The Sexist Pencil Sharpener v. the Sexist Knife Block
November 27th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Feminist blogger Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, is angry over the pencil sharpener pictured above. On Feministing.com she writes:
"What better way to start the week than a stark reminder of how the world sees women? (It seems the perfect woman is almost always dismembered and frequently being penetrated.) Just f***king kill me now."
I don't blame Valenti for being unhappy over the pencil sharpener, but I wonder if she would be as offended by the knife block pictured. The knife block--sold as the "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block"--seems far more offensive than the pencil sharpener:
1) The knife block depicts extreme and painful violence.
2) The pencil sharpener depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy.
I'm not saying Jessica would reject any complaints about the knife block--perhaps she would agree with men's activists that it's offensive. But it seems that Jessica and many other feminists tend to see popular culture as "offensive to women" when, in reality, popular culture is far more anti-male than anti-female. This is particularly true when depicting violence--a dozen men can die in a movie or cop show and scarcely anyone blinks, but when a woman dies, it's a big deal. To pick one example, see my blog post Pirates of the Caribbean & Male Disposability.
"));
19 queries. 0.515 seconds.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Amazing how Glenn takes issue with the female pencil sharpener, but I can't fathom any feminist daring to take issue with the figure of the man being knifed. As for the latter, the feminists would likely think the man being knifed is funny and harmless because men are not "subjugated" in the ways women are, they would say. Then they would mention Saudi Arabia, or other instances of supposed international terrorism on women. Or they would say of the man being knifed that it is a sad symptom of the "patriarchy" that men sponsor that male lives are viewed as expendable since most of the violence in our society is male-on-male (I would agree with the fact that most violence is male-on-male if you exclude domestic violence).
The reality is that we neither created nor perpetuate this abstraction they call the "patriarchy," but it is difficult to plausibly deny that our boys are growing up in a world where males are portrayed as expendable, over-sexed, lazy buffoons who need a wise, put-upon woman to care for them and straighten them out at every turn. Not only is that view harmful to our sons and grandsons, it is patently absurd.
For all our purported "male privilege," you'd think we could insist on better PR for our gender.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:20 am
How can anyone say that the pencil sharpener pictured is sexist? Sexual? yes. Sexist? No. I don't see how depicting a consentual sexual act can be considered sexist.
Of course this claim is coming from a woman who claims that the state shouldn't incarcerate pregnant women using ILLEGAL drugs, because apparently women should be free to use drugs and break the law if they so desire. Even if they're breaking the law and murdering their soon to be children in the process. Not many people really take what she has to say seriously.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
The pencil sharpener is in bad taste. But I don't thnk it warrants Jessica's typically hysterical "Just f***king kill me now" response.
And the hysteria over mundane matters is what makes these bloggers unbearable. You'll notice they're not doing the parallel of what Glenn is doing in helping disenfranchised dads find their way. Tehy're basically huffing and puffing and trying to get attention.
I still don't think Valenti's "book" should be promoted on this site. Someone actually might read it.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I have been unable to find any evidence that the pencil sharpener is more than a design student's or crafty person's personal project. A search for novelty pencil sharpeners located no site selling such an item.
The knife block is merely an artist rendition (in equally poor taste IMO) isn't it?
November 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
"This is particularly true when depicting violence--a dozen men can die in a movie or cop show and scarcely anyone blinks, but when a woman dies, it's a big deal."
Agreed. This has always bothered me (as I have said before). Men are almost always depicted as evil, disposable, etc. At the same time, here are some key examples of shows/movies depicting disposable women. These shows should be supported as examples attempting to level the playing field.
(1) The new Battlestar Galactica. BSG has always shown women in deadly/dangerous predicaments and while the majority of deaths among "no-name" cast (ie: grunts, redshirts, etc) are among men, there are still a lot of misc. dead/beaten/etc "redshirt" women shown in this hard-core drama. BSG Razor (just came out this past Sat) was a prime example where people of both genders were shot in the head, blown up, beaten, etc. There is even a particularly good episode last season where a female character boxes a male character and unlike every other show, it is not a given that the woman will always win. The female characters are shown as some of the most evil, cunning, and ruthless in the show. I've actually had this discussion with feminists: the BSG Universe is a good example of a far more gender neutral society where everyone (regardless of gender) is expected to stand on their own two feet with no special rules. Incidentally, for those who may not like SciFi, my wife hates SciFi but loves BSG: space is only a backdrop, not the "gee-whiz, technojargon" of Star Trek and other pure SciFi shows.
(2) The Kill Bill movies. This set of movies has both dead/beaten main female characters and even a few dead/beaten female grunts. Obviously, most of the people she is hunting are women, but did you notice that several of the "Crazy 88" were women? You have to look close to even notice because the Crazy 88 by definition are supposed to non-descript. As an aside, this is also one of the few movies to show women being struck in the groin.
There are others but they are generally far and few between. There is a lot more in scifi and anything else: Star Trek Enterprise, Torchwood, Dr. Who, Starship Troopers, etc..etc..Not a lot in "mainstream" movies/shows though. This is part of the reason why I don't watch a lot of mainstream anti-male movies anymore.
I have also worked to call shows on their anti-male sexism. In the case of Andromeda several years ago, I contacted their producers and said that they were being inconsistent: they always had these strong female leaders (both good and evil) but all of the "disposable grunts" were always men. My question to them was how are these strong female characters beginning their careers prior to becoming strong leaders? Everyone starts as a grunt (male or female) and they should show a at least a few female grunts working their way up the ranks. They agreed (even emailed me back), and a few weeks later, there were disposable female characters (some of which actually died in an attack).
November 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am
"In the case of Andromeda several years ago, I contacted their producers and said that they were being inconsistent: they always had these strong female leaders (both good and evil) but all of the 'disposable grunts' were always men."
Good for you, Lance. In their zeal to "empower" women, Hollywood probably thinks men don't notice the wholesale absence of realism. Some empowerment is realistic; overdoing it becomes anti-male. I try to call people responsible for such nonsense as well.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am
"The knife block is merely an artist rendition (in equally poor taste IMO) isn't it?"
No, it's a commercial product called the "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block" and is available for sale on various websites. One example is below.
http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/archives/005428.php
November 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Mike: There has been a growing trend in the idea that sex is itself degrading to women. How else do you justify the anti-porn movement; seeing as porn is the mere depiction of sex.
There is nothing wrong with women having sex, so in that sense, the sharpener isn't offensive. I don't think the artist was trying to make a point about the woman having no head, as he obviously needed somewhere to put the handle. The image of sex with a decapitated person is pretty disgusting and would put off any buyers.
However the knife holder is very deliberate about being about stabbing men with knives. Especially since it is named 'all men are bastards'
November 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Although I would admit that the pencil sharpener is of very poor taste. While a woman has no reason to be offended by it, she would be justified in thinking it was crude, because it is.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Here is the comment I posted on the link Glenn provides for the "All men are bastards" product:
Ha ha ha. "All men are bastards," isn't that funny? Oh, my, the sight of a male figure being knifed surely will empower any woman, won't it? And if the woman has sons, this is a lovely item to have around the house -- teach them young what a horrible gender they chose to be born into
Why not "All women are sluts" or "All women are liars"? Gee, that wouldn't be so funny to some people, would it, but calling "all" men bastards is somehow acceptable? You wouldn't say "All men are red" because that's obviously not true, so you must think there is an element of truth in the "bastards" remark. Hmm.
Pick on any other class in a similar manner and see what happens to you. Whoever came up with this item not only is a misandrist, but isn't even funny.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Perhaps Jessica Valenti mentioned this, but the pencil sharpener, while in poor taste, actually reinforces either a male fear or feminist wish, depending on your point of view.
What happens to pencils in the sharpener? A bit like what happens in the vagina dentata.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Also of note is the difference in views between the women at the original link and the women at feministing. Who is to say which view is "correct" or represents more women?
November 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
"The pencil sharpener depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy."
Uh, I don't want to get all controversial here, but have you anatomically verified that pencil sharpeners depiction? I think there are two possibilities, neither of which is appropriate for a pencil - so how in the world can you say, "common sex act," let alone, "which women enjoy?" I beg to differ. However, the knife block is equally despicable and just points out that when violence against men is laughed off as a joke (as it has always been by gender feminists), people who create violent depictions against humans appear to know few boundaries.
Thank you Glenn for your courage to confront all the controversial, sexist issues you do, and for allowing us to discuss them here.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
"Uh, I don't want to get all controversial here, but have you anatomically verified that pencil sharpeners depiction?"
If you're refering to anal sex. While you may be shocked, women do enjoy and partake in this. Not all women certainly, but that is a matter of choice. And if a woman is offended by anal sex, then all she is really doing is shaming women who do partake in it, which is wrong.
And no, certainly a pencil would be an appropriate masturbation aid. But come on, I think even the most naive person would be able to figure out what th pencil is meant to symbolise.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Alas Glenn,
the seller of the "all men are bastards" knife holder won't ship to the US.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I have to agree with Jerry here... just which group this pencil sharpener is offensive to is a bit ambiguous.
