

Then we agree.

>There is no way to realistically change any of the things that you have listed by giving men more rights.

Not necessarily. re: my points on circumcision and prison rape.

>You cannot stop biased juries, corrupt prosecutors, sexist attitudes, suicides, homelessness, workplace deaths or any of those things by changing the law.

I agree with that partially, but not totally. While I agree that most of these issues should be solved not by law but by public awareness campaigns, what about a law mandating that the government cannot discriminate by gender when allocating funds for victim's resources? I don't mean perfect 50/50, but at least not 500 women's shelters to maybe a dozen for men.

>Only by changing the way society views the male gender, the male role, can any of that be changed meaningfully. Just like how Feminism can't change centuries of prejudice, MRM can't change it either.

I think both movements are capable of that. Not through endless, useless laws, but through making sure the discussion is not one-sided. Right now, it is. The best solution, in my opinion, is for both genders to have a strong voice advocating for them. We seem to be a lot more in agreement on this than you realize.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
" We seem to be a lot more in agreement on this than you realize.


Well, that's just it! We do. We certainly agree that none of these things are acceptable, and that some change needs to be introduced to fix the problems inherent. It's just that... well. To be honest, this entire thing spawned when I saw this:

" Of course, she says she was on his side all along so he should just join him in her path to equality, but he doesn't buy it.


And it just seemed... completely at odds with the clarity of the rest of your journal. You go from looking at the entire thing from space to zooming in super close and picking sides. It was tonal dissonance on the greatest level.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>To be honest, this entire thing spawned when I saw this:
>>Of course, she says she was on his side all along so he should just join him in her path to equality, but he doesn't buy it.
>And it just seemed... completely at odds with the clarity of the rest of your journal. You go from looking at the entire thing from space to zooming in super close and picking sides. It was tonal dissonance on the greatest level.

Then let me give that some context.

For a long time, the general attitude I have observed (from multiple sources) is that the MRM is just chock full o' misogynists and they have nothing to say. Some of them even flatly deny that misandry exists. But just recently, I have begun to notice a shift in tone from some of them. Instead of, "HA! You're full of shit!", they'll concede a few small points MRAs make then pour on the honey; 'Don't you see? Feminism is about equality, which means we care about men too! We're actually on the same side! You should just join us. All the MRM is doing is just getting in the way of feminism solving the very problems you keep bringing up.'

Can you see how jaw-droppingly insidious that is? How patronizing? There's reams of evidence of feminism ignoring, distorting or outright opposing most of the MRM's major issues. And then feminists are actually trying to get us to believe that they'll take care of everything if we just stop opposing them like good little boys!? It is like the CEO of a huge company asking federal prosecutors if they can investigate themselves for accusations of fraud. This is an attitude I have been seeing pop up in a wide amount of areas. It's not common, but I feel like it's spreading.

I had one person like this tell me that feminism was always for equality and had always been advocating for men too. So I asked him why they had only been raising awareness of female rape victims for decades. He got super-pissed that I'd dare suggest those poor women not prioritize themselves first. I wish I had a magic wand that could dump water on people who contradict their own arguments.

That's why I said what I did. It was referencing a very specific attitude that, I realize now, not a lot of people would be aware of. It wasn't meant to blow off average feminists who are genuinely sincere about working together, but the disingenuous ideologues trying to manipulate us into shutting up.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>but especially the fact that you got so angry despite the fact that I'm either (robotically) on everyone's side or (cynically) on nobody's- really disappoints me

I got angry because I felt what you said was dismissive. Don't invalidate my emotions, please.

>You blame Feminism for all the problems Men face. You don't see that they're just a convenient strawman that blames you back; the real culprit, as you correctly identified but somehow have forgotten, is genetics. We are predisposed to feel more sympathy for those like us- that goes for gender, that goes for race, that goes for age, everything.

o.O

Did you not read the part where I said EXACTLY THAT!?

"Many of these issues, if not caused by feminism, have absolutely been exacerbated by feminism, through campaigns of misleading information. Humans in general instinctively have a stronger desire to help women in trouble, and feminism has exploited that fact to ensure that they get the largest slice of the victimhood pie possible."

>You've let this cloud your vision and lionize MRM in your mind. You agree just enough in an argument to make it seem like you've got respect for equality and what Feminism accomplished, but it's all lip service. You don't feel that way at all. Maybe you have an emotionally really good reason to, as well, considering how much you hated your mother... but in the end, the Principal still has those last little fingers in you.

