Protest to Be Held Against NY's Boybashing 'Coaching Boys into Men'
January 27th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
New York Shared Parenting activist Deborah Fellows says that the NY Coalition of Fathers and Families will be holding a protest against New York's boybashing "Coaching Boys into Men" campaign. The Campaign portrays boys as proto-abusers, and tells us that "violence against women" is wrong, as opposed to violence, period.
And of course, if it really were a "Domestic Violence Public Awareness Media Campaign," we'd be made aware that women are just as likely to attack their male partners as vice versa, but any mention of that is strictly verboten.
The campaign's main poster is pictured above. To watch their TV commercial, click here.
The protest will be held Monday Jan 28, from 7-9am at Latham Circle in Albany, NY, and I'm told that the media will be there. To join the protest, contact Debbie Fellows at dafellows2001@yahoo.com or 518-495-4044. The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York is an affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.
The campaign's radio ad, which can be heard here, says:
"As a dad, you’ll probably spend years teaching your son how to hit a baseball. How to throw a tight spiral and hit a receiver. How to spring off a diving board and hit the water. How to hit a one-wood and a nine-iron. How to hit the bull’s-eye. How to hit the strike zone. Hit a jump shot. Hit the open man. Hit the hockey net. And maybe the most challenging of all, how to hit the books. But the question is this, how much time will you spend teaching him what not to hit?
"Teach your son early and often that all violence against women is wrong. For tips on what to say, visit opdv.state.ny.us. Or call the State’s 24-hour hotline at 1-800-942-6906. Brought to you by the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the Waitt Institute for Violence Prevention, and the Ad Council."
"));
19 queries. 0.705 seconds.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Glenn thanks for this kind of news!! I live about 4 hrs. away from Albany but am going to attempt to make it, bringing a few friends!!
January 27th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Never mind that if teenage boys are hitting anyone, it will be eachother.
Of course that means nothing, males have no value. Hit em for all we care. As long as you don't touch the precious women.
But they can hit you, cos you probably deserve it, since you are a male and therefore (as the preceeding advert has just shown) an abuser.
Also, I notice that they say that ALL violence against women is wring. I wonder if they would ever consider any violence against men to be justified? Self defence? Capital punishment? Child discipline? Sport?
I'm not taking a position on any of them (although I do have positions on all of them), but I must wonder if the organisers positions on these forms of violence against men are the same as their positions on these cases against women.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This kind of misandrist idiocy will continue until the plug is pulled on VAWA, which is the main financial taxpayer-funded juice for the DV Industry, currently sucking up somewhat over $1 billion per year.
There are people making their livings by indoctrinating elementary school boys about their inherently criminal male nature.
Only in America!
January 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I wrote an article about this a while back.
“How can we coach little girls into women who aren‘t male vilifying, gender feminist abusers?”
Yes, there certainly is a need for that, but unfortunately there aren’t any Men’s Studies programs on college campuses to alert people to the need to fix that and other perceived problems with females, and there are almost no Men’s Commissions * to lobby for money to help men who have been hurt by misandrist, gender feminist movements plaguing our society, and there aren’t any taxpayer subsidized programs run by males to encourage women to mentor little girls into women who don’t vilify, abuse, batter, exploit, or defraud males.
Yes, we certainly need to raise the next generation of girls not to be gender feminists. Perhaps, after we get the Violence Against Men Act passed, and get mentoring programs started for girls, we can even have some bumper stickers made up that say, “There’s No Excuse for Vilifying Males.” It’s gong to be quite a challenge to get girls to consider other opinions besides the gender feminist viewpoint once they get into college and start getting indoctrinated in women’s studies classes. It’s just so much easier for those "females" to state their opinions as fact without having truth interfere with perceptions, and it’s just so much easier to get together with a group of other "females" and present the consensus of the group as a scholarly researched study, than it is to do the real research and fact finding.
Women need to help "girls" do the hard work of scholarly research, and fact finding if we are ever going to put an end to the abusive way gender feminists treat males. If girls and boys, and men and women are ever to have equitable relations in our society, certainly gender feminists must begin to be honest about all forms of violence and the role(s) that females as well as males play in it. As a man, who was once put on crutches by the out of control raging violence of an abusive woman, I’m asking, “What can women do to stop female violence and abuse of males?” God help us if we do not break the cycle of gender feminist Ms-information that is fueling the epidemic of abuse all males are facing today.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The command, "Respect Women!"
Why?
The command, "Respect Men!"
Why not?
Ray -- Nice post.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Another thought:
Does no one see that, by not having a corresponding message of respect and non-violence directed toward girls, girls are given the message that disrespect and violence directed at males is perfectly acceptable -- or even to be expected, right?
The feminists who originate these programs are indeed prestidigitators of amazing talent -- they would have us convinced that the coin from our pocket has only one side... .
January 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
If there's one good thing modern feminism has taught us is that violence, abuse of power, chauvinsm, sexism etc really isn't gender biased. That's why this campaign is so glaringly hypocritical. Men and women may commit acts of violence in different ways, but the impact is always the same: violence ruins people's lives.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Davina: "If there's one good thing modern feminism has taught us is that violence, abuse of power, chauvinsm, sexism etc really isn't gender biased."
Do you mean that feminists, by employing chauvinism (an unreasonable celebration of all things female), sexism (denigration of males), and abuse of power (OMG, where to even start!), and by condoning violence by women against men (by denying it exists), have thereby demonstrated that women can be every bit as oppressive and nasty as men?
If so, then good, one, Davina! I completely agree.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
"This kind of misandrist idiocy will continue until the plug is pulled on VAWA, which is the main financial taxpayer-funded juice for the DV Industry, currently sucking up somewhat over $1 billion per year."
Taking away resources from women is not the answer. Spreading awareness of violence against men and getting funding to help abused men is.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I have come to the conclusion that feminism is not an abberation or deformity of basic female nature; rather, it is a completely logical evolution and economic adaptation of the fairer genders' inherent self-interest.
Its primary virtues are a disregard for any sense of justice, and a sophisticated penchant for dissimulation (lying).
If feminism disappeared as a cultural and legal tyranny tomorrow, one would still be left with a very problematic and arguably predatory female nature. (They do, after all, still have to put the future of the human species ahead of any individual considerations...)
Evolutionary psychology. Women don't want to be cowering in the back of the cave anymore while useless men go off to hunt and provide sustenance. (Wal-Mart solved that problem....)
Today's modern cave women just want a more expansive, comfortable, 5-bedroom, cradle-to-grave, nicely appointed cave, and fewer smelly hunters hanging around.
There is nothing especially illogical or surprising about feminism if you approach it from the perspective that women always are focused on survival, and they have to be covert about it.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Part of that, Harq, entails getting groups like the Family Violence Prevention Fund to stop airing ads suggesting that violence is only unacceptable if it's going in one direction.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Between 50 million abortions to date; millions of children (especially boys) who've been imprisoned, over-dosed, commited suicide, etc.; father and male suicides as compared to females and mothers; a 50 to 1 or so 'hostile fire death' ratio for men versus women in combat today; and the like, to speak of women needing special protection against men is akin to the Nazi Hermann Goering joking about a German Air Force 'prisoner of war camp' guard having been killed and eaten by canable (sp?) Soviet POW dying from Nazi intentional starvation.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Mike
January 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Harq: "Taking away resources from women is not the answer. Spreading awareness of violence against men and getting funding to help abused men is."
I agree in principle. However, in a world of limited resources, women will have to start sharing with men, leaving "less" for themselves, right? This very argument has been used by feminists to deny any funding to men.
My goal:
-- Equal responsibilities for women commensurate with the rights they aleady have.
-- Equal rights for men commensurate with the responsibilities they aleady have.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Feminist-pushed anti-male propaganda directed at child-rearing (an appropriate term in this case I believe) is particularly annoying in that the pass the messages of 'don't play with matches' (when 90% of juvenile arsonists are from so-called fatherless homes according to the U.S. DOJ) eventually followed by RESPECT WOMEN. When our radical feminist female governor years ago spoke at perhaps our State's largest auditorium she got a number of loud boo's from a large portion of the males during her speach, sexist thug that she is. The RESPECT WOMEN speech reminds me of the walk on the streets not the sidewalks if you've been to told to wear a yellow star on the upper left of your chest or bow if you see a Japanese or Korean POW or 'Western civilian' internee camp guard during WWII.
When its come to this issue, men who expose this sexist horse crap are no different than the male law enforcement Kapos who enforce such laws, getting elected on such sexist crap, etc.
Equality for women is like equality for the Aryan Master Race, as bigoted as it gets. Mainstream feminists have made organizations like the KKK look like sicko's as compared to criminal nature of the child predatory (perhaps 90 - 98% of child predation involves their exploitation and maltreatment) and deadly misandrous nature of such feminist bigot thugs.
I used to work in a business where the only other man was two states away, and when I would express fears for my children, etc. they had virtually no empathy what so ever. And when I had a nervous breakdown quietly crying my eyes out at my desk, the feminist co-owner and CEO sent me outside to my truck so as not to 'embarrass her' for chastizing (sp?)me for my inability to function effectively at work. I suspect that if I was a man I wouldn't have been sent outside. She eventually came outside and sat next to me in the truck and expressed her disappointment that what she hired didn't match the person described on the resume (and I don't recall if it was said, but the person they knew before I got divorce papers). She called my wife, picked her up at home, and so my wife could drive me home. It only went further downhill from there.
Mike
January 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The overall effect of government's 'intervention' in the family has been like dropping a napalm bomb on a gasoline station, moronic and grossly malfeasant (to be kind).
Mike
January 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Mike,
you forgot "illegal".
January 27th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
You're right 'AP', as in America, 'unconstitutional' doesn't matter in our majority rule democracy when people are judged first as members of groups.
Mike
January 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Mike, for Christ's sake, stop comparing every you don't like to Hitler/Nazis/the KK/Stalin/Communists.
NOW isn't even close to the Nazis or the KKK. To make such comparisons is extremely small minded and probably very offensive to people who WERE victimised by these groups.
I repeat, assuming that DV only happens to women and that boys will turn into abusers unless we train them is completely incomparable to the murder of 8 million innocents. It isn't even close.
You give us all a bad name by ranting like this.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Thank you for covering this Glenn! And thank you Deborah Fellows for organizing a protest! I sent a letter to the editor and distributed this to others in the NY area who might be able to make it. This is exactly what needs to be done in response to this misandry.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
"Part of that, Harq, entails getting groups like the Family Violence Prevention Fund to stop airing ads suggesting that violence is only unacceptable if it's going in one direction."
I am fond of a phrase that goes something like "the antidote to objectionable speech is more speech, not less."
"I agree in principle. However, in a world of limited resources, women will have to start sharing with men, leaving "less" for themselves, right? This very argument has been used by feminists to deny any funding to men."
There are other areas besides women's services from which taxpayer money could be diverted. Women's shelters would be a particularly bad thing to take money from, given that many of them are strapped already.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hell, maybe the government could spend some of the dollars they use for 'military aid' to Israel and spend it on male victims?
January 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thank you Glenn for this article. I hope there's a huge turnout. I'm in california but I'm looking for the first opportunity to protest publicly against misandry.
Those idiots turn my stomach. I wrote the offenders a not very nice letter and called them a bunch of idiots. I stated, "little boys don't need to be taught to respect women until women learn to act like civilized human beings." I also added that they encourage women to make false rape allegations against men. I'll bet you that got their goat. I don't intend to play softball with those man-hating monsters.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
If you would like to contact the useful idiots behind this male-bashing go to:
opdvwebinfo@opdv.state.ny.us
Let them know that not everybody sees things their way.