Just as these women can see the shapener as a degredation of women... some men could easily see it as a vindictive womens dream come true... possessing the ability to grind that pencil into saw dust isn't exactly a male friendly image.
Furthermore, given the existance of that knife block, it is not beyond reason to believe that there exists a market for "comedy" items that depect men being mutilated.
In otherwords... why are they so certain that the block is offensive to women?... In my opinion anyone who thinks about the object for a while can be offended if they so choose... the target of that offense changes dependant upon ones preconceptions going in.
I'll just call the item offensive to people and leave it at that.... no need to make it a gender based thing when both men and women could argue that it degrades them both (although on a certain level I think men have the better argument here as it isn't the woman in this sharpener being ground to pulp).
November 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
...gentleman, we live in the age of the womens paradigm, womens matrix, femi-matrix, whatever you prefer!!
We have been conditioned (not unlike pavlovs dogs)....to focus on womens needs, womens experience of victimhood, womens feelings of being...un-safe...women, women, women...and been "conditioned " to disregard ourselves and that of our male brethren!
..Most folks don't study linguistics and paradigm constructionism....and are hence fully succeptible to the journalists, media consultants, writers ect ect. who are skilled in the arts of paradigm construction!!
The frankfurt school of thought in Nazi- Germany was the seat of the Nazi-paradigm and paradigm constructionists.
The Frankfurt paradigm architects built a school of thought for instance...That convinced germans that jews could not use public toilets because they were like dirty animals, and their hair was infectious .
...This is just an example of how effective "the arts" can be utilised to villify and subjugate others!!!
...For instance in America the most liberated group that the world has ever witnessed in terms of health, wealth, leasure time, and general life options are the white middle class female!!
But if you were to read any popular media...you would get the impression women in America are oppressed, and live short brutish lives of exploitation!!
November 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
From Judge:
"As for the latter, the feminists would likely think the man being knifed is funny and harmless because men are not "subjugated" in the ways women are, they would say."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is one argument that has always gotten on my nerves. All to often I hear feminists explain away injustices against men with this exact line. They claim that do to the fact that men are the privilged class they cannot experience sexism. The Feminism 101 blog has a section where the differencebetween discrimination and sexism is explained and of course said explaination firmly asserts that sexism can only be male against female.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Danny, I agree with you. That argument that underscores their intellectual dishonesty. I, and probably you, have never done anything to subjugate or oppress a woman. My ancestors were oppressed as were most people's. I am not responsible for the fact that their great-grandmother couldn't vote, and they are not responsible for the fact that my great-grandfather couln't vote and had to toil in a dangerous mill to support his wife and children.
With that said, take their idiotic argument to its logical conclusion and you must therefore excuse every act of discrimination committed by a woman against a male. Would anyone aside from a radical feminist think that is just? The question scarcely survives its statement. So, if a female professor flunks a student because he was born with a pair of testicles, THAT'S not discrimination? Ask ten people on the street and ten will tell you the right answer -- of course it is. Such an argument should not be tolerated in polite society, nor should we engage persons who espouse such misandrist idiocy with logic. They are beyond hope and should be sent to live in grass huts on their separatist island.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
P.S. And Danny, I forgot to add that where the discrimination is against a male because he is a male, it is sexism, of course.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
We actually have no idea who created the female pencil sharpener or why.
Can Jessica demonstrate it is an item for sale?
Reinforcing what Lewis said above, it doesn't look at all functional to me, the crank seems screwed on, I see no sign of a blade, or a place for shavings. I suspect it was made for an art class, presumably to discuss gender issues.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Did you ever the impression that this Valenti person has squandered a very expensive education?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Oh, come on. Why no link to go buy the pencil sharpener? I'm sure that there's people of either gender who've been through a nasty breakup/ divorce who'd get a good laugh out of it as well as the knife block. Surely there's someone who can picture their ex-husband's mistress (and likely, their ex) while grinding one down down to the eraser.
And that, likely, is the artist's point in making either product.
I guess if you're looking for violence, the pencil sharpener grinds down the freudian pencil, turning it from a dull, blunt, useless object to a sharp useful object, only after interaction with the (otherwise unchanged) female object.
(darn, after getting caught up on the reading, I see a few blogger's have hit on the 'freudian reducing' aspect of the sharpener.)
November 27th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
But OffendedDad, you know what happens when you keep sharpening the pencil . . . . That's what a lot of radical feminists would like to do to us.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I was reading an article in Men's Health about evidence that testosterone levels in men are dropping across the globe. It is especially prevalent it seems in Europe and the US. I found it ironic that those are the places with the most "feminist friendly" laws. The article suggest it is all the plastics and pesticides men and boys are being exposed to and says the evidence is far from conclusive.
I think the pencil sharpener is already at work.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Say, what happens to the pencil shavings?
(It doesn't look like they are stored anywhere, or can be easily thrown out...)
November 27th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Andy, the pencil shavings are taken to the pencil-shavings bank where they are used by a lesbian who wants her very own fatherless pencil. The original pencil -- or that stub that's left -- is, of course, in danger of being sued for child support if it suits the mother's whim.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
To This Promotes Rape :
I still don't understand why you can be so certain that it is promoting rape and not promoting male genital mutilation. It seems to me it could go either way depending upon the intentions of the user. If a woman purchased the pencil sharpener for the express purpose of getting a giggle out of grinding a phallic representation into dust then it is promoting violence against men... and not rape as you are suggesting. It's really a matter of perspective here, and I think it is clear that your perspective is the gynocentric one.
It's really not quite as cut and dry as you'd like it to be... men can be offended by this object just as easily as women can be... and for totally different reasons.
The item in question is just in poor taste and is offensive for a variety of reasons, some which apply to women, and some which apply to men... as a result we can't just latch onto the female perspective and declare it a gender issue.
I guess what I am really trying to get at here is that it is possible for something to be objectionable without it being offensive to a specific gender/group only.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I posted a comment very similar to the one below at Cara's blog, The Curvature. There was no personal attack in it, no insults, no cursewords, no threats, just a few short sentences. Perhaps Cara has deleted it, I no longer see it awaiting moderation. Perhaps it didn't meet her comment policy (below.)
"How does it promote rape? You have offered no evidence. Does the "All men are bastards" Knife Block promote stabbing your boyfriend? http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/archives/005428.php
Assuming that it does promote rape, what do you think we should do about that? Should we do the same to the knife block?"
Here is Cara's comment policy. It's sad that someone like Cara that cannot tolerate a discussion should frame herself as open minded and welcoming of debate and discussion.
This blog encourages and welcomes comments, debate and discussion. However, only rational, friendly debate will be tolerated. Any comments which are insulting, derogatory or inflammatory will be deleted. These types of comments include, but are not limited to, those that are purposely racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-feminist and/or anti-choice. Repeat offenders will be banned. There is no appeals process. So don’t be an asshole.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Yeah, the pencil sharpener encourages rape. Pffft.
She probably thinks the same thing about regular pencil sharpeners.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Jerry,
The problem might be her definition of the word "friendly".... afterall, only "rational, friendly debate will be tolerated."
So it might be possible that in her eyes "friendly" debate refers to when you mostly agree with someone, but quibble over the specific details.
In other words... if you wanted to suggest that it promoted sodomy as opposed to rape... that is the type of "friendly" debate that might be acceptable.
Hopefully your views will be heard, but if not at least you have a voice here.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
At the moment Cara acknowledges she deleted that and another comment of mine (a comment where I said I thought her quote from Susan B. Anthony was right on and cite some other people that would agree with it, notably, Nadine Strossen, ifeminists, Wendy Kaminer, and most likely Glenn Sacks.). Amazingly, after deleting my two posts for no apparent reason apart from disagreeing with her, she has the gall to say once more: Let me say that I’m willing to have a discussion. I’m not going to only let through comments that say I’m awesome.
Pretty amazing behavior. She comes to Glenn's site. Adds a comment, back at her site she defames Glenn and the readers of his blog. No one has attacked her at Glenn's site, no one has attacked her at her site, but she deletes innocuous comments at her site and describes herself as the victim.
Sheesh.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
After you indicated that you tried to post something on her website I decided to see if it was posted. Not that I am surprised, but this is what I saw instead:
"Let me say that I’m willing to have a discussion. I’m not going to only let through comments that say I’m awesome. But I’m also not going to let through comments by MRAs that are only trying to provoke a meaningless argument. If I get any of the really nasty comments that I’m anticipating I may get (seeing the comments on got on the fucking guitar hero post . . .), there’s a chance that I will let it through to prove a point, but I will also ban the commenter."
So essentially she isn't willing to post any well thought out, intelligent, calm and rational post by someone who she deems to be writing from a male perspective.
However... she will be "gracious" enough to let through a ranting and offensive post by someone who she can then put on display to "prove a point".
What point is that exactly?... that she will only let people with a differing perspective post if she can portray them as being abusive and crude?
What angers me more about this than anything else is that she has the unmitigated gall to post here... and then deny someone the right to respond to her on her blog (i.e. even if Glen wanted to respond to her she'd probably delete it).