That is an incredibly low move. You're insinuating that I've let my emotions override my reason on this issue. As if I haven't done as much research as I could to make sure my conclusions were solid. As if I'm not aware that my relationship with my mother could cause bias, and have done my damndest to compensate for exactly that. And to even bring her into this as an explanation for my motive means that you just came within a hairsbreadth of doing the most shameful silencing tactic there is: 'You oppose feminism because you hate women!'

My opinion of any given human being is determined by their behavior and ideas, never their gender. I am against feminism for one reason and one reason only: because I believe it is UNTRUE. I started from the default belief that feminism was a force for good and equality. My beliefs have changed over time because I've seen ever-widening piles of evidence that feminism's conclusions are based on an inaccurate view of reality. And ironically, it's been two women that have had the most impact on my change in beliefs: GirlWritesWhat on YouTube and Erin Pizzey. Erin is the founder of Britain's first domestic violence shelter for women, a firsthand witness of feminism's inception, and its most vehement enemy. She opposes feminism because she understands it. Same with me. Period.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
" That is an incredibly low move.


Is it? This entire journal was about personal prejudices of the most basic kind. I'm not attacking you or trying to dismiss what you're saying; I'm saying that your messages are conflicting, and this is the only way I can explain that. It's not like you have a personal exclusive hold on upbringing affecting your viewpoint- I spent years under an abusive stepfather that made me an absolute man-hater for most of my early teenage years. Occasionally I still have those impulses, I just try to push them down with as much reasoning as possible. Still, I wouldn't rule it out if it was pointed out to me that I was doing it.

Edit: Eh. Still. I'm sorry if it upset you, I was genuinely trying to make a point, not paint you with a simplistic brush.
Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Ohhh, I see what happened, now. I'm too used to being in a circle where we talk about personal experiences like that and it isn't stigmatized at all. It's sort of this open-air thing for old wounds and the like. When I got involved here, the discussion was so elevated that I felt emotionally similar to that. So in essence, I got too comfortable and accidentally sounded insulting. I'm really sorry.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>I'm not attacking you or trying to dismiss what you're saying; I'm saying that your messages are conflicting, and this is the only way I can explain that. It's not like you have a personal exclusive hold on upbringing affecting your viewpoint- I spent years under an abusive stepfather that made me an absolute man-hater for most of my early teenage years.

Okay, I see your perspective now. I do apologize. But, in the parlance of our subject matter, that triggered me. I've dealt with, several times, people who said what you did but with zero good intentions. It was flat-out, 'Waaah! Alex Retard hates his mommy so now he hates all the wimmins too!' That shit fuckin' gets to me like toothpicks under fingernails. Precisely because, like I said, I see confirmation bias so often and try so hard to not commit it myself. And also because I worry, often, about whether I'm succeeding. I obsessively remind myself to check sources, to not automatically believe something just because it appeals to my beliefs, to not treat people differently because of their gender/race/other categories they can't help.

And I'm sorry if my beliefs sound conflicting, and while I can't say that I know they're completely consistent, at least I value consistency enough to try to make them that way. Gender is, I've found, a far more difficult topic to discuss than religion. The reason is simple: religion is almost entirely BS, and feminism is a half-truth. For that reason, it's a hell of a lot tougher to be against it, because it's so easy for other people to assume you're against ALL of it. I agree that feminists have plenty of legitimate things to protest. The right to vote, as you pointed out, was one of them. Currently we have assholes who blame women for getting raped, people trying to re-criminalize abortions, lack of female characters with depth in a lot of media, people judging women mostly on their appearance, women's clothing being seemingly designed by sadists, etc.. Plus lots more issues that I think we'd be able to address more effectively if they weren't framed as women-only issues (DV, as mentioned, plus people getting sent juvenile insults online).

So, sometimes it's unavoidable that, when I say I'm opposed to one part of feminism, the other person will fill in the blank with what they think naturally follows that. Which is usually that I hate all the things they think are good about feminism. I am aware I shouldn't get angry about this. But I've been in so many discussions about this, with people that have been deliberately hostile to me, it becomes difficult not to react defensively when I see the same type of comment put forth by someone who is asking an honest question based on their own perceptions of how things are. When I look back, a lot of your objections are perfectly understandable ...if you hadn't read through the thirty or so articles that I have proving point by point how the popular perception of that idea is completely opposite the reality, which has only recently been proven by research which most people have not seen. I imagine this is similar to what some atheists feel like when they have to keep reassuring people in their small town that, no, atheism does not mean they worship Satan.