January 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
From the mass media (NY Post):
BATTLING FOR BOYS
HOW SCHOOLS STIFLE OUR SONS
By MARTY NEMKO
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/battling_for_boys_321868.htm
January 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Harq al Ada..
"Women's shelters would be a particularly bad thing to take money from, given that many of them are strapped already."
MCA
you again gave yourself away!!
I'm hearing the exact opposite, the girls that work at these shelters have to take one call and pass it around the office to the 5 other girls, just so they can say they are all doing something for the fat 60,000 dollar a year pork check!!
In fact it was a women who worked in the womens domestic violence shelter who defected, that told us the real truth about what goes on behind the wall of secrecy at these shelters...Fat jobs for middle class white women,with little or no responsibility is what goes on!!
You need to watch out for these defector women, and must start making them sign a legal document of secrecy!!
January 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
New York State is the Welfare State par excellence. Rather than actually fixing the local economies or this disparity between NYC and upstate or Western NY, they just keep funding and putting out B.S. like this. The sad fact is, New Yorkers love their welfare state and they have become imbeciles because of it. Wake up people.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
MCA, regardless of however much money these shelters waste, to cut their funding will do nothing for the movement. It would HORRENDOUS PR. And regardless, it would do nothing for male victims of DV, who we are trying to help.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
callum, I said nothing of cutting the pork out of these shelters, but she set herself up when she alluded that they need even more money, so I mentioned the women defector who wrote an article about the 6 week vacations these girls take, and about passing the phone around the office so each girl can write in their audit that they took x amount of call that day...
ect.
ect
The women defectors article is around the net somewhere!.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
menscollegeactivist.org, here's an article that shed light on the fraud of battered women shelters: www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-51.htm
I've seen other articles exposing them too. Most shelters are scams that support the divorce/child support industry.
January 27th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
"And maybe the most challenging of all, how to hit the books."
Huh. Had to work in a doing-bad-at-school jab, too, apparently. The 790 I got on the essay portion of my SAT says "hi."
January 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Harq al-Ada Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
"This kind of misandrist idiocy will continue until the plug is pulled on VAWA, which is the main financial taxpayer-funded juice for the DV Industry, currently sucking up somewhat over $1 billion per year."
Taking away resources from women is not the answer. Spreading awareness of violence against men and getting funding to help abused men is.
No, Harq, joining the crowd of professional victims caterwauling for the feddle gummint to vote other peoples money into our outstretched hands and/or solve our problems for us is NOT the answer. Getting the blunt (at best) tool of government out of peoples lives and especially out of situations it cannot possibly correct without screwing somebody, educating people that, the APA notwithstanding, they and they alone are responsible for their actions and choices and finally, that past bad choices do not preordain future bad choices if you choose otherwise, THAT is the answer. VAWA, NOW, "Womyns Studies" are not resources - they are victim identity politics and income redistribution writ large.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
(SIGH!) My dad taught me everything I know about beating and murdering women. I'm sure you all know the kind of thing I'm talking about, seeing as how we all do that kind of thing every chance we get.
Good times, those were.
Good times.
January 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
they forget that women can be just as violate as men, if not more.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Wow, talk about a bunch of sexist bullshit! Like the only thing a father ever teaches his son is how to play sports. Obviously he doesn't need to be around for his daughters.
Want to know the best way to make a young man respect women? Show him women worth respecting. Want women to stop ending up selfish, evil bitches? Give them a father to love and respect. But this is what the feminatzies want. They want more little girls growing up to never know a fathers love. They want little boys to have no idea what it really means to be a man. And it looks like they're doing a damn good job.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
There is one of these billboards right down the street from me. I meant to get a pic of it and send it to Glenn because I was so appalled. As luck would have it, on my birthday when it first went up not only did my 12 year old daughter fall down a 15-20 foot flight of stairs but one of my wifes cousins 58 years old also died on that day (pancreatic cancer). He was a member of the Pekin Fire Company. Glad you are on your toes Glenn!
January 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
This is another example of the ironic advocacy to retain traditional gender roles under the guise of feminist enlightenment. In this case it is the plight to retain the "damsel in distress" archetype.
But as one of my colleagues from NCFM says: "chivalry went out when feminism went in!"
It is akin to the white-ribbon caimpaign or even the white feather campaign for that matter. Many feminists want the best parts of both the traditional male and gender roles and leave men the bad parts. I guess in layman's terms this boils down to wanting ones cake and wanting to eat it too.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't like sloppy seconds!
Masculist XY
January 27th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I found a typo in my prevous post. This is what it should have read:
This is another example of the ironic advocacy to retain traditional gender roles under the guise of feminist enlightenment. In this case it is the plight to retain the "damsel in distress" archetype.
But as one of my colleagues from NCFM says: "chivalry went out when feminism went in!"
It is akin to the white-ribbon caimpaign or even the white feather campaign for that matter. Many feminists want the best parts of both the traditional male and traditional female gender roles and leave men the bad parts. I guess in layman's terms this boils down to wanting ones cake and wanting to eat it too.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't like sloppy seconds!
Masculist XY
January 28th, 2008 at 3:41 am
"Respect women"
Teenage boys look at the older boys for guidance and learn from their experience.
And what they see are the respectful teenage boys being made fun of and being bullied by teenage girls, if not totally neglected...
Maybe it should say
"girls, reward the boys who respect women with your sincere attention, also sexually"...
But we can't hold poor innocent girls/women responsible, can we?
January 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Great that you got an image of this campaign up Glenn. I know I sent you a rudimentary picture of it a couple of weeks back from a picture I took of it in the street. I remember when I first saw it, I went numb. What I did not mention, which I will point out now, is that I have noticed is this poster has been placed on bus stops and phone booths within a ten block radius of several middle schools and high schools here in Manhattan. So they have not only made this offensive angering campaign, they have cleverly placed them so that many Manhattan teens have to wait for the bus while staring at it. The boy in the straightjacket like sweatshirt is really too much to bear. Just so people know, this is not the only poster in this campaign, but I do find this one the most patently offensive.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
RubyThea:
They want little boys to have no idea what it really means to be a man. And it looks like they're doing a damn good job.
They want little boys to have THEIR idea of what it means to be a man. Basically all these programs and initiatives are attempts to program future men into what they want while at the same time "protecting" little girls from the influence of fathers. It's all about control. Extreme feminists want absolute unchallenged control of raising children. Yes a boy does learn useful things about life from his mother (and I'm not just talking housework here) but no amount of feminist programing is going to properly replace a positive fatherly influence. And I'm willing to bet that little girls do a lot better with a positive fatherly influence instead her mother just preaching from some feminist designed program about how men are supposed to act.
I have no problem with women trying to positively influence young boys but starting the "teaching" off with the presumption that all boys will grow up to abuse women is just sexist. And I'm not even going to talk about their assumption the all girls grow up just fine and therefore don't need any "teaching".
Responsibility, decency, and respect are two way streets.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Glenn Thank you for publishing this event.
This morning, Jan 28, 2008 from 7am-9am during the frigid mornign commute, 3 men and 2 women peacefuly protested these billbards along a busy commuter road.
A lot of cars passed and saw us and our signs (photto will follow).
Hopefully this will instigate further protest and complaints.
Our basic message:
Domestic Violence is a Gender Neutral problem.
These signs are demeaning to parents and our sons. Don't pick on our sons. We don't need the government wasting our tax dollars on billboards that put our sons down and try to tell us how to parent.
The statistics that drive the OPDV gender biased DV policies (see http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/about_dv/dataweb2003.html)
are old and have been proven invalid by several newer and more statistically balances studies. (see mediaradar.org)
The governors new DV orders are gender neutral,but the implementaiotn bu the OPDV is NOT neutral and is not appropriate.
Domestic violence committed against men and a high occurrance of false accusation of domestic violence by women against men during a divorce are routinely ignored in this States Domestic Violence policy.
These billoards were put up by the New Yiork State Office of Domestic Violence Prevention
who can be reached at.
Phone - (518) 457-5800
Fax - (518) 457-5810
January 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I'm not offended by the ads per se. Any quest to minimise violence in our society on a whole is good. What offends me is the message that only men and boys commit acts of violence and only women deserve respect. Look at some of the points they suggest you bring up when talking to boys on the Office for Prevention of DV website:
1) Ask young men to tell you what they think it means to be a "man." It helps the conversation if you know where they are coming from.
I know a vast amount of young women who could do well with asking themselves this question. Clearly young women today are lost on the idea of what it is to be a "woman" in this day and age.
2) Tell young men that they can be strong and sensitive, masculine and emotional, without using violence.
Am I living in a cave or something? Is it really really so naive of me to think that the majority of boys and men are already aware of the above? This is a genuine cry for enlightenment. What do you others think? Betsy? TBQ? Celia?
3) Teach young men that they have the power to change themselves and their world in positive ways - through kindness, acceptance, and appreciation of everyone.
Give me a break. This is as relevant to boys as it is to girls. Funny how no one takes to issue the terrible emotional abuse girls/women put boys/men through ALL the time.
4) Teach young men to express anger without using violence.
Ah. How many women like to throw things at their men in anger? Destruction of property and the like?
5) Teach young men that violence against women is not acceptable. They have the power and the right to speak out and react appropriately and respectfully when they see violence happening on any level.
So I guess violence against other men and animals is respectable? I especially love the second part of this point. Only speak out when you see a man being violent toward a woman, not when its male on male, female on female or human on animal. Nice.
6) Encourage them to challenge jokes, media images, comments, and behaviors that seem abusive or violent toward women.
This is perhaps the most hypocritical of them all. Why not teach young women not to laugh at young men getting hit in the balls? Why not teach out young women not to belittle men based on their lack of sexual prowess, erectile dysfunction etc?
7) Suggest that young men talk to women and girls about their experiences. It is important to listen to women express their needs and realities.
But it's not important to listen to boys/men. No wonder boys are three times as likely to drop out of school, get into trouble or kill themselves ... but who the hell cares, rights? We're literally spending billions a year to ensure the demise of half the world's population. How very humanitarian.
8) Remind young men that violence against women is everyone's issue. We need to work side by side with one another - men and women, all races, all cultures - in a unified commitment to one common goal of a safe and peaceful world for everyone.
Violence, period, is everyone's issue. Violence should not be portrayed as a problem only men have. Jesus!
9) Remind young men that they do not need to buy into the violent role models depicted in the media. Young men are bombarded daily by images and messages that may subconsciously become part of their reality. They may not be aware that they are engaging in subtly offensive behaviors or using hurtful or inappropriate language.
How about reminding young women that they should lose the entitlement syndrome? That they do not have to buy into the BS that men owe them anything a part from the basic respect one deserves as human beings? Young girls are definitely engaging in offensive behaviours and using inappropriate language based on the indocrination of feminism.
10) Remind young men that they are responsible for all of their choices and behaviors. Encourage young men to discuss and really think about their own behaviors. Nobody can "make" them be violent and there is never a justifiable reason to hurt, abuse, or threaten someone else.
Wow, if anyone is more in need of this advice it's women. Most men already know that if they so much as brush against a woman in the wrong way their ass will get thrown into prison. Women go around kicking men in their privates and walk off gloating.
I'm sick of this. The double moralistic climate of modern society is literally snuffing the life out of me!
January 28th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Tim LaCourse: GOOD JOB!!! Thank you!!
Davina: Great post!