Just for the record, I didn't bother to waste my time posting to her site, but I find the response she offered to be quite disgusting.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
That's right, that's what Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan do too. And people need to understand that when they see really obnoxious misogynist posts on their site that the selection has been intentionally limited, just as Cara does.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
What I find most interesting about it is that generally when someone is actually interested in intellectual debate they encourage well thought out and respectfully articulated opposing views.
If I were in charge of a site it is the obnoxious, rude, and offensive posts that would be deleted... not the only ones I consider displaying so as to make my "opposition" look bad... all the while eliminating the opposing points made by friendly people who just happen to dissagree with me.
You don't win an argument by debating the worst points the opposition brings to the table... you win an argument by debating their *best* points and showing them that your point of view is more accurate.
I have no respect for this person on an intellectual level any longer... they are no more interested in civil debate than they are interested in intellectual honesty.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Radical feminists are "true believers" in the sense they "know" they are right. They can't stand anyone challenging them because such persons are simply "wrong" and, to them, most likely "a**holes." As with any revolution, they have a "devil," and in their case the devil is male. They are content to preach to the choir and by doing that, don't realize they are postiively wasting their time because they are not gaining any new converts. If they would bother to present a reasoned position, instead of a dogmatic declaration, a lot of men on this board and others might be persuaded by some of their arguments. If one is confident in his position, he is not afraid of debate or of opposing point of views (unless, of course, he is psychotic). Many of the radical feminists are very young and frankly lack the maturity to engage in serious discussion. When they grow up, they will be more rational, less radical, and they will realize that men aren't any worse than women.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
jerry's reprint of Cara's comment policy:
This blog encourages and welcomes comments, debate and discussion. However, only rational, friendly debate will be tolerated. Any comments which are insulting, derogatory or inflammatory will be deleted. These types of comments include, but are not limited to, those that are purposely racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-feminist and/or anti-choice. Repeat offenders will be banned. There is no appeals process. So don’t be an asshole.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Funny. I see she covered all the bases except misandry...
November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Bingo, Danny. Misandry is the reason for that blog's existence. It is a hate blog.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
"Any comments which are insulting, derogatory or inflammatory will be deleted. These types of comments include, but are not limited to, those that are purposely racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-feminist and/or anti-choice."
So if you say that you don't believe abortion is a good idea, you're automatically insulting and derogatory? I could see the "inflammatory" in some people's minds, but I don't get at all where they're getting "insulting and derogatory" from.
Person A: I think abortion is damaging to women and that society should work to find better answers to unplanned pregnancies.
Person B: OMG, you're so INSULTING and DEROGATORY!
callum: Looking at the picture of the pencil sharpener, I don't think it's clear that it's necessarily anal sex. It could be vaginal from behind.
I wonder if Jessica Valenti is one of those people who thinks that women having sex on their hands and knees is automatically sexist, even if they really, really want to do it. (And isn't it supposed to be a position in which the G-spot can be stimulated easily?)
November 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Correct, Marauder. The Pope would have any comments about abortion DELETED, no matter how intelligent or well-reasoned they might be.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am
"The Pope would have any comments about abortion DELETED, no matter how intelligent or well-reasoned they might be."
???
November 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am
"If you're refering to anal sex. While you may be shocked, women do enjoy and partake in this. Not all women certainly, but that is a matter of choice. And if a woman is offended by anal sex, then all she is really doing is shaming women who do partake in it, which is wrong.
And no, certainly a pencil would be an appropriate masturbation aid. But come on, I think even the most naive person would be able to figure out what th pencil is meant to symbolise."
To say "women do enjoy and partake in this," without a clear qualifier like "some" makes your assertion pure hogwash. You do go on to say, "Not all women," but that really isn't very precise, now is it, after your first gross inaccuracy is planted in the mind? If a woman (or a man) is offended by anal sex, then she, or he, is not “shaming” other women who do partake in it, and she/he is not wrong." She/he is merely stating her/his abhorrence for that practice, which is her/his constitutional right. Get over your PC intolerance, prejudice and outright bigotry. That part of the body you refer to was designed “by nature” for the elimination of refuse from the body, not the insertion of foreign objects, so if "some" people soundly want to adhere to nature’s design who are you to belittle and condemn their completely natural and valid beliefs? As far as "the most naive person being able to figure out what the pencil is meant to symbolize," once again you appear to want to project your interpretation as the norm that other people should automatically be concluding too. Automatically, you leave no room for what others might be thinking, unless it's your interpretation. That's the very definition of bigotry, or should I just say political correctness?
November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Marauder -- my point may not have been clear: THAT Web site would delete even the Pope's comments about abortion, no matter how well-reasoned or intelligent they might be.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I guess in her mind: to disagree is to insult and offend. I'm sure she believes that she is a liberal too. The fact of the matter is, she has become a dictionary-definition ultra-conservative. But if you tell her that, she would disagree (and delete your post) simply on the false premise that her being pro-choice, feminist, whatever defines her as being liberal. A liberal however is someone that is open to debate/discussion even when that debate does not agree with a particular orthodoxy. In fact, one could say that once someone adopts a particular orthodoxy at the exclusion of all others, that they cease to be liberal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
November 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
From Ray:
"once again you appear to want to project your interpretation as the norm that other people should automatically be concluding too. Automatically, you leave no room for what others might be thinking, unless it's your interpretation. That's the very definition of bigotry, or should I just say political correctness?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just like the people that are projecting the notion that the pencil sharpener is offensive?
Also from Ray:
"To say "women do enjoy and partake in this," without a clear qualifier like "some" makes your assertion pure hogwash. You do go on to say, "Not all women," but that really isn't very precise, now is it, after your first gross inaccuracy is planted in the mind?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How would saying "While you may be shocked, women do enjoy and partake in this. Not all women certainly, but that is a matter of choice," be different from "While you may be shocked some women enjoy and partake in this."?
November 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
...I still don't quite get it as to why mensactivists engage with the new gender feminist!!
..the new gender feminists I,ve seen and heard are generally Vile, vulgar, and nasty perverts!!
Educated in victim hysteria, and demagoguery, to the exclusion of critical thinking and logical discourse!!
November 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Get over your PC intolerance, prejudice and outright bigotry. That part of the body you refer to was designed “by nature” for the elimination of refuse from the body, not the insertion of foreign objects, so if "some" people soundly want to adhere to nature’s design who are you to belittle and condemn their completely natural and valid beliefs?
..... But oral sex is ok, right?
November 28th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
First things first, I don't understand how referring to the decapitated female-form pencil sharpener above as a "woman" is in any way accurate, nor do I understand how you can indicate that the object, as pictured, depicts ANY kind of sexual act. Seriously, if all it takes is a headless body on all fours nailed to a piece of wood to men to think "wow, sexy!" -that is disturbing.
Objections aside, if you take the object as a "woman" and not a mutilated female form, then let's look at what you DO with said "woman"- you insert a pencil into it. There's no pesky face on there to declare "enjoyment" so it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp the concept that maybe, when you take a decapitated body and shove something near the rear end of it, it looks a bit too much like a violation rather than a consensual, sexual act.
Seriously, mutilated people? Are not sexy. Shoving knives into a male form? Yeah, that isn't a very feminist thing either, considering feminism is about equality among people and not the subjugation of any person. You can simplify and say it's "promoting rape" but it's more subtle than that- it's promoting a tolerance of the forcible subjugation of another person, it's commercializing it and it's making it mainstream and o.k. Attitudes which, in turn, become reflected in violence against other people. And that shouldn't be anyone's goal... right?
November 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Glenn, how is it remotely helpful to compare two injustices and then go and pick one at the *expense* of the other? Most feminists favor equitable and just treatment for all, men included (Lance might be interested to learn that a LOT of feminists, myself among them, are HUGE BSG fans -- and that the show's creator and his wife, generous and intelligent persons both, adhere to many equality-minded feminist ideals). As a feminist, I'm disgusted by the knife block you picture, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it and to the retailer, so that I can avoid purchasing its products. But when you follow up a post like this with "See? We're worse off than women!!" you're being counterproductive. The mature response would be to appeal to the many justice-minded and reasonable feminists out there (and ignore the unreasonable feminists, of which sadly there are SOME -- as there are unreasonable people in every corner of society) so that we can all work together to foster a more humane world. Instead, you take the opportunity to drive a wedge between our respective groups, whose goals ought instead to be bringing us together.
Jerry expresses confusion at the response of people like Cara, opining that she hasn't been "attacked" here, when 90% of your comments are precisely that: attacks. I mean, come on. When you post on this site about how much feminists hate men (without a shred of actual evidence of such hatred), do you really expect Cara to think you're going to trot over to her site and suddenly become well-intentioned and non-inflammatory? If she did perhaps you'd all start mocking feminists for being too naive.
Choosing the simplistic course ("ZOMG!!1! Those evil feminists believe [something stereotypical and oversimplified, and perhaps just plain wrong]!!") over the nobler course is precisely the sort of thing that keeps this fruitless, tiresome Battle of the Sexes going strong. Even if feminists DID believe half of the things you and your commenters attribute to us, even if the only things we ever said were unfairly anti-male, if you were the well-meaning, intelligent champions of justice you portray yourselves as, presumably you would have the power to rise above.