>When I got involved here, the discussion was so elevated that I felt emotionally similar to that. So in essence, I got too comfortable and accidentally sounded insulting. I'm really sorry.

APOLOGY ACCEPTED WITH GREAT RELIEF! I was genuinely worried there that we'd end up enemies over this and I hated the idea of it. I apologize too, for not giving you the benefit of the doubt on some things. As I said, there's some things you wrote where you would have had absolutely zero idea why they'd set me off like a powder keg. I should have been more aware of that. It's even advice that I give constantly; to always assume the best interpretation of a neutral response, and yet it's freakin' hard for even me to take.

Norithics
5 years, 5 months ago
Yeah, it's... I couldn't reasonably expect anyone to react any other way, honestly. But I have to say... when you're in that environment, where you can just sort of be psychologically transparent like that... it's so freeing. There's no 'us' and 'them,' it's just everything laid bare. I wish everybody could experience it- it's so peaceful and honest.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
I imagine it is considerably easier in an environment where you can hear a person's tone and inflection and see their body language. As opposed to the internets...
Humbug
5 years, 5 months ago
As usual, the initial post was good enough, but the ensuing discussion was much more valuable. Thanks for taking the time to do this. :)

I'd add stuff, but I came in late and everything I'd say has already been said, mostly by you. XD
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
You're welcome, and thank you too!

And are you suuurrrrrrr there's nothing you wanted to add? I posted this thingy so it'd spur discussion.
Humbug
5 years, 5 months ago
The only thought I had that didn't seem to be covered yet was of little consequence: I didn't think your "Genetics" comparison was fitting until you said later in the allegory that he's no longer needed, at which point I realized you were talking about genetics from the beginning of our species 'til now. That was just a matter of my thoughts during the reading, and had little to do with the issue addressed by the allegory itself.

But since you asked, I did think of something else I don't recall seeing in the discussion, though it wasn't in my head at the time I wrote the first response: A lot of this has to do with leftover impulses built into our brains from back when we were actually a part of the food chain. We are naturally inclined to protect women because women bear our children, and they used to be the ones raising them while the men went off to hunt. This affects our mentality in a lot of different ways, which is one reason it's so easy for women to play "Victim" in so many cases when the problem may in fact be mutual or even perpetrated by the woman herself. Add to that the long history of -real- female oppression, and it hasn't yet hit us that perhaps things have changed enough that, while there are still inequalities, women have enough power now that they can actually do some of the harm that's been largely monopolized by men in the past.
Oh, and I hope that the MRM just kind of fades away once it achieves many of its goals. Institutions have a habit of lingering long beyond their expiration date and becoming exactly what this feminist movement has become: Harmful with a beneficial past to justify that harm. The last thing we need is for the straw man the feminists have painted the MRM as to come true.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>I didn't think your "Genetics" comparison was fitting until you said later in the allegory that he's no longer needed, at which point I realized you were talking about genetics from the beginning of our species 'til now. That was just a matter of my thoughts during the reading, and had little to do with the issue addressed by the allegory itself.

My novel War Is Peace gets a lot deeper into why I think humankind's greatest enemy is its own instincts.

>We are naturally inclined to protect women because women bear our children, and they used to be the ones raising them while the men went off to hunt. This affects our mentality in a lot of different ways, which is one reason it's so easy for women to play "Victim" in so many cases when the problem may in fact be mutual or even perpetrated by the woman herself.

Absolutely. I still can't quite process that some people actually don't believe that gender roles are genetic, because it's all laid out so bloody obviously. The one thing EVERY single one of your ancestors had in common is that they fucked. That is a hell of a lot of natural selection going on.

>Add to that the long history of -real- female oppression, and it hasn't yet hit us that perhaps things have changed enough that, while there are still inequalities, women have enough power now that they can actually do some of the harm that's been largely monopolized by men in the past.

Certainly. The political power feminism wields is enormous. And like any political organization, its goal is simply to amass more power.

Also, just to humor me, please list what you consider to be examples of "women's oppression". I'm not disputing the idea, but there's an awful lot of feminist terms that are constantly repeated, but rarely elaborated on. I like to find out how people define them.

>Oh, and I hope that the MRM just kind of fades away once it achieves many of its goals. Institutions have a habit of lingering long beyond their expiration date and becoming exactly what this feminist movement has become: Harmful with a beneficial past to justify that harm. The last thing we need is for the straw man the feminists have painted the MRM as to come true.