January 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Davina: Your long (11:03am) post is awesome. (So was the story you told bout your "friend" and her green card on another thread, BTW. You rock.) I'm not sure about (2). It seems obvious, but at the same time I do know a lot of men who seem to think that admitting emotional vulnerability will cause others not to like them. I wouldn't pick on them for it, though, and I do NOT think it leads directly to violence! Girls have equally bad problems that are made worse by the lack of attention they get.
I swear, half the movies I watch these day have women committing acts of violence against men and nobody thinking twice about it. All little girls and women absorb this stuff right through the skin, too, if they see enough movies depicting it as "funny." Here are some examples of things I saw just this weekend. (I really don't always spend my whole weekend watching movies. I do it more when I am pregnant.):
"The Hoax:" The Richard Gere character's wife throws some heavy object hard at his head and injures him after she suspects that he is cheating on her again. The tone of the film is definitely that he "deserves" it.
The ad for "Fool's Gold," the new Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey movie. She wacks him hard and knocks him down with a golf club in the little preview clip!!!!!! HOW IS THIS OK? I normally like these two but forget it, enough is seriously enough. I'd say we should boycott this or something. Gross.
Maybe I'll make a list of all the stupid movies that show women hitting men and nobody thinking twice about it. It's reaching epidemic proportions.
On a related topic, I thought about some of these issues in the context of "bullying" at school, which is getting a lot of press these days. I went to the California Department of Education's website to see it's "official" word on the topic. I was glad to see that it explicitly states that both boys and girls bully, usually in different ways (physical vs. social), and that both forms of behavior need to be addressed. However, when you go further into the details of the programs schools advocate to address bullying (and the details aren't that easy to find) it is clear that the focus is more on physical violence than on the social bullying behaviors. To some extent, I can see why this might be the case because the physical violence is easier to identify and easier to make clear-cut rules for. However, there is undoubtedly more at work there.
One of my friends is an ex-3rd-grade teacher and she told me that in some ways the boys are easier to deal with. They have their fights and get it over with, then forget about it and move on. The girls have long, drawn-out sagas where they torture each other, etc. In my experience, that is typically the case.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I suggest people get out at spread graffiti on those stupid billboards. I wonder how they would like them apples. I'm for real too.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Just to clarify in the first paragraph, where I said, "Girls have equally bad problems that are made worse by the lack of attention they get." I meant that girls are just as bad but that they aren't chastised for the bad things they do. (I did not mean to imply that girls in general do not get attention.)
January 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Ze German..
"And what they see are the respectful teenage boys being made fun of and being bullied by teenage girls, if not totally neglected..."
That was my experience in high school,
I would have gladly fought three boys, then get on the bad side of a "bad girl" that was having sex with the older boys!! She could easilly call a lynch mob to attack you!!
girls are skilled at klan like "violence by proxy"
January 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
"I suggest people get out at spread graffiti on those stupid billboards. I wonder how they would like them apples. I'm for real too.
Civil disobedience would likely just demonstrate how badly the program is 'needed.'
January 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Excellent post Davina, I always enjoy your insights. I do however take issue with the ad per se. The way the message is portrayed is unconscionable. To swap the genders and have a young girl constricted, with the phrase "awaiting instructions" emblazoned across her chest, next to red bold print that said "Respect Men" is an image I am wholly uncomfortable with. And that is why this campaign has struck such a nerve among us. The notion to raise awareness about violence in a conducive and supportive fashion is one thing, but to do it in this manner, regardless of gender, is counter productive. The very fact that there would not be a poster depicting a girl like this is the crux of the issue for me. To do so would border on disseminating hatred and instill a sense of self-loathing, and that is what this poster, as it is now constructed, does.
Stephen
"I suggest people get out at spread graffiti on those stupid billboards. I wonder how they would like them apples. I'm for real too."
I have "decorated" one close to me a couple of times with a counter-point message. It is visible from my window. They get taken off everyday by the city. It is fun to observe when people do see the "decorated" message. I even saw one gentleman taking pictures of the "decorated" poster.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Actually Lewis, civil disobedience is a legitimate part of war. It worked for feminists. I'm an army vet and I'm trained to fight fire with fire. Trashing a male-bashing billboard is simply exercising my right to free speech and dissension. Feminists own the media so our message has trouble getting through. They also count on our chivalry when it comes to billboards. If I was a little boy again and I saw a vandalized billboard, I would think that perhaps something is wrong with the message that that billboard is sending. In other words we're trying to get rid of feminism and we should ask no questions and take no prisoners. I truly and wholeheartedly recommend that people trash stupid male-bashing billboards. I vow that if I see one I'll either trash it myself or pay someone to do it for me.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
re: I swear, half the movies I watch these day have women committing acts of violence against men and nobody thinking twice about it.
...remember the scenes in Jerry McGuire where the girl boxer is shadow boxing and "thinking about her ex boyfriend right now." And the scene where Jerry gets punched in the face by the fiance he just dumped? Controversial? Nah. Funny stuff.... Violence against men by women is a source of humor. It's not taken seriously...
January 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh there are a million examples of that.
In a car advert in the UK, a man 'disrespects' his girlfriend's car by closing the door with his foot. She takes revenge by deliberately crashing his model airplane.
Same thing, but now it's a guy who wants revenge. His MALE friend puts his feet on the dashboard, so he later cuts the rope while he's doing an assault course, he falls in the lake.
The message, women can take revenge on men, men can take revenge on men.
Nobody can take revenge on women.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I think more overt action on things like this is in line too.
However, what the likely result would seem to be is an argument from those who create and perpetuate this trash of, "See? See how bad men are? See how important this is? See how much they want to hit women? See how much we need to educate them? See their violent nature?"
January 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
My tendency is to always try to figure out the "core assumptions" of any feminist message. (Too much exposure to semiotics ruined me, obviously....)
The basic idea behind so much of feminism (and especially the DV Industry screed) is -- THE ABSOLUTE MORAL SUPERIORITY OF WOMEN. (Quite funny actually coming from a gender that has never produced a single genius in philosophy, painting, mathematics, physics, engineering, architecture, or medicine.) Maybe literature, if you count Oprah...
This feminist conceit -- always indirect -- is tacitly tied into the nurturing theme (women give birth to life), the victimization Evil Patriarchy theme (women have always been men's property), the women don't have power theme (check out who controls access to sex), the women always put others first theme (except in divorce court or when wars happen), the veneration of mommy theme (unless she aborted you), etc. etc.
How is it possible that this transparently toxic ideology still gets over $1 billion dollars a year to promulgate sexist hatred?
January 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
"See? See how bad men are? See how important this is? See how much they want to hit women? See how much we need to educate them?
Actually, this is how I think feminists will respond: "See? See how fed up men are? See how they see through our bull? See how we have to pump up the "men are violent" propaganda? See how they are rejecting our indoctrination? See how much trouble we're in for spreading a pack of lies?"
Feminists are trained liars, they know it and they know we know it. I think I'll go out and trash a male-bashing billboard and bite a dog while I'm at it.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
From roy: "(Quite funny actually coming from a gender that has never produced a single genius in philosophy, painting, mathematics, physics, engineering, architecture, or medicine.) Maybe literature, if you count Oprah..."
Wow, I'm speechless this time, roy. If you ever want a list of reasons that this movement has trouble getting off of the ground, I'm sure that this type of the absurdity would be on there. Probably near the top.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Betsy I agree with you and roy I agree with you for the most part. roy, I believe I know what you're trying to say but I think you turned it into a blanket statement that makes it extreme. I believe one good way to say it would be,
"Feminists are laughable because they dismiss all the great achievements that men have accomplished. Perhaps they think it would be better to live in the stone age instead of giving credit where credit is due. Their hatred of men blinds them to all the positive things about men that ends up making them look like ignorant bigots."
January 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Lewis,
I hear what you are saying, but let me try to put it into context and the frame of mind I was in when deciding to "decorate" the poster.
Background: I volunteer one morning, a week, tutoring reading, at the school close to this Public Service poster I decorated. At the beginning of January, the group I work with (8th graders) were assigned "Chinese Cinderella". A book about the exeriences of a Chinese woman growing up during the second world war. The treatement of the book by the teacher was primarily a segue to introduce chinese culture, but one week, last week, was spent to introduce feminism/oppression of women to the class. The following words are among the word list for last week. "Foot-binding, misogyny, oppression, patriarchy, subjugation". I did speak with the teacher about the choice of words, and its context in the class. She exercised a western feminist interpretation of foot binding which led to the words on the list. She did not introduce the ideas of Dorothy Ko, and other current Chinese historians who offer a vastly different interpretation. Namely they don't treat foot-binding with cultural relatvism; instead within a social history relying on women's diaries of that time, exposing myths of western interpretation. Bogged down in detail. Back to the point. I envisioned the young men of this class, after being informed of the inherent evils of men/patriarchy, under questionable academic interpretation (I would liken to indoctrination), waiting at a bus stop faced with a "Public Service"poster that reinforced that same message. The ironic metaphor is that in the poster the boy is "bound" by a sweatshirt. I was thinking of them when I posted an 11X17 piece of white paper with bold type, large font words that read "Stop the War on Boys", and another day one that read, "Stop Misandry". I did think of what people might think of such defacing tactics, but I was over ridden by the wish to maybe show some boys and girls that there is an alternative perspective, and a different way to view the message that is being drummed into them. Final input. The teacher, to her credit, after our discussion did mention to the class that she was remiss in not introducing the concept that boys and men also face discrimination. Although she did not introduce the word misandry (she did not even know there was such a word until we spoke), I consider even the smallest gesture of value. And I think small acts like a flyer on a poster are also of value when trying to reach out to a group, that I can certifiably say are so detached and apathetic to school and education for a whole host of reasons, none the least of which includes the curriculum and messages therein.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Yeah Roy,
I have a problem with your statement as well, several problems really.
First: look up genious in Wiki. By the statistics, you will find that there are several hundred thousand to a million of female genii in each of those fields, currently. I can think of several in most of those fields off the top of my head. I don't know what you mean by genius.
Second: to be fair, you need to include all fields of human intellectual pursuit. There are no doubt different emotional rewards for different topics, statistically, so it is not fair to pick fields that are centered on male excellence like spatial reasoning.
Third: listing Oprah as a female genious is a strawman argument. No one thinks of Oprah as a genious. That is completely not what she does. Wiki does not list any college education for her.
Fourth: Only within the last generation have there been a significant fraction of women in most intellectual fields. It's kind of like asking how many Japanese contributed to Pre-Christian art of Greece. Well, er, that's a little silly isn't it?
January 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Yeah Roy there are many female genii. There are far more male genii (IQ 150 or above) as well as mentally decicient men as men are both higher and lower on the bell curve.
Oprah definately aint a genius. Nuff said.
The female gender can and has produced genii. Your statement is false, and the only reason I can conceive of it is that you are just trying to disparage women.
Please tell me that is not what you are trying to do. Because if you are, you aren't welcome here.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Roy,
I enjoy your posts but must gently add my protest. First, I do see your point - men greatly outnumber women at both the bottom and the top of the i.q. scales. That is true. Second - to paraphrase a line by the great Fred Reed, every time I hear some menopausal feminist ocelot wailing about what swine and bandits men are, I want to take her outside, and ask her to point out one single thing in society - particularly one single thing like air conditioning, carpet, buildings for that matter, that makes it possible for her to complain in comfort - that was invented by a radical feminist. I'll bring the binoculars. Hell, I might even double down and give her a break - just pick something and ask her to explain how it does what it does. How does a compressor work? What is insulation? Ohms, anyone?
But lets not lose sight of the fact that alongside that (again, admittedly male dominated) top echelon of the i.q. scales are women with minds that make you and I together look like booger eating morons.