How sad.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
What is wrong with the pencil sharpener? There is no head. I guess that doesn't matter to you.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Let's look at this from another "point" of view. From my vantage point the pencil sharpener is not necessarily a female...nor is the knife block necessarily male. They are sexless figures. Now, if we look at it that way....do men still not find the sharpener offensive if we think it male? And are men still incensed if the knife block is female?
November 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
The law fairry
"When you post on this site about how much feminists hate men (without a shred of actual evidence of such hatred), "
The femi-nazi movement is to psychologically castrate males, so they can be worked to an early death, and no-one will hear their complaints!!...The femi-nazi has conditioned society to be indifferent to male pain!!
November 28th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
some men could easily see it as a vindictive womens dream come true
Yes - you're totally right! As a man-hating woman, it's my dream to have my head cut off and be bolted in an all-fours position to have unknown people stick things up inside me. Why didn't I think of this years ago?
For the record, the butcher block has been discussed at feministing.org also, and the majority of posters and commenters there were against it. I think it's in extremely poor taste and offensive and do not condone it. I don't think any of those "men are bastards" type jokes/items are funny, either, because I don't think it helps women to beat down men.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Posted at Cara's blog:
While I am glad you came to Glenn's post to have a dialogue, it seems ironic you and yours would come there and expect to be able to freely speak without having your comments removed.
I still have not seen a single person able to post any site that actually sells this pencil sharpener. I note I could be wrong about that. But until I see it confirmed it is an actual product, it seems quite likely that this was produced as an art student PRECISELY to generate discussion, but should not be viewed as an actual product.
I find it the sharpener as offensive as the knife block, as well as these anger management dolls:
http://www.prankplace.com/angermgmt.htm
The reference to the feminist desire is a reference to the vagina dentata, I would have hoped you would have acknowledged the reference.
The visual nails holding the figure down? If as I suspect this is not a real product, the nails go right to the artists message.
By the way, the figurine, pen holder, is that a rape toy? Again, not as much as the knife block denotes murder, or the anger management doll connotes beating up your "male balding" boss.
Is a sex doll a rape toy? Is a dildo a rape toy?
The figurine is NOT a rape toy, any more than a dildo is a rape toy or a sex doll is a rape toy. Yes, those toys can be used in rape fantasies, but they can also be used, and are probably used more in non-rape fantasies.
I would never buy the figurine, and never display it, but if in some strange world I encountered one, I would never place a pen in it thinking I was somehow raping the figurine.
Women can actually engage in consensual, mutually desirable sex, and men actually more often fantasize about consensual sex than not.
Actually, has anyone done a study of which sex has more rape fantasies? My guess is that women fantasize more about rape than men.
I will post this in both forums, because yesterday, Cara, you demonstrated to me, that you are not able to distinguish between disagreement and misogyny.
Again, bizarre you would call Glenn a misogynist, delete messages from his readers, and then visit his blog and try to have a conversation. What world did you grow up on that taught you such rude, arrogant behavior?
November 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
The Law Fairy, as if often the case, you misrepresent the facts.
When I wrote no one had attacked her here, indeed, no one HAD attacked her here. However, by that time, she had already deleted my entirely reasonable and on point comments.
After her deletion of my comments and AFTER people at her site called Glenn a misogynist, did people then attack Cara? Yep, people did. That's sadly what humans do AFTER they have been attacked.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Jerry, you don't need to attack Cara specifically for her to be under attack. Otherwise, if I say "all men suck and are evil and should be put to death," then you cannot say that I am attacking you -- even though I clearly am.
I will acknowledge that (I believe) this is the first time I have visited this site, so I will admit that it's possible that this is the one string of comments in the history of this site where you and other commenters have engaged in unprovoked feminist-bashing. But, to be frank, I quite doubt it.
So, given the premises I accepted -- i.e., that Glenn's site regularly invites commentary similar to what I see here, and that Cara was familiar with this site before you posted on her blog -- my point was wholly reasonable.
I would be interested to hear how you think I have misrepresented any facts.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Oh, also, Jerry, have we met? You suggest that I "often" misrepresent facts, a statement for which you would have no basis unless we had conversed *at least* several times in the past. And I certainly hope that you would not make baseless accusations against a guest to a blog you appear to frequent.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Is that really how you view chains of evidence.
And also, is Glenn responsible for every comment made by every commenters? Isn't that precisely what Bill O'Reilly says of Kos? Is Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte responsible for the hate comments that appear on their sites? Is Melissa McEwan responsible for Ginmar and Flewellyn and the other hate spouters at their sites? Those commenters and those sorts of comments come through loud and clear and on a daily basis.
Was Twisty Faster responsible for the anti-transgendered comments that appeared at her site?
This was your first visit to this site. Congratulations and welcome. My suggestion actually, and my request for a personal favor from you is that you visit this site on a daily basis for several weeks. See for yourself EXACTLY the kinds of policies and statements that Glenn Sacks makes. I am confident you will not find him a misogynist.
And you can also check out the dialogue in the comments. Yes, there is some obnoxious talk. And you'll usually find that when it crosses a line (as in the anal sex commentary above) that people bring that up and discuss that.
But just because not everyone speaks up against every statement ever does not make people a collaborator or endorser. It's good to hear different points of view, even ugly ones. It's good to know they exist. It's good to be able to argue why they are wrong. It's wrong and unproductive to force everyone to adopt the same point of view. Because you know what, they don't believe what they say, they just say what you want to hear. And then you'll find the "empty suits" are the ones that get ahead for saying what you want to hear.
Got to go get my kids. Wednesday night.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
We've met.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
online that is. gotta go.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Well, Jerry, you have me at a disadvantage. You appear to know who I am, but I do not know who you are. When you have time after picking up your kids I'd appreciate at least a hint as to our past acquaintance. Profuse apologies if I ought to recognize you.
To be clear, I was not suggesting that anyone is "responsible" for any comments on this site (other than, obviously, the author of the comment in question), nor did I use the term "misogynist." I do not confuse anti-feminists with misogynists, although there is a fair amount of overlap between the two groups. My response to you was meant to pertain to the question of Cara's deleting your comment on her blog. I offered a potentially rational reason why she may have done so. No one here needs to be a misogynist, and Glenn does not need to be responsible for anyone else's comments, for my reasoning to apply.
From his post above, Glenn does not appear to be a misogynist, but he does appear to suffer from some common misperceptions about feminism, which I find unfortunate. I truly and sincerely wish that feminists and MRAs could suck it up and admit that we've got a lot of common ground. And yes, I will grant there are a lot of feminists who contribute to the acrimony. But each time any of us posts a comment we have an opportunity to raise the level of discourse. So the point of my initial comment was merely to express my disappointment that Glenn opted not to do so in this situation (and, instead, added fuel to the fire by needlessly postulating that one offensive item was "worse" than another, as though equality and justice were some question of who "wins").
November 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I applaud the Law Fairy's comments critical of the knife block: "As a feminist, I'm disgusted by the knife block you picture, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it and to the retailer, so that I can avoid purchasing its products." I suspect that she is not one of the radical gender feminists who do exactly what she decries here, in reverse: they minimize any anti-male bigotry as harmless or de minimis compared to the oppression women face.
You will find that Glenn is not one of the de rigueur over-the-edge MRA commentators. He has very specific concerns and he is interested in equality for both genders. He often defends NOW's criticism of advertisements harmful to women. But he sees definite institutional biases against fathers, and he is an authorty on it. He is concerned about how men are portrayed by the media -- as selfish buffoons -- because of its effect on boys.
I would suggest that if Jessica at Feministing as well as some of the othe rmore nutty radical feminist blogs would more often acknowledge real biases against men (and stop blaming men or the patriarchy abstraction for all of men's problems), they'd have a lot more converts. But they are content to preach to the choir, it seems, and keep their true believers in their corner. Glenn, in contrast, at times infuriates men on this board with what some believe are pro-feminist sentiments. I truly believe that Glenn is a classic equity feminist, and I say that as a compliment. He is concerned for equality for women, certainly, but he feels that very few people are sticking up for fathers or men -- in family law court or in many other areas. That's what he does.
And he doesn't say, "Ugh!" any time a feminist offers a differing view (that seems to be the young radical feminists' favorite word -- all those expensive women's studies classes and "ugh" is the best they can do). And he doesn't delete feminist comments as some feminists do to men. And he doesn't scold feminists for taking a different view or belittle them for not reading the blog's directions before posting.
I'm not speaking for Glenn, and he may not agree with how I've characterized him. That's how I see him.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
just curious --
what if the pencil sharpener were a man? would that still be ok?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
To The Law Fairy:
"When you post on this site about how much feminists hate men (without a shred of actual evidence of such hatred), do you really expect Cara to think you're going to trot over to her site and suddenly become well-intentioned and non-inflammatory?"
So Glenn makes a post on his blog and Cara is insulted by it so she feels she has the right to make inflammatory remarks here... but then refuses to permit alternate opinions being displayed on her blog?
That is called being a hypocrite, simple as that.