Agreed with that assessment. Though I've said elsewhere, my ideal hope is that feminism wanes in power and the MRM grows, until they're both a manageable size. Powerful enough to oppose, but not, dominate the other. There will always be gender issues as long as we have gender, so both sides will always need advocates. I hope we get a good strong transgender activism group too.
Humbug
5 years, 5 months ago
> My novel War Is Peace gets a lot deeper into why I think humankind's greatest enemy is its own instincts.

I still need to sit down and read all your stuff, like Bartelby and whatnot. I have that bookmarked, and I'll bookmark War Is Peace too, but I need to make the commitment to actually start reading. XD

> Certainly. The political power feminism wields is enormous. And like any political organization, its goal is simply to amass more power.
Also, just to humor me, please list what you consider to be examples of "women's oppression". I'm not disputing the idea, but there's an awful lot of feminist terms that are constantly repeated, but rarely elaborated on. I like to find out how people define them.

No problem. I see "oppression" as something that gives unequal rights, such as not allowing female suffrage, or de-legitimizes a group of people, such as the "hysteria" idea Freud perpetrated or the protectionism exemplified by "The Yellow Wallpaper." We still have a few vestiges of that, such as the tendency to focus on what a woman is wearing instead of what she is saying, but...Hillary Clinton was almost president of the United States, so I think we've come a long way in getting rid of that bullshit, and I can't call it oppression anymore.
What is NOT oppression, though, is the "Male Gaze" as a general concept. That's biology, and it doesn't harm anyone unless, as above, it de-legitimizes someone, which simple looking doesn't do. Likewise, the lack of female professionals, while a societal problem, is not oppression. Oppression is a systematic way of keeping a group of people down, and there is no system to prevent women from attaining power. Just biases. I hope that gets across my general way of thinking. If you'd like me to get more specific, I can.

>Agreed with that assessment. Though I've said elsewhere, my ideal hope is that feminism wanes in power and the MRM grows, until they're both a manageable size. Powerful enough to oppose, but not, dominate the other. There will always be gender issues as long as we have gender, so both sides will always need advocates. I hope we get a good strong transgender activism group too.[/q]

That's probably what will happen, actually. Organizations just don't go away. The Ku Klux Klan is proof of that, since it was crushed and demonized in almost every possible way but is still technically around.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>I still need to sit down and read all your stuff, like Bartelby and whatnot. I have that bookmarked, and I'll bookmark War Is Peace too, but I need to make the commitment to actually start reading. XD

Good luck in finding the time to. ;)

>No problem. I see "oppression" as something that gives unequal rights, such as not allowing female suffrage, or de-legitimizes a group of people, such as the "hysteria" idea Freud perpetrated or the protectionism exemplified by "The Yellow Wallpaper." We still have a few vestiges of that, such as the tendency to focus on what a woman is wearing instead of what she is saying, but...Hillary Clinton was almost president of the United States, so I think we've come a long way in getting rid of that bullshit, and I can't call it oppression anymore.

Good examples! I often see people giving examples of female oppression that, when you look at the actual statistics, tend to have equal numbers of male and female victims. Domestic violence and rape being among the most common. But I'll concede all your points. (I'm glad I happened to read The Yellow Wallpaper a while ago to know exactly what you mean). I'll even go farther than you because, yes Hilary was almost president, but still, she got WAY more insults about her being 'ugly' than I saw for any of the male politicians.

Though interestingly enough, I had a thought about the suffragette movement and how it compares to the black civil rights struggle and the gay rights struggle. I was not able to find a single instance of any woman being beaten or killed for asking for the right to vote. And the struggle itself is far from simple. I got the impression that a *huge* reason politicians didn't want to give women voting rights was they were afraid they'd have to give it to blacks, too.

>What is NOT oppression, though, is the "Male Gaze" as a general concept. That's biology, and it doesn't harm anyone unless, as above, it de-legitimizes someone, which simple looking doesn't do.

Actually, I've heard different definitions for that term. The original one seems to be about how a hell of a lot of media is made with the assumption it will be viewed from a man's perspective. The male gaze. I'll agree with feminists this sucks. (Partly because I like strong characterization and this leads to lazy writers making 'female' all the personality traits a woman needs.) On the oter hand, like you said about inequalities in the job market, I honestly don't know if this is caused by fewer women having the drive to create movies, TV shows and video games. As someone (whom I forget) pointed out, there's fewer women comedians because women on the whole don't need to be funny. That makes sense to me, as natural selection would only push harder for not-strictly-necessary traits if they helped the species fuck more.