In my humble opinion, we can't win this fight by becoming what we behold.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
And my wife is no dummy, either.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Chivalry in these forums is obviously alive and well!
The way we should distinguish ourselves from our opponents is by respectfully dealing with dissent, letting everyone be heard, arguing your viewpoint and, in the end, agreeing to disagree.
Although I agree with you about the inaccurate generalizations in what roy is saying, I'm going to draw the line at "you're not welcome here."
January 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Yea, let's all gang up on Roy like we used to do at school! Let's not talk to him... oh wait, it's not my blog.
High IQ does not a genius make,eg Albert Einstein.
Most of the top 20th Century inventions were made by men working in their sheds or attics. Pure genius.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Women, per se, are not the problem and disparaging women because they are women is unjust and immoral. Radical gender feminism is a problem, but very few women actually adhere to those twisted principles. Allow me to suggest that without the help of many, many "enlightened" men, the radical gender feminists would be marginalized. Yes, many men are the problem.
We need to educate the happily married men and women about how men and boys are unfairly gender stereotyped. And frankly, if we all adopted Glenn's reasonable approach, there'd be a much greater chance of getting our message out to mainstream America -- where it has to go. If we act like fools and start blaming "women" for all the ills of the world, we have no credibility.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Hey, no dogging on booger eating morons! I love cruncy salty things!
ewe, sry. :)
Oh, and Roy, I also like the vast majority of your posts, and I can certainly forgive the occasional rant. Even if I was constantly incensed by your posts, I would still welcome them.
Well, the vast majority of your posts Roy seem well founded and accurate. That last was was floating though! lol
Oh, and what's a genious? Well, I guess I automatically assume the high IQ definition because it is the only one that is testable and not purely subjective, meaning 3c below.
Main Entry: ge·nius
Pronunciation: \ˈjēn-yəs, ˈjē-nē-əs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ge·nius·es or ge·nii \-nē-ˌī\
Etymology: Latin, tutelary spirit, natural inclinations, from gignere to beget
Date: 1513
1 aplural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place bplural usually genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
2: a strong leaning or inclination : penchant
3 a: a peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit b: the associations and traditions of a place c: a personification or embodiment especially of a quality or condition
4plural usually genii : spirit jinni
5plural usually geniuses a: a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude b: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity c: a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially : a person with a very high IQ
January 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Here's what wiki says about the numbers of genius. I guess so numerically there are sort of two definitions. One is fairly common, 1% of the population, while one is ah, super-genious, 0.006%.
So, there are about 90 million of the regular old geniuses alive today. Of the super genious category, there are only about 500 alive right now.
From Wiki:
The most popular way of determining one's intelligence[2][3] is with an Intelligence Quotient (better known as I.Q.) test. Two among the most influential psychologists studying intelligence, Lewis M. Terman and Leta Hollingworth, suggested two different numbers when considering the cut-off for genius in psychometric terms. Dr. Terman considered it to be an IQ of 140, while Dr. Hollingworth put it at an IQ of 180.[4][5] Moreover, both these numbers are ratio IQs, which in deviation values used presently put the genius IQ cut-off at 136 (98.77th percentile) and 162 (99.994th percentile) respectively.[6]
January 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I read somewhere that President Bush has an IQ of 137...does that make him a genius?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Here is a link about male/female IQ's and studies. The crib notes are that most studies find no difference between males and females but some do. My own personal experience was that there was no clear trend in downright ability, but there are clear trends in interests and emotions.
btw, the reading is a little stiff and mathematical...imagine that.
http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html
January 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
where it has to go. If we act like fools and start blaming "women" for all the ills of the world, we have no credibility.
Excellent words Judge. Feminists started their movenment decades ago for the sake of gender equality. Were women getting the short end of the stick in areas of society? Yes. Have all of those ares been resolved? No. The problem now is the more radical feminists are now showing their true intent by trying to "turn the tables on their male oppressors." Pretty much revenge. By conveniently ignoring or explaining away situations where women have the upper (try telling a radical feminist that the stat of "2% of rape claims are false" is false) they become the sexist scum they claim to be fighting against.
MRAs cannot afford to become the hypocritical, double standard preaching history revisionists that radical feminists have become or else the cycle continues.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ah, the cut-off for the common everyday genious is 140, so no. Besides, he has drunk so much in his day he would probably not pull a 137 anymore.
Oh, oops, thats around 5000 super geniuses..you can tell I am not one!
January 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Betsy said "I do know a lot of men who seem to think that admitting emotional vulnerability will cause others not to like them."
There was quite a campaign a while back for men to be more in touch with and open about their emotions. Some of you may laugh, but I was young and naive, and thought I was being offered understanding. Can you believe it?
The fact is, when a woman tells me "I want you to show your feelings more", she's more than likely to mean "your feelings about me" - she just wants me to tell her I love her more often, and is not remotely concerned about my own emotional well-being. Others don't actually want me to show my feelings, they just want to use the fact that I don't as a stick to beat me with. Still others want me to show my feelings as a way of gathering ammunition - if I reveal my "emotional vulnerability" I've told her the best place to stick the knife, and she doesn't even have to bother working it out.
Maybe there is a sense that "admitting emotional vulnerability will cause others not to like" me. Or more probably, respect me. But more importantly, I know there is a better than even chance that if I admit emotional vulnerability to a woman it will be used against me. I know this because it has happened to me, and I've seen it happening to friends, so often that I've concluded that its a deliberate strategy used by some women, it's abuse, and I need to protect myself. So if men are less emotional than you'd like, maybe that's why.
I quite agree with you about female violence against men in the media though. I saw one recently that made me feel ill. This'll take a little setting up, so bear with me. "The Thin Blue Line", if you're not familiar with it, is a BBC sitcom set in a sleepy suburban police station, written by the ultra-right-on comedian Ben Elton. It stars Rowan Atkinson as the well-meaning but pompous and insensitive Inspector Fowler, who is divorced, lives with desk sergeant Patricia Dawkins, and has had a crush on the mayoress since they were at school together. In the episode I saw recently, Fowler discovers that one of his detectives has planted drugs on a suspect, who is to be defended in court by none other than the mayoress. Fowler colludes with her to sabotage the case, but Patricia overhears, misunderstands, and thinks Fowler is cheating on her. So far so sitcom. Until Fowler gets home, and Patricia asks him to take off his cycling helmet. She grips the rolling pin. Big laugh. End credits.
Let's reverse that for a second. If a sitcom were to close with the implication that a man was about to hit his girlfriend with a heavy weapon because he (mistakenly) thought she was cheating on him, how would you react? With laughter?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
WOW!
OK you all had a lot to SAY about this. We may have different point of view but the choir is well rehursed.. its concert time!
Now. what did you DO?
Please do this, its simple..Make a phone call or a fax or email your objections to this ill-conceived campain to:
Peaceful please, you can't fight Anti DOmestic Violence bigotry.. with threats and violence!
Phone - (518) 457-5800 (between 9am-5PM EST)
Fax - (518) 457-5810
Email - opdvwebinfo@opdv.state.ny.us.
Mail -NYS OPDV
80 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
Thank you in advance, the favor has been and will continue to be returned for your campains.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Danny, I agree with what you said -- very well said, but we need to be careful about this: "Were women getting the short end of the stick in areas of society? Yes."
Try telling my great-grandmother that she got the short end of the stick while my great-grandfather was killing himself to support her and his family in a dangerous mill. The fact is that in days gone by, men and women were ordained by culture, by biology, by tradition to serve very different roles. It wasn't until the economy exploded that men and women were freed up -- women were able to assume a bigger role outside the home and could help financially support the family because men didn't have to kill themselves as much. Women became more involved in society, with the vote, etc. The chief opponents of that were, of course, women. But the argument can be well supported that men historically had it much harder than women until very recently.
Don't buy into the revisionist feminist history that the story of civilization has been of males oppressing women. Historically, some people -- men AND women -- have always oppressed other people, especially men.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Thanks for the info Tim. This is my letter:
I am expressing my concern about the "respect women" campaign. As a psychology graduate student who speciliazes in male stress (area 51 of APA), I am well versed in the plethora of research that demonstrates that males are about equally likely to be victims of DV, and that females are about equally likely to be perpetrators of DV. One only has to go so far as to see http://www.mediaradar.org to see some of this research. Even the president of APA (Koocher) acknowledged the issue of abused men in an issue of the APA monitor.
Usually the issue of "battered husbands" is framed as a masculist issue, but since feminists usually don't take the time to care about such things, I will frame this as a feminist issue. I say this for two reasons:
1). It is a step back for women to resort to traditional chivalry (damsel in distress archetype), especially when research and science suggests a much different picture for domestic violence. Females are not weak and helpless, and I am surprised that your campaign and modern feminism in general regressed to such a traditional movement. Stereotyping men as aggressive is lke stereotyping women as materialistic or overly-emotional. This is a step backforwards as far as I am concerned. I suspect that eiither many of the men involved in this campaign are very macho or many of the women are very feminine.
2). How are abusive women supposed to get the help and anger management therapies they need if they are incessantly coddled and given excuses for their behaviors? There are many angry women who undoubtedly want to change and improve their behaviors (as with men).
I suggest doing a campaign that targets violence in general. The way it is framed by your campaign is very misandrist, and comes across very judgemental. If masculists did a campaign blaming women for all of the world's violence, how would that make women feel? I suspect not very good. We mustn't forget that although men are taught to "take it like a man," they still have feelings. And they can still feel pain.
Thanks for your time
January 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I wrote:
Dear Persons,
I have seen your poster with "Eat your vegetables.....Respect Women" and I have read a transcript of your radio ad where it says "Teach your son early and often that all violence against women is wrong."
The problem I have is that your message seems to be that women have much to fear from boys and men and that just teaching boys to be docile and to correct their behavior will address the problem.
I find that sentiment to be sexist and ineffectual. It is sexist because it presumes that boys are the only violent offenders. Both prevalent research and my own experience shows that women are just as violent as men, commonly using surprise and weapons to make up for lack of strength advantage, women commonly think that violence against men is fine, and they conduct themselves with 'a chip on their shoulder' knowing that they can always claim abuse.
It is ineffectual because it ignores the reality that either women or men can be the instigator of physical confrontation. I have seen women frequently make excuses that their physically abusive behavior is ok because they could not possibly hurt the man. Aside from the fact that women in America and elsewhere clearly have no trouble killing men, they are also able to provoke a defensive reaction from a man which, given it is part of a man's instinctual life-or-death response, may have serious strength behind it. The problem is not that men are bred to be able to defend their family from bears, wolves, bandits and collapsing shelters, the problem is in unnecessarily evoking their defensive actions.
I have personally had to teach my own daughter that slapping or hitting boys is VERY bad, just as bad as having a man hit or throw them. In fact, I teach her that if she hits men, then she becomes much more likely to be hit by men. This makes sense doesn't it? Watch boys or girls in the playground. Leading up to any physical confrontation is face to face confrontation, frequently challenges and light shoving.
Be responsible. Your advertisements are so sexist and one sided that they will make the problem worse by encouraging women that physical confrontation between men and women is always the mans fault. It's not.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Betsy Says:
I'm not sure about (2). It seems obvious, but at the same time I do know a lot of men who seem to think that admitting emotional vulnerability will cause others not to like them. I wouldn't pick on them for it, though, and I do NOT think it leads directly to violence! Girls have equally bad problems that are made worse by the lack of attention they get.
-------------------------
Betsy, I see your point and I actually agree with you. My husband can sometimes be a very stoic guy who hates scenes and being put on the spot. He also likes dealing with his problems privately first before attempting to share them with me. After knowing him for some 30 odd years (married 22 yrs), I've learnt to accept that's just how he is. Some men are simply not just big on emotions, neither are some women.