If she feels she has the right to display her opposing opinion here, then in the interest of promoting equality she MUST give others the right to display their opposing opinions on her site.
It's really not a complicated concept so far as I am concerned.
You cannot defend someone who is behaving in such a childish manner, it is no different than when a 5 year old yells out their position and then sticks their fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear what anyone else has to say. If you want to be taken seriously then you have to behave like an adult... and that means hearing people out even if you don't like what their opinions are.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
OK, let's break this down. The pencil sharpener figure has no head and it is bolted to a board. If you enjoy having sex with a woman like this, you're a rapist, plain and simple. and yes, the knife guy does look painful.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Socialworkbob... you are taking only one perspective of this issue... I could just as easily declare that if a woman enjoys using that pencil sharpener she is an advocate for male genital mutilation and actively promoting putting mens genitals through the equivalant of a meat grinder.
It's funny how it is so easy for some people to anthropomorphize the female body of this sharpener and declare "omg... that is aweful, it is a decapitated woman that has been nailed to a board!!!"... yet those same people seem incapable of anthropomorphizing the pencil and declaring "omg... that is awful, it is a mans genitals being fed into a grinding machine!!!"
When you actually attribute humanity to the entire situation it isn't pleasurable for anyone now is it?... exactly what kind of rapist fantasizes about sticking their genitals into a device with sharp interlocking blades?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
cara didn't actually comment here. she just linked to it in her own blog post, and it therefore showed up here.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Socialworkbob, if you enjoy having sex with a woman who has no head, it would be some form of criminal necrophelia not rape.
I think Jessica at Feministing has given this stupid pencil sharpener way too much publicity. I suspect that wherever it is sold (assuming it is sold somewhere) it is having it's best day ever. I mean, who uses pencil sharpeners anymore? This thing was so marginalized very, very few people ever heard of it -- until Jessica. She's done women a disservice by giving this damn thing -- which IS objectionable to me -- so much free publicity.
The way to satisfy all concerns is this : Have the pencil sharpener emit a woman's voice enthusiastically saying, "Yes, let's do it,:" indicating consent to insert the pencil. Maybe sometimes it should say "no" and then you can't sharpen. Maybe sometimes it should say" yes," and then after the pencil is inserted, right in the middle of sharpening, it can change to "no/" At that point you have to withdraw the pencil or be guilty of sexual assault of a pencil sharpener.
Better yet, how about this: just buy a pen, and spare us all from this trumped up mirage of victimhood. This thing WAS, until Jessica, not on anybody's radar. This is what represents the struggles of feminism today? A product nobody ever heard of, nobody was buying, and that very few people think is acceptable? Sounds to me as though feminism has won and they can shut down the misandry blogs.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Rhian,
That is the equivalent of commenting, allow me to expand. By her own admission:
"What I did do was link to the horrific thread on his site, and that automatically generated a trackback."
She linked her blog to this one so that she could express her opposing views to the readers of Glenn's blog. That in and of itself is fine by me, here is my problem however... she goes on to say the following:
"I have no desire to engage in discussion with Glenn."
Meaning that at the time she linked her views to Glenn's blog, she knew that she had no interest whatsoever in allowing her readers to view his opinion on her blog... she had already essentially made the decision that she would not allow his opposing views to be presented on her site while presenting her opposing views on his site.
It doesn't get any more ridiculous than that.
The way I was raised, and the way I believe most people are raised is that you treat others how you want to be treated... in which case she had no business linking anything here in the first place, because she had no intention of reciprocating.
That is a serious problem so far as I am concerned and destroys any intellectual credibility she might have had if she had chosen to behave in a fair and equitable manner.
What she did was the equivalent of a pop in to some strangers door and demand their hospitality only to turn around and return home and then complain how a stranger was showing up and had the gall to expect her to answer the door.
If you think for one second she would have allowed Glenn to place a link to his blog post on her site I believe you are kidding yourself.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I believe I understand what occured now and better see what you are saying Rhian... I am less bothered by the situation because I think it is plausible that the link here was unintentional. If the link here was an intentional byproduct then I will return to my former position, but I have no proof of such so I would rather believe the best in people than the worst in them.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
ok, thanks for explaining. i actually know very little about the whole situation (and only discovered glenn and cara today). but i see your point.
what i am still want to know, though, is whether this pencil sharpener is sexist. and so i'm wondering about whether it would be amusing to stick a pencil into the rear of a headless, nailed-down man?
because i think that would be seen by many as just plain violent, a la the knife block. whereas the female version is seen as a cute novelty item. and that, yes, is sexist.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Melissa: "I don't understand how referring to the decapitated female-form pencil sharpener above as a "woman" is in any way accurate, nor do I understand how you can indicate that the object, as pictured, depicts ANY kind of sexual act."
Agreed...on the one hand it is kinda dumb that either Glenn or Jessica brought it up. On the other, I suppose it is a good thought experiment and discussion point.
Melissa: "There's no pesky face on there to declare "enjoyment" so it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp the concept that maybe, when you take a decapitated body and shove something near the rear end of it, it looks a bit too much like a violation rather than a consensual, sexual act." Perhaps, read below though for another point of view...
socialworkbob: "OK, let's break this down. The pencil sharpener figure has no head and it is bolted to a board. If you enjoy having sex with a woman like this, you're a rapist, plain and simple. and yes, the knife guy does look painful."
Funny, I would say she does have a head...it just happens to be a crank. Have you ever been to an art museum? Artists often render the head of their "victims" in many different ways...I have probably even seen a crank before (after all it could depict the dynamic nature of the human mind). So assuming that it is showing the female form as evidenced by the feminine curves of the rest of the body, and assuming that the crank is indeed a head as I described the only question becomes whether or not this could be construed as rape...perhaps, unless one considers that many women enjoy bondage games. Taken from this point of view, it is not so "plain and simple" as you may think. Unless of course you are going to pass judgement upon the bedroom activities of consenting adults.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Law Fairy: "....this is the one string of comments in the history of this site where you and other commenters have engaged in unprovoked feminist-bashing.."
Since you are new to this site, I'll give you a quick tour...there's the bathroom...there's the living room...and here's what "feminist" means to many of the people on this site: "radical, militant feminism bent on breaking the male in favor of the female".. Does this mean that all feminists fall under this umbrella? Certainly not. The vast majority of commentators on this site are actually very pro-feminist. That is if by feminist you mean the term defined in the dictionary. For examples of "compatible" feminists, see ifeminists.net or advise goddess or IWF to name a few. Wendy and Amy come by every now and again (esp Amy). So every time you see "feminist" in this and other threads, go ahead and insert the longer phrase and it may shed a little light on things.
As part of our little tour, you may want to keep in mind that many of the folks on this site have been burned by an anti-male DV system that assumes male guilt, an anti-male family law system seems to think of men/fathers as ATMs and nothing more, and/or an overall misandrist world that seems to think that it is perfectly reasonable to demonize and dispose of men in favor of women. Therefore, we will often refer to "feminists" as the enemy when more likely we are referring to the much larger "militant feminist" definition.
Also, please note: masculinism is not necessarily anti-feminist. It is simply feminism from the point of view of men (just as feminism is masculinism from the point of view of women). While not everyone here calls themselves a masculinist, many do and many of us don't buy the victim politics of the NOW and other similar organizations. We don't feel that our wives/daughters/etc any more or less "victims" then men are. Playing the victim card is merely a way in which WOMEN maintain this mythical patriarchy (in their own minds it seems) and successfully gain the upperhand in gender relations. In that respect, NOW is anti-feminist in that they are perfectly willing to fight for the equality of women while at the same time demand special treatment in the form of skewed health, DV, etc funding, laws, and so on.
Law Fairy: "From his post above, Glenn does not appear to be a misogynist, but he does appear to suffer from some common misperceptions about feminism, which I find unfortunate."
One final point before I head to other posts. I believe I have belabored the way feminists are usually defined - for better or for worse - in this crowd and the point of view so I won't note it again. You may choose to be a offended by the usage of the term, or you may choose to be enlightened by another point of view. You may also want to read these two articles from Glenn.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=206
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=874
I don't know you, but at this point until I see otherwise, I do not believe that Glenn is any more/less anti-feminist (or misogynist) then you are. Again, if we are are using the Websters definition.
Ultimately, it is good to see the new additions to this site! I honestly hope you stick around. Some commentators will anger you, some will make you smile, and some may even surprise you. One thing: post often and be open to other points of view. If you truly want feminists and masculinists to join forces, we must all learn to see things from other points of view.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
[...] to Why Feminism Matters, took a cheap shot at me, inverting the meaning of my recent blog post The Sexist Pencil Sharpener v. the Sexist Knife Block. Valenti [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Rufus, I'm a regular feministing reader (and used to be a frequent commenter, though in recent months haven't said as much). Maybe you could provide examples of the "radical gender feminists" you're referring to? It sounds like something I might consider myself, since I have some pretty "radical" ideas, such as my belief that gender is a good 90, 95% socially constructed and that it limits and harms both sexes. So, perhaps I'm not the "good" feminist you think I am ;) I know there is a lot of older feminist literature that has some harsh words directed at men, but I think you'll find that most modern feminists bear no animus toward men (although, like any marginalized group, we have our fair share of angry days resulting in hasty, unfair comments -- but I've yet to meet a single human being immune to this criticism).