>I hope that gets across my general way of thinking. If you'd like me to get more specific, I can.

Conveyed quite well. Anything else you'd like to add, I'm receptive. :)

>That's probably what will happen, actually. Organizations just don't go away. The Ku Klux Klan is proof of that, since it was crushed and demonized in almost every possible way but is still technically around.

I would like to see a future where the KKK is so powerless, all they have left is an ice cream shop. And all they serve is vanilla...
Humbug
5 years, 5 months ago
>Good luck in finding the time to. ;)

Ha! No kidding.

>Good examples! I often see people giving examples of female oppression that, when you look at the actual statistics, tend to have equal numbers of male and female victims. Domestic violence and rape being among the most common. But I'll concede all your points. (I'm glad I happened to read The Yellow Wallpaper a while ago to know exactly what you mean). I'll even go farther than you because, yes Hilary was almost president, but still, she got WAY more insults about her being 'ugly' than I saw for any of the male politicians.
Though interestingly enough, I had a thought about the suffragette movement and how it compares to the black civil rights struggle and the gay rights struggle. I was not able to find a single instance of any woman being beaten or killed for asking for the right to vote. And the struggle itself is far from simple. I got the impression that a *huge* reason politicians didn't want to give women voting rights was they were afraid they'd have to give it to blacks, too.

You may very well be right. Although there may also be that old "chivalry" thing where it's ungentlemanly to strike a woman at play.

>Actually, I've heard different definitions for that term. The original one seems to be about how a hell of a lot of media is made with the assumption it will be viewed from a man's perspective. The male gaze. I'll agree with feminists this sucks. (Partly because I like strong characterization and this leads to lazy writers making 'female' all the personality traits a woman needs.) On the oter hand, like you said about inequalities in the job market, I honestly don't know if this is caused by fewer women having the drive to create movies, TV shows and video games. As someone (whom I forget) pointed out, there's fewer women comedians because women on the whole don't need to be funny. That makes sense to me, as natural selection would only push harder for not-strictly-necessary traits if they helped the species fuck more.

Ah! Is that what it is? I was taught differently, that it was that sort of objectifying stare where the woman is seen as something to be looked upon.
I think that bit about women not needing to be funny came from Christopher Hitchens, if I'm not mistaken.


>I would like to see a future where the KKK is so powerless, all they have left is an ice cream shop. And all they serve is vanilla...

Fuck yes.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>You may very well be right. Although there may also be that old "chivalry" thing where it's ungentlemanly to strike a woman at play.

I think that's what I'm getting at. I'll concede some examples of women being oppressed. But in what other situation, ever, have an oppressing group refused to kill or even strike members of the group they're oppressing, out of concern for their pain?

Literally, the worst thing I could find that happened to suffragettes was, in Britain, several of them went on a hunger strike after being arrested and a few actually died. Many people were outraged that the guards would force-feed the women. And yes, while I'm sure that's awful, try to think of any other situation where oppressors wouldn't just let a criminal from the oppressed class starve themselves and then chuck the body out.

>Ah! Is that what it is? I was taught differently, that it was that sort of objectifying stare where the woman is seen as something to be looked upon.

I've heard both definitions used, and I'm only semi-sure the one I gave is earlier.

>I think that bit about women not needing to be funny came from Christopher Hitchens, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, I think I heard it in a response to his article. Hitch, I think, really embarrassed himself by just flatly stating that women _aren't_ funny, full stop. Even if he may have had a point, his article was as clumsy as a blindfolded ox stumbling around. It was so out-of-character for his writing, I'd almost think he was trolling.

On the other hand, he was always useful at forcing a conversation to happen. I never heard more people talking about the issue than after he put it out there. <shrug>
Humbug
5 years, 5 months ago
>I think that's what I'm getting at. I'll concede some examples of women being oppressed. But in what other situation, ever, have an oppressing group refused to kill or even strike members of the group they're oppressing, out of concern for their pain?
Literally, the worst thing I could find that happened to suffragettes was, in Britain, several of them went on a hunger strike after being arrested and a few actually died. Many people were outraged that the guards would force-feed the women. And yes, while I'm sure that's awful, try to think of any other situation where oppressors wouldn't just let a criminal from the oppressed class starve themselves and then chuck the body out.

Yeah. That is definitely something to think about. Doesn't mean they weren't oppressed, but it was -not- the same kind of oppression, and it wasn't as bad.