With regards to no. 2 in my post, I was actually refering to the part in bold (see below):
2) Tell young men that they can be strong and sensitive, masculine and emotional, WITHOUT USING VIOLENCE.
This is what I don't know if I'm mistaken about ... my perception is them the majority of men KNOW that they can be all these things without using violence. The above suggests that this is apparently something widely unknown to male sex. I honestly don't think that's true. I don't think most men have the need to assert their strength and masculinity through violence toward women (probably violence toward other men, but definitely not toward women). What are your perceptions on this?
Regarding female on male violence in mainstream media and not a word from the radicals in protest of it, you've hit the nail right on the head.
Wanderer, when I say I don't have a problem with the ads per se I was referring to the message of violence being bad. Yes, violence is bad. What is also bad is saying that only men commit violence and only women deserve respect. The latter is what offends me the most about the ads. Had there been similar ads directed at girls, I would haven't have been as enraged because then it would have addressed a significant societal problem from both perspectives as it should.
MCA, Stephen ... you guys are something else, and I mean that in the best possible way. Your combined posts often put a smile on my face. That being said, remember what Gandhi said, Stephen. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blinds. In the past few years it is because America has forgotten this very valuable lesson why we've amassed so much worldwise criticism and hate.
Roy, I agree with the other posters. I understand the point you were trying to make but that particular part of your comment was inappropriate. I won't bother to get into why it was out of order for you to say what you said as the others have already eloquently done so. I know you're strongly opposed to chivalry and pandering to women, that's fine, but you actually give radical gender feminists fuel for the propoganda mill with such talk. But as Stephen M says sometimes we all lose our cool. I hope you'll recognise your error and try to weigh your words next time.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Correction:
That being said, remember what Gandhi said, Stephen. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes BLIND. In the past few years it is because America has forgotten this very valuable lesson why we've amassed so much WORLDWIDE criticism and hate.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
SIGH - Another correction:
This is what I don't know if I'm mistaken about ... my perception is THAT the majority of men KNOW they can be all these things without using violence. The above suggests that this is apparently something widely unknown to THE male sex.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Done and done. Here's my letter:
Dear Sir or Ma'am,
While I do not doubt that your intentions in your "Coaching Boys Into Men" campaign are noble, I must protest its one-sided and quite misandristic framing of the issue of domestic violence. The problem with it is two-fold.
Firstly, it implies that boys and men, in particular, are abusers-in-training, if you would, and that, unless they are given special training or instruction, they will inevitably grow up to become violent or abusive. As a 19-year-old boy myself, I deeply resent the implication (intentional or otherwise) that, because of my gender, I am somehow more hard-wired or predisposed towards such violence. There is no doubt that all children do need to learn appropriate behavior, and that parents do have a responsiblity to teach them accordingly. But that's just it: ALL children need this. Why single out boys? Why base a campaign off of a blatant stereotype that one half of humanity is more inclined to violence? It sends a hurtful message to many boys and young men, including myself, that we are somehow, by our society's definition, born "defective" in some way and need to be "fixed." And in a time when physical in-school and gang violence perpetrated by teenage girls has been
rising substantially for the past decade (not to mention the culture of emotional bullying and cruelty many teenage girls go through in middle and high school), it seems quite short-sighted to assume that female violence is somehow not as great of a concern.
Which brings me to the second concern: the campaign's theme of "respecting women" in turn implies that only women can be victims of domestic abuse. This is, despite the popular misconception, hardly the case. According to a study by the CDC, in a national sample of young adult couples, women are just as likely to be perpetrators of dometic violence against their male partners, and in more than half of relationships containing nonreciprocal violence, were actually MORE likely to be abusers rather than abused.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
From another source, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, about 835,000 men are abused in domestic relationships, making up a substantial 36% of domestic abuse victims. And this is not counting unreported cases of intimate abuse of men (as there are many social and societal messages that discourage men from reporting being abused, particularly societal shame or popular assumptions that women can't physically harm men).
http://www.batteredmen.com/
In summary, it's an issue of one-sidedness with this campaign. Instead of combating "violence against women," your campaign would do much better to combat "violence" in general, regardless of gender. Again, I do not doubt the good intentions of your campaign. But this approach is, intentionally or not, a sexist one. Men are by no means whatsoever the sole abusers, and women are absolutely not the sole victims. In the future, please adopt a more egalitarian message, so that nobody, male or female, has their suffering trivialized or underrscored.
Thank you for your time,
Alex Knapp
January 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Patrick Brown -- Nice post! Well put.
Judge RP -- You are spot on about not accepting feminism's perversion of history. Not only would historical oppression not justify feminism's current campaign of gender hatred, but, viewed objectively, there has never been historical general oppression of females by males. It would be equally silly to argue that females have historically oppressed men -- but if I had to choose, I think the latter argument could be made much more convincingly!
Davina -- Your clear view of reality is refreshing. If only it were not so rare among your sex -- and mine as well, I will admit. ; )
January 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Great letter Alex!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I find it interesting that in the first paragraph of the “About the Campaign” blurb they say:
“As a father, coach, mentor or a male friend, men have the opportunity – and responsibility – to teach boys to respect girls and women.”
Goodness me, we have a society that does its level best to remove men from their children’s lives and then extols them to teach boys to respect girls and women. I find this to be somewhat disingenuous.
I am of the view (and always have been) that “respect” is something that is earned - it cannot be artificially instilled into our children on any other basis than its having been earned. I find it particularly galling that men are asked to gender-specifically drill this notion into boys – it goes without saying that some people may not be deserving of anyone’s respect – ever.
There is no question that violence (at any level) is antithetical to a harmonious and just society but the approach taken by this particular group of social engineers is a patently biased and misguided and, in my view, reeks of new-speak while appealing to the nostalgia of chivalry.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I have never known George to be PC but . . .
"Here's all you have to know about men and women:
women are crazy, men are stupid. And the main
reason women are crazy is that men are stupid."
~ George Carlin
January 28th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
You didn't like my letter celia? Just kidding. I thought alex did pretty good too. Mine was fairly quickly written.
Masculist XY
January 28th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
If anyone gets a reply from these DV people, feel free to let us know what they say! I for one would be curious!
Masculist XY
January 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
M XY – yes I did like your letter – and thanks for taking the time and putting forth the effort to send it. Most of the people you are addressing only ever hear one side of the argument and thus their convictions are internally (and interminably) re-enforced. Letter’s such as yours and Alex’s speak with both authority (qualifications, references etc), reason (no justification for gender bias) and fairness. Keep it up.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Celia, I like the way you point out that most people only hear one side of the argument. That is why every time I speak up in a group or write a letter I know it's effective because it sheds light on the other side of the story. Some people are surprised to discover that there is in fact another side of the story.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Stephen, in reference to,
“most people only hear one side of the argument.”
This is SO true, some of these people will have gone through their college education and never been exposed to anything other than the current (ie what is en vogue) social arguments. In other words their rite of passage transpires without having ever questioned the “facts” (dogma is perhaps more apt). They subsequently congregate in arenas committed to the same social goals. I know it is somewhat risky to be critical of social scientists here but my argument cannot be refuted – there is no manner in which their theories can be put to the test. Social engineering, without oversight or broad societal approval (especially in, shall we say, “successful” cultures), should be viewed with some level of healthy scepticism – especially when there is no historical evidence that lends support to the utility (or desirability) of a particular “engineering” effort.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Thanks, Celia and Masculist. It's my first letter of the kind ever, so I'm glad it turned out to be at least halfway decent. :)
And Masculist, you're a Psych student? Me too! I'm still an undergrad, but I'm thinking of working towards becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist or something of the sort. My plan is to probably specialize in depression, and particularly among adolescents and young adults (I myself have depression, so I think having such a personal knowledge of the condition will be helpful).
January 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Alex Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Thanks, Celia and Masculist. It's my first letter of the kind ever, so I'm glad it turned out to be at least halfway decent. :)
And Masculist, you're a Psych student? Me too! I'm still an undergrad, but I'm thinking of working towards becoming a counselor or clinical psychologist or something of the sort. My plan is to probably specialize in depression, and particularly among adolescents and young adults (I myself have depression, so I think having such a personal knowledge of the condition will be helpful).
= = =
You will be my hero if you can come up with a solustion that does not include drugs, I hate this instant gratification society
b
January 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
i hat typos LOL
b
January 28th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Thanks for the info alex. Yea I am a grad student of psychology. But not only that, but I made division 51 of the APA my area of specialization (the psychology of men and masculinity). I am skeptical of some of the guys in division 51, though. I think some of them use a gender-feminist paradigm and see men's stress as largely a consequence of male on male oppression. This is NOT how I see things, however.
I started my grad studies as a counseling student before switching to psychology. I noticed a strong feminist bias, and I frequently rocked the boat during class discussions when it came to men's issues. The suicide rate and the life-expectancy gap are sufficient alone to challenge the myth of "male privilege." I really liked Carl Rogers "client centered therapy" because it stressed empathy and being non-judgemental towards clients (i.e., unconditional positive regard). I also liked existential therapies. However, if I remember right, there was actually a chapter dedicated to feminist therapy in one of my text books!! Yikes!
One of the reasons I wanted to be a counselor in the first place is because I struggle with a bit of anxiety and depression. Nothing extremely major at the moment, but enough to be an inconvenience in my life. I have an avid academic interest in men with mental illness.
Masculist XY
January 28th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
"You will be my hero if you can come up with a solustion that does not include drugs, I hate this instant gratification society"
I agree with this halfway.
I think drugs are fine as long as the person doesn't rely on them as a crutch. I am on medication myself for anxiety, and without it I probably wouldn't be half as productive as I am. I don't think drugs are instant gratification...........but I do think drugs are overused as a quick fix in too many circumstances. Sometimes people who aren't even mentally ill may try to get on them just to feel some sort of high or something.
I sometimes use a metaphor of a circus clown walking a tightrope to represent a life challenge. A circus clown will feel more motivated to walk a tightrope if there is a safety net below. Without that safety net, the clown may not even try at all and remain docile and unproductive. However, with the safety net in place (i.e. drugs), a person may have the confidence to forge ahead. With enough practice, the clown may not even need the safety net anymore.
I believe that the psychological pain associated with mental illness is similar to the physical pain associated with physical illnesses, and as such, I see the medical model of the DSM system a good parallel. I certainly don't view aspirin as instant gratification, and I also don't think that of say SSRI's, such as Zoloft. They both have the potential of making the patient feel better.
With that said, I do think other options should be explored alongside, or in the stead of, psychiatric remedies.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 1:11 am
I feel the same way about drugs, XY. Sometimes they're definitely necessary, but I fear too many people jump to using them as a quick fix, rather than getting through the route cause via actual introspection and self-discovery. A society getting too dependent on substances is a recipe for disaster.
Also, I suppose you could say I have a somewhat unconventional approach towards my depression; I feel that, in many ways, it can actually be a good thing. I look at some of the biggest literary, artistic, and creative minds in history who've suffered from depression (from Poe to Van Gogh to Tolstoy to Dostoyevsky, and on and on), and I've come to believe that the sadness that it causes can actually be harnessed for a greater good, fueling creativity, insight, philosophic reflection, and profound emotion. It's kind of like what Viktor Frankl wrote about suffering being a necessary part of life so people can draw strength and self-improvement from difficult experiences; in the same way, maybe those with depression can turn their illness into an asset of sorts and, by harnessing it towards a higher purpose, both speak to others about what they feel while drawing emotional strength themselves. It's for that reason that I don't take medication, and instead keep a journal and meet with a therapist every week.