For instance, feminists are certainly no fan of the portrayal of men or women in modern media. Many feminists have criticized the oafish male/hot superwoman pairing you describe, including the women of feministing -- http://www.feministing.com/archives/007735.html. While feminists do blame the patriarchy for social ills, we don't blame "men," any more than we blame white people for racism. And if you think everyone on feministing thinks the same things, or agrees with everything the blog authors say, then you don't read it often enough. There have been some major disagreements among many staunch feminists on the site. Of course there is a certain amount of "preaching to the choir," but this is true of *any* blog with a political slant of any sort. People like to hear other people say things that they agree with. I think that's pretty close to a human universal.
I don't know that most feminists minimize anti-male bigotry so much as it simply doesn't make our radar screen. Just as you guys focus on issues from men's perspectives, we focus on them from women's perspectives. This doesn't make us bad or anti-man or angry or whatever. It just means that, like everyone, we have our pet issues.
Lance, thank you for the welcome. I think your point is a bit too semantic... my point has been that there's something of an unfair lumping together, and thereby vilification, of feminists. Pointing out that most of the commenters to this site agree with this unfair definition doesn't change the fact that it's unfair, any more than it would be fair for a bunch of feminists to decide that "man" is going to mean "rapist," and therefore all men are rapists. Such a remark would be patently unfair and untrue, and no matter how many feminists believed it, would not make them justified in calling all men rapists.
I have to take issue with your calling IWF "feminist." (I'm not familiar with the other organizations you mentioned). IWF favors restrictive, anti-individual gender norms, it is opposed to women's sexual expression and liberation, and it is opposed to a woman's right to control her body. There is nothing "feminist" about this. That IWF happens to hold some laudable goals, at least in name (such as the social liberation and full political participation of women in the Middle East), does not change the fact that its focus is decidedly *not* a feminist one.
I find it interesting that you accuse feminists of painting women as "victims" and then turn right around and do the exact same thing with respect to men. It kind of makes me think of a playground fight: "you're stupid!" "No, *you're* stupid!" Making the same claims as the person whose arguments you criticize, only in reverse (and with nothing additional), doesn't really make for much of an argument. Without some baseline definition of, for instance, what it means both to *be* a victim and to claim victim status, and what is the rubric by which we will judge the fitness of claiming such, arguing over who is "more" of a victim is really pointless. The patriarchy exists, and it harms men AND women. A couple of you have pointed out problems with how our system treats DV against men and fathers' rights and similar issues. I could not agree more that the system is unfair (both to men and women). Here's a great example of how our two groups could live much more harmoniously if we focused on our likeness instead of our differences. Feminists look at something like the under-reporting of DV against men and the under-enforcement of laws against it, and we see a system that encourages violence against women and a society that treats women as the "weaker" sex, and when those two are combined, you wind up with men who are mocked as being "less manly" or "more womanly" (as thought this is an insult) if a woman beats them up (leading to both the under-reporting and under-enforcement problems). In other words, feminists see that this problem results at least in part from anti-woman sentiments that are rampant and insidious in our society. MRAs (if I understand correctly) look at the problem and see a system that unfairly expects men to bear the brunt of violence and tells men they are not allowed to defend themselves against women, while allowing women to take out their aggression on men. Here's the thing: with a modicum of conciliatory creative, these two different points of view are not mutually exclusive. And even if they were, that's an issue for philosophy class, not for politics. Bottom line is, we ALL want domestic violence against men AND women to stop, like, yesterday. So why are we sitting here arguing over whether society hates men or women more?
Perhaps I am just too pragmatic for my own good. I just don't see the point in fighting or putting down other people's points of view (which I don't believe I have done here, but if I have, I apologize and assure you this was not my intent) when you could accomplish actual GOOD by working together.
Jason, this might be obsolete at this point since it looks like we've gotten some clarification re the posting/trackback issue, but I'll clarify again that my point wasn't about Glenn's post, but about the comments that followed. Just as some here have noted that there seems to be a certain "atmosphere" at blogs like feministing, there appears (to an outsider) to be a certain atmosphere here as well. It's not wholly unreasonable of Cara to react to that perception.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:35 am
My position was largely based upon the notion that she intended to post something here, and then turned around and didn't want to hear what anyone here had to say. I now believe given my new understanding of the situation that it is entirely possible that the post here was unintentional... I certainly cannot prove that one way or the other as only one person knows what her intentions actually were, but in the absence of evidence I see no reason to jump to the negative conclusion.
I still feel it is unfortunate that she would not want to accept reasonably articulated points that happen to take a markedly different perspective... but if she is content to be an isolationist with her views, I can at least accept her wanting to keep other peoples views out. For all I know she would welcome my perspective on this issue, I haven't bothered to test and find out... but I don't think the odds are good my opinion would gain much traction with her so I am content to be heard here.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:11 am
I was puzzled at first as to why you thought the knife block was male, but then I saw that a catalog has titled it in an offensive way that describes it as male.
For what it's worth, that design -- or at least, the design this one was ripped off from -- has been around for years, and this is the first time I've seen it marketed as being specifically male. Separate from the misandry of how these folks are selling it, I think it's actually a very funny design.
The pencil sharpener doesn't seem to be depicting rape to me, but it also seems like a very cheesy piece of design; ugly, sexist, badly proportioned, and part of a long line of unoriginal novelties.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Fairy - I make a distinction between radical gender feminists and classic equity feminists. And I agree the authors of that blog are more careful than many of the nutty commentators.
"While feminists do blame the patriarchy for social ills, we don't blame 'men,' any more than we blame white people for racism." Um, for your information, white people are the only ones most liberals blame for racism. Anyway, this is not worth debating because it's so obvious, but I DO love that argument that radical gender feminists only oppose the patriarchy, not "men" -- yet it just so happens most (virtually all) of the ills that particular blog rants about are activities that it believes are primarily engaged in or sponsored by men. That argument is akin to asserting "we're not against you, the stray male who might be reading this, but 'the other men!'"
November 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Law Fairy: "my point has been that there's something of an unfair lumping together, and thereby vilification, of feminists."
Couldn't agree with you more .. though I believe that in terms of lumping people together, we should all take a good, hard look in the mirror. When someone comes along spouting off terms like "misogynist" and "anti-feminist" without taking in all of the facts, that person often is trying to lump together a whole bunch of people. Are some of the people on this site misogynist and anti-feminist, sure...is Glenn? No. Am I? Probably not. Is the vast majority.. No. Unless being masculinist equals being anti-feminist. Will I believe in every "tenet" of your brand of feminism? Probably not, but then again, I am a free thinking individual first.
Law: "I find it interesting that you accuse feminists of painting women as "victims" and then turn right around and do the exact same thing with respect to men. ...Making the same claims as the person whose arguments you criticize, only in reverse (and with nothing additional), doesn't really make for much of an argument."
Ah, that was a far too simplistic interpretation of my statement. Let me see if I can explain it a better way. My meaning was not necessarily that it is "bad" that society recognize victimhood. What is bad is not realizing or recognizing the fact that men are at least as victimized as women and it is often the one-sided, anti-male laws/policies/funding lobbied for by gender feminists that have in many ways caused - and perpetuated - this male-victimhood. Some causes are brought on by such flawed behaviors as chivalry so certainly men are not without blame, but many of today's anti-male ills are more related to poorly constructed laws/policies designed to victimize men in favor of women and pushed for by gender feminists. When you couple that with a desire by gender feminists to rewrite history and marginalize men through the one-sided empowerment movement (that is leading to an even higher disparity in dropout rates, suicide, the life gap, and so on), you can see why gender feminists are not looked upon as being as fair-minded as they would like to believe.
Law: " IWF favors restrictive, anti-individual gender norms, it is opposed to women's sexual expression and liberation, and it is opposed to a woman's right to control her body."
I would agree with your assessment of their "gender norms" and I have called them on it..This seems to be far more dependent upon the particular author. As far as the other points go, they are debatable. They do not take a stand one way or the other concerning abortion. Sexual expression doesn't seem like a problem to them...they are a bit more conservative though but conservatism in itself is not necessarily anti-feminist. After all, scroll up in the conversation and see my thoughts on many of the so-called "liberal" feminists out there.
Forgive me if I am reading incorrectly, but It sounds like your world view is that you are either "with us" or "against us" (sounds like Bush incidentally) and you will simply paint the "anti-feminist" brush on anyone that doesn't 100% agree with something that is a fundamental belief in your mind (which sounds an awful lot like fundamentalism). Here's another point of view. Many masculinists (though certainly not all) are against Roe v. Wade in large part because our current pro-choice laws are sexist: while women are afforded the right to terminate a pregnancy, and with it responsibility for an unwanted child, men are not afforded the same right to terminate their responsibilities for an unwanted child prior to the birth of that child. If a women drops off a child at a safe haven, she is looked upon as a hero for realizing that she can't afford to keep the child..if a man states that he can not afford to keep the child, he is looked upon as a deadbeat. By this point of view, women have rights and men have responsibilities. How's that for equality?