>Actually, I think I heard it in a response to his article. Hitch, I think, really embarrassed himself by just flatly stating that women _aren't_ funny, full stop. Even if he may have had a point, his article was as clumsy as a blindfolded ox stumbling around. It was so out-of-character for his writing, I'd almost think he was trolling.
On the other hand, he was always useful at forcing a conversation to happen. I never heard more people talking about the issue than after he put it out there. <shrug>

True enough. I didn't remember the specifics, but I think you're right. And yes, he was excellent at getting people to think, even if he didn't always persuade.
Draconm
5 years, 5 months ago
And these journals are why I still have hope for the human race, at least on the internet. Only a few places are I able to see people actually revisiting their arguments, and admitting that on some points they were wrong, and still be able to work through and remain friends. All to often I see internet fights that never end, and no one actually thinking about the other side of the arguments. So, I applaud you AlexReynard and Norithics, have a virtual cookie^^.

And, I know how you feel about how hard it is to communicate without body language. I think that is why emoticons are so popular, they give you some control of the emotional tone of the words, when in a non-dialogue situation where you can paint on words to set the tone. Similar to adding "[sarcasm]A phrase that could be nice if it wasn't sarcastic[/sarcasm]" and other variations. And yes, I might be rambling, it is midnight, I am tired, but I was compelled to read the comments and add one of my own.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
>And these journals are why I still have hope for the human race, at least on the internet. Only a few places are I able to see people actually revisiting their arguments, and admitting that on some points they were wrong, and still be able to work through and remain friends.

I think, even with the internet's impediment of not getting body language or vocal tone across, that it's a good medium for discussion. People can take the time to script what they want to say. That's a lot different than standing face to face with someone, letting your emotions overwhelm you and just saying whatever crazy-ass thing comes to your mind to shut them up. Also, in emails or comments, you can't interrupt the other person. You have to wait until they say all they wanted to say and post it, before you can read it and write a response. I think my only real problem is sites that have really tiny character limits for posting. YouTube's not good, but Twitter's ridiculous. At most, it's good practice for thinking concisely, but you pretty much can't make a solid argument in 140 letters.

>All to often I see internet fights that never end, and no one actually thinking about the other side of the arguments. So, I applaud you AlexReynard and Norithics, have a virtual cookie^^.

*nomnomnom* I view debates as fencing matches. I dig sportsmanship and honor. I prefer to be up against an opponent who is as smart as me, or smarter, and it's a genuine challenge to defend my position. I only get pissed when I'm in a match with someone who won't obey the rules. Someone who refuses to concede points I've made, or uses derailing tactics, or won't provide evidence to back up their points, or who resorts to personal attacks, etc. Then there's no possible win; it's like playing cops and robbers with a kid who'll argue over every time you say you shot them. My ultimate goal in any debate is to learn from it. If I can get some agreement from the other side, that's gravy. But I'll also settle for putting on a good show for anyone reading along.

>And, I know how you feel about how hard it is to communicate without body language. I think that is why emoticons are so popular, they give you some control of the emotional tone of the words, when in a non-dialogue situation where you can paint on words to set the tone.

Exactly. I notice I use them a lot more than most other people, but then, I'm really concerned with making sure my message comes through accurately. /sarcasm /notreallly
PeachClover
5 years, 5 months ago
I hope there is a grand genetic revolution that results in all future generations being born hermaphrodites all of whom appearing to be gurls with dicks.  Why?  Because beards and MPB sucks.
AlexReynard
5 years, 5 months ago
I suppose I wouldn't mind an extra vagina.
Wolfblade
5 years, 5 months ago
Anyone claiming to fight for equality, to oppose discrimination, but holding the exact same kind of discrimination at different degrees of wrongness depending on the race/gender/sexuality/etc of the person being discriminated against is NOT someone who actually wants "Equality."

The excuses of "it happens to more of us than it happens to those of you, so when it happens to one of you it's less wrong than when it happens to one of us" are infuriating hypocritical horse shit.

If you're not wanting equality for everyone, then equality is not what you are fighting for.

But then I've been called racist/sexist before just for saying that mistreating white people and guys for being white or male is just as bad as mistreating people for being non-white or non-male. But hey, what do I know? Experiencing personal discrimination against yourself only counts if your ancestors experienced it too. It's the whole "privilege" discussion-stopper.
CeilYurie
4 years, 7 months ago
Religion and feinism also fuck and have a child called confusion that acts like a bully and ruins everything for everybody by mixing the opposite views on sexuality.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.