Hell, most of the injustices and overall B.S. that afflict men that we discuss here is pretty much the whole reason why I have depression in the first place. I can't even count anymore how many identity crises and existential meltdowns that putting up with misandry in society has caused me over the years. Finding a good blog like Glenn's has really been pretty therapeautic, in that sense.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:13 am
The letter I sent:
The "Coaching Boys Into Men” Domestic Violence Public Awareness Media Campaign is breathtaking in its misandry. I respectfully submit that this is perhaps the most offensive officially sanctioned display of male bashing I have yet come across.
In your zeal to pander to certain women's rights groups, you manage to disparage almost half the population by suggesting an entire gender is predisposed to violence toward women. Among other unfortunate aspects of your crass political opportunism, your very premise is factually incorrect, and that is something you know or certainly should know. For example, among its many other factual deficiencies, your campaign blinks at the statistics showing that the rate of female violence perpetrated on males is not significantly different than male-on-female violence. Are you aware that 70.7% of nonreciprocal physical violence is perpetrated by females? Or that males and females equally report being victims of dating violence? The objectively verifiable studies that reached these conclusions were not commissioned by some radical men’s rights advocate, yet your campaign tosses them onto a scrapheap of politically correct indifference. I would be happy to share these sources with you if you’d like to contact me at my law firm.
It is unfathomable that your campaign fails to mention that it is also wrong to hit boys. You do believe it is wrong to hit boys, don't you? Boys are hit, struck, shot, sneak-attacked, severely injured and killed every day. You would do well to familiarize yourselves with the sobering statistics attesting to the serious and often fatal injuries suffered by boys subjected to violence by other boys, girls and adults.
Perhaps the most deplorable aspect of your political opportunism is the unmistakable message you are sending to boys: you are telling them in bright-line terms that they are intrinsically flawed, or worse, evil, and that they need to be reconditioned in order to be fit members of a civilized society. How dare you!
I am certain that in designing this de rigueur feminist campaign, you failed to recognize your own misandry. You need to reconsider this extremely unfortunate endeavor, and stop blatantly disrespecting approximately one-half the population with half-truths and unfair, indeed immoral, gender stereotyping.
TIMOTHY MURRAY, ESQ.
MURRAY, HOGUE & LANNIS
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
January 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Stephen:
I have personally had to teach my own daughter that slapping or hitting boys is VERY bad, just as bad as having a man hit or throw them. In fact, I teach her that if she hits men, then she becomes much more likely to be hit by men. This makes sense doesn't it? Watch boys or girls in the playground. Leading up to any physical confrontation is face to face confrontation, frequently challenges and light shoving.
Very true and I've met plenty of women in my day that literally think they should be free to attack a man and he should have to take it regardless of who initiated the attack. Frankly I say, "If a woman thinks she is badass enough to whip a guy's ass then she is badass enough to get her ass whipped by a guy." Meaning that if a woman feels like INITIATING a fight with a guy (Not in cases of DV in which the man starts it. If that is the case then she should by all means fight back if she has no choice.) then said guy should be able to fight back without fear of being shamed because he "hit a woman".
Judge:
Danny, I agree with what you said -- very well said, but we need to be careful about this: "Were women getting the short end of the stick in areas of society? Yes."
I agree. Perhaps I should have said, "Were women getting the short end of the stick in someareas of society? Yes." Women have been mistreated through history but you are right in the fact that feminists like to rewrite history to make it appear that women were oppressed in all walks of life while ignoring the extremely hard (and short) lives men lived in order to provide for them.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Okay a bunch of you jumped on Roy for his request for female geniuses yet none of you offered up any.
The best I can do is Mother Teresa, Georgia O'keefe and Ayn Rand and frankly those all feel like stretches. I seem to think there was a woman chemist at DuPont who created something we depend on daily now but I can't think of her name or the compound.
My knowledge is pedestrian but I can't find a Niels Bohr or Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein.
I'd say Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald but they aren't Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis or Dave Brubeck or even Irving Berlin or George Gershwin. They seem mere performers in comparison.
I can't even find a female version of John Williams let alone a Beethoven.
Martha Grahm? But then you'd have to say Balanchine and Fosse.
Annie Liebowitz? I'd offer Ansel Adams and might lose on that one.
I think you'd do quite well in literature over the last century but Virginia Woolfe? Dorothy Parker? I think though you could trump those with Ian Fleming and John Irving or Zane Grey for that matter to say nothing of Fitzgerald and Hemingway or Joyce or Kerouac or Vonnegut.
I was just reading about something on these lines in comics but Gail Simone is not Alan Moore or Frank Miller and certainly no Stan Lee.
Sofia Copola? But then you don't really need to go further than her father in film do you?
Julia Child? Margaret Thatcher? Condoleeza Rice? Sandra Day O'connor? Susan B. Anthony?
You guys need to do better than, "There are lots of women with genius level IQs."
Tangent I know but put up some names.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:31 am
The thing about 'gender parity' in DV is that a defensive push counts the same amount as a punch to the face on the measures they use in the survey... but hey, let's go what feels right, eh?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Lewis, women traditionally have ruled the domestic scene and have not been prominent outside the home until relatively recently. We have no idea how many genius mothers there have been who stayed out of the limelight, so I think this argument is classic apples and oranges. Personally, I think some men will always find a way to top virtually any field -- not because of culture but biology (that word the radical feminist hate -- testosterone).
Forget geniuses, I am more concerned with the fact that boys are falling behind in school at alarming rates. Men are far outnumbered in college now. When girls were behind academically, everyone jumped and said "there must be something wrong with the schools." When boys fall behind, everyone says, "Give him some Ritalin to calm him down."
I see in the news that some colleges are starting finally to address the gender gap. However, in one story, the reporter made sure to interview a female professor who said the gender gap is not a problem -- women need more education because of the pay gap! What a pile of crap! The college gender gap is a big problem for men.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:10 am
NIce post again alex. That is a good point. I definitely feel like I have harnessed anxiety for creativity and empathy in my writing, music, and even acting as well. Sometimes anxiety can lead to profound insight and self-awareness............which is very conducive to existential philosophy. Victr frankl is a good example here (mans search for meaning) as you said. Some of these guys go too far, and actually kill themselves, which is sad (I believe this happened to either niche or schopenhaur). This happened to Beers too I think (the mind that found itself).
School is a bit tougher to harness anxiety in positive ways compared to art, I think, since it is more based on structured hoop jumping than creativity. Perhaps after school I will get off the meds altogether.
I believe therapy is useful. It is too bad males tend to under-utilize the services compared to females. Back when I was a counseling student, I always hoped that counseling programs would emphasize this problem, but it seemed like they were more interested in women's problems.
And yes the mens movement (and area 51 of psychology) has brought much needed hope to me! That has given me great scope and even self-respect. Some of my favorite books in the movement which you may find worthwhile include: myth of male power (warren farrell), hazards of being male (herb goldberg), and not guilty: case in defense of men (david thomas). And for DV issues, you may be interested in http://www.mediaradar.org.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Tim said: "Men are far outnumbered in college now."
And yet, colleges are still pushing advocacy to appeal to women. This is either a result of an outdated 70's mindset (i.e. rats running around a familiar maze), or planned marketing to appeal to the female dominated spending gap.
Ad campaigns almost incessantly show a picture of a female in a lab coat or something.
Fields like psychology and counseling are female dominated. Apparently we need more women in traditionally male fields, but no one cares about getting more males in traditionaly female fields. There were times when there were only about 4 of us guys, and about 16 females, and we would have a class discussion about getting more women into fields like engineering when female domination was right under our noses!
Masculist XY
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Masculist XY Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I agree with this halfway.
I believe that the psychological pain associated with mental illness is similar to the physical pain associated with physical illnesses, and as such, I see the medical model of the DSM system a good parallel. I certainly don't view aspirin as instant gratification, and I also don't think that of say SSRI's, such as Zoloft. They both have the potential of making the patient feel better.
= = =
See the movies THX1138 (1971) and Equilibrium (2002) there are many other examples but these two are very good to start your education and cover two generations that have the same concerns.
b
BTW I said nothing about aspirin and if you do some research on the drugs for depression and in particular anxiety they are among the strictest controls substances in the country. For anxiety most doses range from 1/4 - 1/2 gram and occasionally 1 gram and trust me those meds at the level are incredibly strong
January 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Alex Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Hell, most of the injustices and overall B.S. that afflict men that we discuss here is pretty much the whole reason why I have depression in the first place. I can't even count anymore how many identity crises and existential meltdowns that putting up with misandry in society has caused me over the years. Finding a good blog like Glenn's has really been pretty therapeautic, in that sense.
= = =
This is the other interesting factor have you noticed how many men here are coming out and stating that they have depression or anxiety . . . hummmm
b
January 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
"Lewis, women traditionally have ruled the domestic scene and have not been prominent outside the home until relatively recently. We have no idea how many genius mothers there have been who stayed out of the limelight, so I think this argument is classic apples and oranges.
And it is in deep even here isn't it? Women good. Men so-so? All the female genius locked up at home going to waste raising babies? If men just stayed home we’d know a woman physicist as accomplished as Niels Bohr is that it?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
We still have all the sticks to keep boys in line but we're not giving them any carrots are we?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Lewis, what the hell are you talking about? You are putting words in my mouth, and I do not appreciate it. Women have, since the beginning of time, sought to rule the domestic scene; men have been ordained -- by women more than anyone -- to work as the breadwinner in society. Period. Women now have more opportunities than men because men are stigmatized if they want to be stay-at-home dads, whereas women can "have it all." If you ask me, men are the long-suffering heroes.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bernie: "This is the other interesting factor have you noticed how many men here are coming out and stating that they have depression or anxiety . . . hummmm"
And, much like domestic violence, that's not even counting the number of unreported cases. Women may be DIAGNOSED with depression more, but it totally irks me how some claim that this is evidence of how hard women have it "under the patriarchy." What about how men have twice the rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, and four freakin' times the rates of suicide?
There actually was a study that found that, in Jewish populations, depression rates between men and women are pretty much equal. This in turn coincides with the low rates of alcoholism among Jewish men.
http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2002-03/jewdepressed_crcuwinter2002_03.html
But, we're men, so we don't have emotions, right?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
"What about how men have twice the rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, and four freakin' times the rates of suicide?" Correct, Alex. In addition, I know several women who are constantly at the doctor, dwelling on their perceived ailments or problem -- and it's because they don't work and have a lot of time on their hands. Virtually every man I know has too much going on to dwell on such things and, as a result, more often than for women, men fail to get real problems diagnosed.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Bernie said:
"BTW I said nothing about aspirin and if you do some research on the drugs for depression and in particular anxiety they are among the strictest controls substances in the country. For anxiety most doses range from 1/4 - 1/2 gram and occasionally 1 gram and trust me those meds at the level are incredibly strong"
I was on zoloft, and yes it is very strong! And the same can be said for Zanax. But it helped me get through my classes at the time. I am grateful I didnt have to quit school. I welcome things that help people become more productive. I brought up the aspirin parellel because people tend to consider psychiatric drugs to be "instant gratification" but then justify medications like aspirin for doing essentially the same thing.......making a person feel better. An aspirin can alleviate a headache, and zoloft can allevicate anxiety/depression. As a psychology student, I agree with the medical model of mental illness (the DSM) and see both examples as synonymous.