Law: "The patriarchy exists, and it harms men AND women. A couple of you have pointed out problems with how our system treats DV against men and fathers' rights and similar issues. I could not agree more that the system is unfair (both to men and women). Here's a great example of how our two groups could live much more harmoniously if we focused on our likeness instead of our differences. "
Ah, but who pushed for the VAWA? Yup, such so-called feminist organizations as NOW, ACLU, and so on. The VAMA is not a product of some mythical patriarchy...it is a product of gender feminism under the guise of true-feminist/masculinist beliefs. The patriarchy...or the idea that there is some conspiracy against women is patently false. Could such a thing have existed in the past? Possibly.... But sorry sis, I can't buy the idea of a "conspiracy" when men are dropping like flies, becoming wholly disempowered instead of becoming partners, loosing their families, and so on. Your last point concerning focussing on our similarities, I agree completely. This can start by recognizing that men and women aren't all that different. All men aren't demons...and all women aren't saints. Husbands beat their wives...wives beat their husbands (at pretty even rates according to the statistics). Let's see if NOW ever accepts these statistics without putting on a "female-on-male violence is just a symptom of male-on-female violence" clause.
Law: "Feminists look at something like the under-reporting of DV against men and the under-enforcement of laws against it, and we see a system that encourages violence against women and a society that treats women as the "weaker" sex, and when those two are combined, you wind up with men who are mocked as being "less manly" or "more womanly" (as thought this is an insult) if a woman beats them up (leading to both the under-reporting and under-enforcement problems). In other words, feminists see that this problem results at least in part from anti-woman sentiments that are rampant and insidious in our society. "
Yes, society does treat women as the weaker sex, and the VAWA, and the flawed belief that you should never hit a woman just because she is a woman, is a prime example of a anti-male law/policy that perpetuates this myth. Feminists wonder why some (many?) people are against women in football...well that's one reason: on the one hand "don't hit a woman because she's a women" on the other "it's ok to hit a woman on the field.." Come on, how confusing is that? (and this is from someone who would love to see woman in football - or the front lines in the military - as long as they are held to the SAME standards as men). People shouldn't say "don't hit a woman"..they should say "don't hit."
But see, then you say "..we see a system that encourages violence against women.." That's where you loose me. This system (and by extrapolation this society) does NOT encourage violence against women. I can't believe you can say that with a straight face when men are far more likely to be violently killed/maimed. The problem is gender feminists only see things from the point of view of women and they don't realize that men are just as victimized by their one-sided actions as they are by some mythical patriarchy. They are perfectly happy to vilify men (and the system), ask for special protections, demand more female-only funding, and so on out of some misplaced belief that women are greater victims then men. I would really suggest you take a look at the folks at ifeminism.net for another more compatible brand of feminism. Wendy (a staunch libertarian) is just as likely to underscore anti-male laws/policies as anti-female laws/policies....
Law: "Bottom line is, we ALL want domestic violence against men AND women to stop, like, yesterday. So why are we sitting here arguing over whether society hates men or women more?
Couldn't agree with you more! Now get your sisters to publicly recognize the stats on DV, and we are in business. As a gender egalitarian, I'm all for working with feminists (and masculinists) that recognize that (a) no brand of feminism/masculinism is 100% right, (b) gender feminism/masculinism is not gender egalitarianism, and (c) women or men NEVER deserve special laws/policies/funding just because of what's between their legs.
As an aside, I do agree in principle with your ~90% assessment concerning gender differences. As a professional biologist, I'm continually astounded by the similarities. By the same token, that doesn't mean that we disregard that ~10%! For instance, things like education are becoming extremely feminized to the point where education itself is becoming incompatible with the young male mind. We remade education to be compatible with the young female mind...we now need to re-remake education to be compatible with the young male mind. If this means we need to have the option of split gender classes, so be it. Accounting for differences in learning styles is not calling one gender weaker then the other...it is just saying we need to realize that there are some differences that we need to celebrate so everyone can be successful.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
&: "I was puzzled at first as to why you thought the knife block was male.... For what it's worth, that design -- or at least, the design this one was ripped off from -- has been around for years.."
Yes, on the door of almost every MALE public restroom in the world. That stylized design, for better or for worse, has a decidedly male-connotation to it. Does that mean that every time you see it it represents a man? No..of course not. Imagine if they would have rounded the hips a bit....perhaps added a few more feminine features? Would you then think it as funny? If so, I applaud you. In all honesty, I'm fine with making fun of fake men being stabbed in frustration...as long as we are just as willing to make fun of fake women being stabbed in frustration. I don't think anyone here honestly believes that stabbing a piece of plastic is the same as stabbing a person...what is wrong is the double standard.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am
A point of clarification...by saying "The problem is gender feminists only see things from the point of view of women and they don't realize that men are just as victimized by their one-sided actions as they are by some mythical patriarchy. " I meant "The problem is gender feminists only see things from the point of view of women and they don't realize that men are just as victimized by their one-sided actions as they would be by some mythical patriarchy." In other words, the victimization of men today has far more to do with the special treatment demanded by women (and given by men for the sake of women) to make up for perceived wrongs.
Actually, the real problem with the term "patriarchy" is that the term itself is very offensive to men as "patriarchy" implies male. As the term is used, it suggests that masculine is evil, advantaged, and less evolved while feminine is good, disadvantaged, and the "Gold Standard." Let's see, for better or for worse, men have borne the brunt of every major war, disease, calamity, etc throughout time. Statistically speaking, men work harder, for longer hours away from their families, under harsher conditions, and yet they are eternally vilified instead of praised. Men are more likely to die from every major ailment, they are more likely to be homeless, and so on...that sounds like advantaged to me!
Thanks to the gender feminists, many boys/men grow up today hating themselves for who they are while girls/women are taught to love themselves for who they are. You wonder why school shootings are on the rise, you need to look no further: boys are looked upon as broken girls instead of individuals.
So when you say men are hurt by the patriarchy (being an inherently male term), you are really suggesting that men are hurt only because of men (and it has nothing to do with the expectations of the women in their lives and culture as a whole). You effectively give women a free pass: women are the victims of the patriarchy because they are women..this is something beyond their control so we need to give them special treatment. Women aren't part of the problem, they bare no responsibility. Men are the victims of the patriarchy because they are not-women..if they want to fix their victimhood, they should just change. Men are the problem, not women. Come up for a gender neutral term that doesn't suggest a bunch of MEN sitting in a smokey room somewhere, and perhaps we can find some common ground.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Lance, I'd go so far as to say the term "patriarchy," despite its supposed scholarly pedigree, has become a hate word. Males are the supposed principal sponsors of an evil system that oppresses women (oh, and it incidentally hurts some men, too). What this says to boys is, "You are an inferior being because you happened to be born male." Your point is very well stated.
If one reads the views of radical gender feminists regarding male contributions to civilization, one is left with a picture that bears no relation to reality. Perhaps we should encourage the separatists to actually separate and live in their grass huts, "free" from the civilization largely built by the wicked males.
The patriarchy is not responsible for most of the problems men face. It isn't removing fathers from their kids' lives and forcing them to pay more than they can afford and more than the kids need. It's the feminist-institutional biases of family law court doing that. The patriarchy doesn't encourage women in the inner city to have sons without fathers who go on to commit crime and end up in jail. The liberals and the feminists bear responsibility for the inner city -- America's great shame. The list goes on and on, these are two of the biggies.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
"When you actually attribute humanity to the entire situation it isn't pleasurable for anyone now is it?... exactly what kind of rapist fantasizes about sticking their genitals into a device with sharp interlocking blades?"
Good question.
Where is equal outrage at feminist sites, if as gender feminists claim, they are truly egalitarian" This RAPEX device appears far more potentially horrendous for men in the hands of a vicious, vindictive, or just plain criminal woman, than the mere depiction of a brutal act (based on subjective interpretation of a pencil sharpener).
Once again, the smell of goss hypocrisy permeates the environs of gender feminists who claim to be gender egalitarians.
RAPEX - Rape: now women can bite back
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=2140
"The words of a rape victim - "If only I had teeth down there" - have inspired the design of a new anti-rape device.
Rapex - dubbed the 'rape trap' - is a product worn internally by women. The hollow inside is lined with rows of razor-sharp hooks, which are designed to latch on to a rapist's penis during penetration. They can only be removed by a doctor."
November 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Since we're discussing terms, why not just touch on "feminism" itself. What's wrong with term and why is it offensive to some? Answer: It is inherently feminine suggesting that female is disadvantaged and male is advantaged and the only people that need "equality" are women when I think we all agree that men are discriminated against at least as much or often. Again, pick a gender-neutral term (incidentally, "masculinism" is no better in this regard).
While Law Fairy may disagree with my use of semantics, that really is what we are talking about here. FEMinism is to many (especially the herd) FEMinine. Unfortunately for us, Law Fairy is correct in her insinuation that our flagrant use of "feminists" to denote anything anti-male does hurt our position as it is far too easy to misinterpret our usage. On the other hand, we - as in the regular contributors here - correctly or incorrectly have a different definition of feminism then Law Fairy's. Again, if we all (feminists and us) could come up with a less sexist term for "FEMinist" (perhaps equalist), then this would go a long way to "uniting the tribes" as it were.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Claim: While feminists do blame the patriarchy for social ills, we don't blame "men," any more than we blame white people for racism.
Fact:
FIRE
Excerpts from University of Delaware Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training
Excerpts are taken from from the University of Delaware Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training document, linked in PDF form below.
-----
“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)" - Page 3
-----
“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'" - Page 3
-----
“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called "blaming the victim"). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent." - Page 3
-----
"Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, 'I'm not a member of any race except the human race?' What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn't want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people." - Page 8
November 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Whenever I see a feminist talking about the "unfair lumping together, and thereby vilification, of feminists" it's makes me wonder why it's nonetheless perfectly acceptable to lump all feminists together when you wish to say glowingly positive things about them.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
That's excellent, Jerry. LawFairy's assertion is one of feminism's great canards -- "we have nothing against men, it's the 'patriarchy' we oppose." When you examine what they mean by the "patriarchy," you will see it almost always comes back to men -- all the social ills for which men are supposedly responsible: Rape, domestic violence, "deadbeat dads," men failing to do housework, men who insist women be portrayed in the media as sexy and beautiful, etc. I won't bother chronicling the problems with each such assertion, and here are many. The point is, according to the radical gender feminists, MEN are the problem. "Patriarchy" is nothing more than a code word for collective men.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Judge: "The liberals and the feminists bear responsibility for the inner city...."
Ahoh...you brought up "liberals" in the generally-derogatory sense......now I guess as a Libertarian, I can say Conservatives have done a great job screwing this country over as well..but this changes the subject and probably isn't necessary for the discussion at hand.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Lance, I think the men's room sign icon looks male because we know a figure with legs on a bathroom door is male (as opposed to a figure wearing a skirt), not because an unmarked human figure actually looks male. Insofar as people do assume that any unmarked human figure must be male, that's sexism at work.
The problem for me is, if we assume that any figure without secondary female characteristics (rounded hips, etc) must be read as male, then there is no such thing as a generic form for "human" that designers and cartoonists can use without offending you because you'll always assume they're being anti-male.
Or we could just say that there ought never be negative or violent depictions of the human figure in art or entertainment, but I think that's getting way too sensitive.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
The knife block was "titled all men are bastards". Unless you want to add a penis to the knife block its male.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Women enjoy having pencils shoved up their asses? Who knew!
December 4th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I wonder if they make those pencil sharpener for the beginner (fat) pencils? Would like to get my sons K-4 Teacher one for Christmas.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Isn't it ironic that harcore lezbi feminist Jessica Valenti (http://feministing.com/archives/008139.html) depicts naked "trucker" women as main logos for her man-hating website! Oh...I get it, she's worshipping her imaginary girlfriend!!!
Isn't it ironic that harcore lezbi feminist Jessica Valenti (alias taken from "Valentino", the sex maniac) employs the word FUCKING all over her web pages, everytime she "expresses" her emotions!!! WHAT CLASS!! Scrape it off the wall please!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Because insulting someone by calling them a "lezbi" shows a whole lot of class, too. :)
December 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
[...] sexism, harassment, and what constitutes those things. It referenced a series of posts (more here, here, here, and here) about whether a pencil sharpener with the body of a woman doing it doggie style [...]
December 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I haven't been following the argument, but this is why I find the pencil sharpener offensive:
1. She has no head, fully objectifying her.
2. She is nailed down. People have claimed this product depicts a "consensual and enjoyable" sex act, but obviously she can't get up...
I found it an interesting point about male genital mutilation, but I kept going back to the points above.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Hi Shanti-
Welcome to the party. This is one of those threads that kinda blew itself out, so I doubt there will be much in the way of any immediate response. But...
1. She has no head, fully objectifying her.
Perhaps, or from another point of view: the crank is a stylized rendering of the human mind which is itself a dynamo "cranking out" the thoughts and creations of humanity.
2. She is nailed down. People have claimed this product depicts a "consensual and enjoyable" sex act, but obviously she can't get up...
I have engaged in bondage games whereby the woman "can't get up" either. I assure you, all of these acts have been fully consensual and in fact requested.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
How can anyone say that the pencil sharpener pictured is sexist? Sexual? yes. Sexist? No. I don't see how depicting a consentual sexual act can be considered sexist.
=====================================
Mike!
You have a valid point there. The point of consent. If they really want to make this sharpner even less sexist and MORRE sexual then put the woman on her back with arms and legs spread and welcoming. Possibly even some trusting mecanism similar to a woman really enjoying consentual sex.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Where can I purchase the female pencil sharpener.?? I want to give it as a gag birthday gift Thanks
February 17th, 2008 at 11:35 am
The problem with the pencil sharpener is that her hands and legs are nailed down (which seems intentional because things are usually glued - like the male one), the head is chopped off, and the pencil is way too big in proportion to her body. If this were real life the pencil would be the size of a large tree branch or log. There is nothing about the pencil sharpener which even *hints* at consensual sex. Every detail added gives it a violent aspect.
I also agree that the male one is terrible. Violence against men is overlooked because men are supposed to be the aggressors. So if a woman says something violent toward her boyfriend it is usually laughed off, but it doesn't go the other way.
However, most feminists are aware of that hypocrisy in society and aren't the ones perpetuating it. More often then not its the right-wing who are sexist toward men (and women) because they want to keep them in their specific gender roles. Right-wingers are usually the ones who say men need to be violent, be emotionally detached, and work 60 hours a week. (but thats another story for another day...)
All i'm saying is that it wasn't feminists who made that knife block, and if they are then they're not "real" feminists. Your average house wife would be more likely to get a kick out of this then feminists who are interested in equality.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Crystal: "However, most feminists are aware of that hypocrisy in society and aren't the ones perpetuating it."
Funny.
What feminist organization does not support the VAWA? (which is an inherently sexist act that only provides funding/services for female services)
What feminist organization even mentions the idea that women can be violent without putting on the following qualifier: when women are violent against their husbands/boyfriends it is in self defense.
What feminist organizations pay anything beyond lip service to the violence against men perpetrated by women as being a problem?
Answers: no mainstream feminist organization of which I am aware actually accept female-on-male violence as a problem and are actually doing anything about it. The only self-described feminists that talk about it at all include the likes of Wendy McElroy...but you will probably rarely see anyone from NOW make any such statement.
Crystal: "More often then not its the right-wing who are sexist toward men (and women) because they want to keep them in their specific gender roles."
It is not a right or left issue it is a societal issue. The left support the VAWA...how many women running women's shelters with their sexist practices are devout "left wingers"...try not to inject politics here. People here are left, right, and center to man (and woman). It is a common misconception that the MRM is borne out of the right wing....don't buy it.
Crystal: "All i'm saying is that it wasn't feminists who made that knife block, and if they are then they're not "real" feminists. "
Ah yes...the perpetual dodge. Feminists are great at pointing the other way whenever they perpetuate anti-male sexism and work to preserve female privilege. Do I know or even think a feminist came up with the knife block? I don't care either way. But the fundamental problem still exists: feminism, with its focus on male privilege (while disregarding female privilege) is a root cause of many of today's ills and until feminism strives to become more egalitarian, we will fight to put it down or change it. In many ways it is time for egalitarian feminists to take back their movement from the non-egalitarians at NOW and other organizations. It is time for feminism to become more inclusive (and drop the sexist "feminism" moniker).
Don't let you love of feminism cloud your judgement. Try to view feminism from the perspective of a true egalitarian. The people like those at finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com and NOW are far from egalitarians. Instead, take a look at ifeminists.net and see where (hopefully) your movement will end up.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Oh, and on the subject of violence against men, see this site:
http://www.mediaradar.org/
December 15th, 2008 at 1:05 am
[...] I also found a lot of people who want to buy that pencil sharpener. And one person who thinks that this knife holder is "far more offensive" than the pencil [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
What these videos also do is deny women the good relationships they should have. Boys who are moral and upstanding, and who would be good long term partners, if not husbands, will see sex as dirty and damaging to women. They will not pursue women as they should, seeing their own desires as dirty/sinful/horrible/hurtful.
Since women have the same desires, a higher percentage of boys who don't care about the welfare of these girls, and who pay no attention to rules will pursue the girls for sex alone as opposed to good boys, causing women to have bad relationships and be used. I was one of the good guys and it has caused me many many problems in my life for trying to do 'the right thing', which wasn't the right thing after all.
People who make these videos either hate males, regret their own decisions, or are such prudes that they want to stop others from enjoying all the aspects of a good relationship.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I think this an evil thing. If someone made a "All Women Are Bitches" Knife Block, it would be banned as hate speech. Why is it any different for men? I guess our society absolutely doesn't care what happens to men. It's more than willing to permit it, seeing as it pays for domestic violence shelters for women; but, not men. Things like this are sexist and misandric, and need to be stopped.