Psychology is a science. As such, it fractionates human behavior into cause/effect and antecedant/consequence patterns. This is a deterministic paradigm. It assumes that mental illness is the result of an interaction...............the interaction of nature (genetic disposition) and nurture (upbringing). Ergo, a formidable treatment regimen might include a combination of things that attack the problem from both vantage points...................perhaps a person might take medication to deal with the serotonin imbalance............and.............a person might also get therapy to reconstruct a falty belief system or set up a behavior mod system for operant conditioning to take place.
I think it is cool when males can feel open enough to share their emotional problems with each other. It is one of the liberating aspects of the masculist movement. Alex said that 2x as many men abuse alcohol............which is high by its own right.............but actually, the DSM 4 claims men actually abuse/depend on alcohol 5x as often! What a depressing fun fact, eh?
Speaking of men and emotions, john huston did a documentary on ww2 vets with PTSD. It was actually banned by the government because it dared suggested that men had feelings and were not psychologicaly immune to the ill-effects of war....................which suggested that the government had a vested interested in male disposability and the propation of the male warrior myth. And of course, Warren Farrell reminded us that more vets from the vietnam war killed themselves than actually died in the war itself. And of course, to this day only men must file for the draft registry.
I agree with the idea that society over-uses meds..........but I am not one to deny them altogether. People with severe mental illness know what I am talking about. My mother has severe schyzophrenia, and has been institutioanalized for years. I am grateful that medication has at least helped her somewhat.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
JRP: Your letter is great. It's very inspiring that you have identified yourself.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Judge:
Bravo! This bears repeating...
___________________________________________________________________
# Judge Rufus Peckham Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Danny, I agree with what you said -- very well said, but we need to be careful about this: "Were women getting the short end of the stick in areas of society? Yes."
Try telling my great-grandmother that she got the short end of the stick while my great-grandfather was killing himself to support her and his family in a dangerous mill. The fact is that in days gone by, men and women were ordained by culture, by biology, by tradition to serve very different roles. It wasn't until the economy exploded that men and women were freed up -- women were able to assume a bigger role outside the home and could help financially support the family because men didn't have to kill themselves as much. Women became more involved in society, with the vote, etc. The chief opponents of that were, of course, women. But the argument can be well supported that men historically had it much harder than women until very recently.
Don't buy into the revisionist feminist history that the story of civilization has been of males oppressing women. Historically, some people -- men AND women -- have always oppressed other people, especially men.
____________________________________________________________________
I suggest any MRA that wishes to give credit where it's due, and/or show empathy for the past injustices to women, should at the very least educate themselves on the actual society commented on, rather than the feminist version, which is radically divergent from historical reality.
Historical revisionism is hard enough to fight without "our own" supporting the falsehoods.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I'm loving the letters.
I'm a little under the weather today but I'll try to get a start on my own letter.
Alex, you're the same age as my eldest son, and I do hope he can write as articulately and even-handedly as you do. Masculist, you have no idea how your posts have improved my reading. I'm often intrigued by your many quotes, Kant, of whom I read a great deal back in college, in particular. Nice work on your letter.
Young men like you are the epitome of what this movement is about for me. Keep up the good work!
January 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Betsy -- I, too, think more of us should "out" ourselves and reveal our identities, we've got nothing to hide. I was outed lasted week with my USA Today letter, so I figured, what the hell.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Thank you Dan M. Some people take it for granted that men as a group once oppressed women and that's a bunch of hogwash. I don't think people make a big enough deal about historical revisionism. Some people are also under the impression that there is good to be found in the early days of second wave feminism. That's another lie. Whatever problems women were having could have been solved without the disease of feminism. And besides fascism and communism, can you think of any other ism that is as underhanded, dishonest, irresponsible and treacherous as feminism? I will continue to fight to shed light on this horrible movement.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Stephen, correct -- and thanks Dan, also. This twisted strain of feminism is so screwy that most people, women and men, don't like to be associated with the term. The radical gender feminists who guide that horrid movement in actuality view it as a woman's lobby, akin to a petroleum or steel company lobby, etc. They are not concerned with equality, they are concerned with advancing any interest that favors women. We should all deplore gender stereotyping that serves to hold anyone back merely bacause of their sex. Radical feminists agree with that -- only as it pertains to women.
Monor example: if women want their own bus, like they have in Mexico City, they can have it because some men are "gropers." Women can ride the regular bus or they can ride the women's-only bus. Never mind that the vast majority of men would never grope, and never mind that this system is inconveniencing innocent men by keeping them off the women's-only bus. How does that square with equality? It doesn't. It's unfair gender stereotyping and it attributes to ALL men the flaws of a few. But femininsts are OK with it because it favors women, period. Thus has the movement become nothing more than a woman's lobby. And they don't care if they hurt men.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Thanks Davina! And women like you are essential for the men's movement because it helps dispel the stereotype that the mens movement is a reactionary or misogynist movement. We need all the females we can get. Not only that, but your posts are very good too.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
"And, much like domestic violence, that's not even counting the number of unreported cases. Women may be DIAGNOSED with depression more, but it totally irks me how some claim that this is evidence of how hard women have it "under the patriarchy.""-Alex
This always irked me too. In fact, I had a professor once that proudly proclaimed that the reason 2x as many women have depression is due to the fact that women have always been second class citizens. Needless to say, I actually wrote him a long letter delineating some of my masculist concerns.
It also kinda irked me that whenever I brought up the male suicide rate, some feminst would jump in and retort: "But more women attempt!!".............as if the matter were some sort of victim contest. I personally believe that completed suicides are more serious than attempted suicides...............why? Because these men are dead as a doornail and can't get any help.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I do not think it is easy or straightforward to conclude that women were or were not "oppressed" in history, whatever that may mean. The fact that men and women accepted their respective roles in society does not prove anything, either. Many people will accept what they are given, whether or not it is "fair."
I agree that revisionist feminist histories are misleading. However, I can tell you that women did feel the pain of being confined to a limited set of careers. My own mother, an extremely bright and independent-minded woman, felt she had no recourse to pursue anything except teaching, nursing, and home economics when she was young. She certainly believes that the culture had a significant negative effect on her life and choices. I honestly do not know what I would have done if I had been born in 1940. I doubt that I would have had the chance to pursue science. Not many women did.
As for female geniuses, I can name many brilliant female scientists who never go the credit they deserved, like Rosalind Franklin, whose experiment revealed the helical structure of DNA, and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered that the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. Why don't you know their names? Good question. And there are some female geniuses who actually are recognized, like Marie Curie. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that there have never been female geniuses.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
"And there are some female geniuses who actually are recognized, like Marie Curie. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that there have never been female geniuses." Betsy barton
I wonder if an alpha-female genious would be willing to support a beta-male househusband with her talented skills? That is my main concern.
I believe Roy Schenk (Other Side of the Coin: Causes and Consequences of Mens Oppression) had it right when he said that one of the reasons why men have an aversion to successful women is because men are measured and valued by their productive worth. Without success and achievement, what do men got? They certainly don't have sexual power. And too few women find homeless men sexy.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Masculist:
I see you don't want MRA's to be associated with being reactionary, or misogynist. My question to you, and it really IS a legitimate one in my mind, is "Why is that a bad thing?". I postulate that we have been worrying too much about whether or not our views "play well" to women...is it not possible that surprised (at the anger) women are far more attentive than "sympathetic" women? Women really didn't care if men accepted feminism, they simply said "support us or you're a pig and we won't talk to you"....why can't men do the same?
In short, what's wrong with the general assumption that men are pissed off (largely at feminism, but it DOES get diffused to include women in general) FOR A DAMN REASON! That women have allowed feminism to do what it has, and that men have NOTICED that, and we're mad as hell. How, exactly, is that wrong?
Why do we need women's approval ALL THE DAMN TIME? Can't we even be pissed off without making sure it's OK first?
I mean, sure a case can be made that the majority of women aren't even aware of the problems....to that I counter - how is being quiet and reasonable going to get their attention? People tend to live in their comfort zones, with assumptions taking place of real thought the majority of the time. How many times have you driven home without paying attention? I mean to the point of not even remembering the drive? Fair to say these are routine drives.... But how many times has something out of the ordinary happened, causing you to remember fine details in that drive?
I'll put it another way... If you're a hot girl in a bar, you're going to get hit on pretty consistently. Given enough time, even nice bodies and good looks become boring. All the guys do the same things, offer to buy drinks, ask her to dance etc... Then an average guy comes up to her, insults her shoes and asks her when SHE was going to buy HIM a drink.
Who do you think she remembers the next day?
Why is it that people don't admit to themselves that women are attracted to bad boys PRECISELY because they don't "take their shit"? Because that's what it boils down to....women are generally attracted to men that have their own agenda, their own life, that she can either tag along with him on....or not....whatever.... THOSE are the men women swoon over....NOT the guy asking for a little understanding.
Why do you seem to believe women will work differently on a mass scale?
January 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Good Post Betsy,
I will note that my Mom, who is now 73, did engineering in college and, while dropping out to get married and make babies, did go back to practice as a designer for the highway department. That's not nursing, teaching nor home economics. But that was Lousianna in the late 50's.
I too have trouble with the 'no female genious' thing. On one hand I am temped to disregard the question as intentionallly inept, on the other hand I don't believe to do so would be fair or productive.
So the real search is to find research done within the last 20 years that is within a field that has some significant population of female practitioners. And lastly, look for work that has merit, rather than popular recognition. I think the examples Betsy provided have merit.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
"Without success and achievement, what do men got?"
You raise an important point Masculist. Biology, tradition, culture -- and women -- have ordained men to be breadwinnes from pre-historic times. Now according to the NY Times, young women are out-earning young men in the big cities. Are feminists celebrating that fact? Are they taking this as an indication that the gender wage gap may be accounted for by factors other than discrimination? Well . . . no. Instead they are bellyaching because some men don't like dating women who are more successful than they are -- you know, our fragile male egos and all. I kid you not. Gee, even when women achieve gender superiority, the radical feminists still manage to invent excuses for women to wrap themselves in the garb of perpetual victimhood. Here's a tip for them: they may want to concoct something better than "the menz won't date successful women!" If that's all they got, it may be time to ditch the women's studies classes, because feminism has accomplished its goals.
Have the radical feminists who are all indignant and pissed that some men don't want to date more successful women given any thought about the countless guys who, for centuries, have had a difficult time getting a date because they weren't successful enough? And this was so even when the guy had a job but the woman turning him down didn't. The fact is that women have done an amazingly effective job of convincing men from the beginning of time that there is a direct correlation between a man's worldly success and his chances of mating. There are, of course, legitimate sociological reasons why women want to mate with successful men but I am sure the radical feminists don't want to hear any of that. It's more satisfying for them to believe that the innate flaws of the male species hurt women, and just leave it at that. If men have a "fragile male ego" that tells them they are supposed to be the breadwinners, guess which gender implanted it?
January 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
A phrase that just occurred to me I need to throw out somewhere....sorry for the OT nature...
"Common Sense" can be rephrased "Received Wisdom".
January 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
What the hell am I talking about?
What you wrote sounded to me like you might as well have wrote this "Shakespeare wrote some of the greatest plays in the english language. *
*Shakespeare's wife and most women at that time had to stay at home.
As though Shakepeare's wife would have wrote the plays if he'd been busy with the children.
You bemoan that boy's are behind in school but to me it seems you diminsh the role models we might hold up for boy's to aspire too (the carrots.) Ads like this billboard diminish the self-worth they need to aspire (more carrots taken away) to great deeds. Family courts and divorce and the way his Mom talks about the Dad he never sees (sticks applied- you don't want to be a loser like your Dad right? or carrots removed I'm going to get an education so I can get a job where they take away my wages so my wife can afford to live while bad mouthing me to the kid's?)
I have heard many women musicians who play beautifully. I haven't heard them play music composed by women though and women have been encouraged in music for some considerable time if I'm not mistaken. Women have been prominent in the theatre since Sarah Bernhardt but where is the female equivalent of Shaw or O'casey or Williams? Women have been in film since the begining. Where is a work like Citzen Kane from a female director? Where is the woman who as Hitchcock said of Spielberg, "He is the first of us who doesn't see the proscenium" changed what you see on the screen?
Are women capable of such things? Of course. But to me you suggested that they haven't because of being kept at home. Do you think that is all there is to it?
This is not to say that men are superior but there are very different drives at work and that everyone was willing to jump on Roy and yet offer no women geniuses in retort? To offer no female Frank Lloyd Wright, or Gustav Eifel? To have you say "Forget geniuses" but bemoan that boy's are behind in school?
It had an air of not thinking much of the achievements of men. A whiff of hypocrisy about it. "Acheive a lot boys and we still won't think much of you because you know women haven't been at this for the centuries that men have."
You can't say something good about males without saying something good about females or that they too are capable of those good things. Is what I was thinking by "It's in deep..."
It seems to me you are free to say girls are good at fill-in-the-blank without having to say so are boys which seems to me a feminist paradigm drilled deep into the mind and fully internalised.
I'm probably seeing things from too skewed a vantage point. Gone overboard in trying to see things from a different paradigm.
It is unlikely that you meant anything of the sort I've talked about here. I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth it was not very civil of me.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
No, Lewis, I certainly did not mean any of that. I have no use for political correctness. I think you reacted as you did because we are all so accustomed to hearing this nonsense from the politically correct world that suggests the innate flaws of males, etc. I take exactly the opposite view -- I believe there will always be men at or near the top of almost everything because of that pesky testosterone. I do not believe men have held women back. I do believe women have historically expected men to be the breadwinners and that's what's ingrained in us.
So no offense taken Lewis. It gave you a chance to make some good points.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
"As for female geniuses, I can name many brilliant female scientists who never go the credit they deserved, like Rosalind Franklin, whose experiment revealed the helical structure of DNA, and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered that the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. Why don't you know their names? Good question. And there are some female geniuses who actually are recognized, like Marie Curie. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that there have never been female geniuses.
Was that so hard? Isn't that what Roy asked for?
January 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Tim murray, It's true in modern America that the pen is mightier than the sword!! You're pen oozes of polite, refined, Academic Aggression....Keep up the good work!!
January 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hmm, I looked into this more: I found a well researched blog piece that went through noble lauriates and their carreers era by era, analyzing by sex.
His basic point was that women started out like gangbusters back then, then have petered out. I thought his conclusion was interesting.
"For example, the first play I thought of as likely to win a place in the permanent repertory was Eugene O'Neil's Long Day's Journey into Night, which debuted on Broadway in 1956. Yet it turned out to have been written 15 years earlier.
Of the nominated works that were actually created in the second half of the century, by far the most came from the 1950s, with the 1960s in second place.
So, it could be that the current feminist era is just unlucky to have happened during an overall slack period.
But, it's also likely that feminism—with its emphasis on self-pity, resentment of greatness, hatred of logic, insistence upon social validation of personal feelings, and demand for lying and browbeating the honest into silence—has contributed to the general decline in quality.
Modern feminism and modern decadence are results of the same general trend. Feminism emerged at the end of the 1960s precisely because the cultural leaders of the era had rebelled against the traditions that had made Western Civilization such an incubator of geniuses for over 500 years— above all, the preference for truth over ideology.
Larry Summers is merely the latest, and perhaps the least, victim. "
Now, this is clearly a political piece concerning a bit of Harvard politics. But this guy has done a lot more work into it than I have, so I am not going to glibly act like I can judge his work.
Additionally, there is a kernal of truth that hits home. I find that anyone can be subject to having an excuse not achieving. I do: I love my hobbies and playing with my kids. Now women have the excuse that there exists this patriarchy to enslave them. On the other hand, does this sound so convincing as to explain the overall phenomenon? I would rather look at the process of recognition in science. The creation of the gender war and the inclusion of many more female scientists has allowed for the development of stereotypes, where in the early 1900's, there were no stereotypes of women in science. To address this, patience and the elimination of the gender war seem necessary.
It is simply did not happen that Russian scientists were lauded and applauded during the cold war. So scientific achievement is one thing. Scientific recognition is another, and is anything but scientific.
Until women no longer have stronger desires to nurture a family, men will always somewhat dominate in all the focused arts.(Assuming equal access to education and equal population) As long as there exists a gender war, then the dominant sex will never give fair credit to those on the other side of the battle lines.
So, stop the gender war.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I don’t want to get into a slanging match here but none of you guys even mentioned Marie Curie – Wikipedia says:
“Marie Curie (born Maria Skłodowska; November 7, 1867 – July 4, 1934 was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship. She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first twice-honored Nobel laureate (and still the only one in two different sciences) and the first female professor at the University of Paris.”
Part of the problem here is that men have traditionally (ie always until recently) done more of the things that have advanced us as a species – why this is so can always be debated but the bottom line is that they should be thanked for what they have done. If life were only about suckling and nurture and touchy-feely emotional distractions we would all still be sitting around the camp fire in our cave bemoaning the fact that our kids had an 80% mortality rate, while our teeth ratted out and the sabre-toothed tigers waited for the next coward to try to sneak past.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Betsy,
No one can argue that there have not been female geniuses. Part of the problem is that feminists (in their envy of men) define "power" in terms of male pursuits. Perhaps they could have done some good looking at the crucial social structures women have developed and maintained, and the women who are genius in that area. Feminists, by focusing on areas of natural male aptitude, set themselves -- and women -- up for failure. Intentionally, of course. In any gathering of the world's best mathematicians or physicists, it would be unreasonable to expect no women. However, it would also be unreasonable to expect that women will constitute anything other than a decided minority. Pick an area that plays generally to women's strength, and the situation will be reversed.
Also, the fact remains that, by any measure, there are greater numbers of males than females who are super-smart and/or creative. This notwithstanding, women have no right to feel envious, because by any measure there are greater numbers of males than females who are stupid and dull. Thus the nearly equal average between the sexes. This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. It explains the "glass ceiling," and it also explains the studiously-ignored "glass cellar," in which dwells all of society's most miserable, dangerous work reserved for the disposable gender whose life and limb is just not as valuable as those of the women who are excluded -- mostly by their own insistence.
That brings me to my second point, which is to comment on your observations: "I do not think it is easy or straightforward to conclude that women were or were not "oppressed" in history" and "I can tell you that women did feel the pain of being confined to a limited set of careers."
To this I respond, with all due respect, SO WHAT?! Let's assume that women's condition was "oppressed." First, there is no evidence that this was imposed on them by and for the benefit of men, as opposed to the benefit of children and society. Second, why shouldn't women have been expected to endure their "fair share" of the misery of surviving in a tough world? It is galling that we care a rat's patooti whether or not women were "oppressed" by being confined to a limited set of choices, safe in the home and engaged with their children, while men excercised their "choices" by marching into the mines, the factories, the fields, the logging camps, the mills, the slaughterhouses, the fishing boats -- and all the other places where they were worked to death, if not killed outright. That anyone could reasonably view this situation as particularly oppressive to women is absurd, and callous in the extreme.
That feminism spits on and slanders the memories and sacrifices of those ordinary husbands and fathers whose collective efforts created the wealthy, secure society in which feminism is possible, all in order to gain permanent "victim" and "minority" status for women, is perhaps its most odious outrage.
Betsy, I think that if you look at the big picture and avoid the "front man" fallacy, you will be less ready to wonder if women really did have it so bad back in the day, and much less worried about whether the answer is "yes" or "no."
January 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Tim Murray (now I'll never get used to knowing your name): I think there are a limited number of posters (primarily men) with active cases in questionable family courts that have very understandable reasons to remain anonymous. But I would hope that the others might at least consider your example. (And if anyone actually thinks that I am helping my career by using my real name, I would love to hear their rationale... Really, that would be a good one.)
Davina: I totally misunderstood you the first time. D'oh!! I agree that most men realize they can be masculine without using violence. I think there are still some who don't. I'm not too worried about it, though. I'm more worried about the message women are getting: that the are *licensed* by our culture to be violent.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hey Dan, i appreciate your post.
I for one don't like feminazies who engage in misandry. For this reason I don't like to stoop to their level and do the same. It is not a matter of chivalry, but rather a matter of empathy. I am grateful for the handful of women like davina who support us. Feminists like to stereotype the men's movement as reactionary, misogynist, conservative, right wing, whatever. Dispelling stereotypes is one of the challenges of masculism.
And yes women like successful alpha ambitious men. But I have yet to meet a feminist who is sexually attracted to a masculist because he is "his own man." I know feminists who wouldn't mind seeing my name on a tombstone. And personally, I am not attracted to females who are helpless and submissive. I am not threatened by a powerful woman. In fact, I am attracted to it. However, there are precious few women who are attracted to beta males like myself. But thankfully, masculism has liberated me enough that I don't feel the need to make myself disposable just so a woman will love me. I am my own man.
With that said, I think blogs are a great way to vent. I do it all the time. Many of my posts resonate with anger. However, when I write a more professional paper, I try to keep my emotions out of it so that I don't come across as the current president of NOW.
Society recognizes great people like Martin Luther King Jr. because he was a peace advocate. He went about things in a rational way, and as a result we celebrate his work one day of every year.
This is just my opinion.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Corregendum and apologies Betsy Darton did mention Marie Curie albiet without pointing out just how influential she in fact was.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
As Bernie said:
“I hat typos”. Sorry Betsy Barton!
January 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
"Why do we need women's approval ALL THE DAMN TIME? Can't we even be pissed off without making sure it's OK first?"-Dan
I don't think it is a matter of approval. I think it is a matter of empathy. I don't give angry misandrist feminists the time of day. I shut them out. I suspect that if I acted that way few women would give me the time of day either.
But then again, I have counseling background, and I tend to be biased into a positive conflict resolution mindset. Not everyone thinks this way.
Dan has every right to his opinion on this matter. And he has probably seen more anti-male oppression than me, and may have more reason to be angry. Much of what I know of mens oppression comes from books (other than being dumped a few times for not being a success object).
Thoughts.
Masculist XY
January 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
(Originally from me.)"As for female geniuses, I can name many brilliant female scientists who never go the credit they deserved, like Rosalind Franklin, whose experiment revealed the helical structure of DNA, and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered that the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. Why don't you know their names? Good question. And there are some female geniuses who actually are recognized, like Marie Curie. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that there have never been female geniuses.
(Directly from Lewis after quoting me:) Was that so hard? Isn't that what Roy asked for?
Look back at Roy's original comment, Lewis. He did not ASK for anything, he said, " (Quite funny actually coming from a gender that has never produced a single genius in philosophy, painting, mathematics, physics, engineering, architecture, or medicine.) Maybe literature, if you count Oprah..."
Does this sound like a request for a nice list of female geniuses? No, really? Does it?
OK, one of you (Lewis) is chastising me for taking too long to name female geniuses, while others are chastising me for their interpretation of what I meant when I was naming them. Jay R, for example, your post is a complete straw man accusing me of feminist attitudes that I have NEVER expressed in this site.
I overlook about 99% of the rudeness and unfairness on this blog site, but it is really, really starting to wear me down.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
This thread started by being critical of the ad campaign – somehow we have become side-tracked into an area that, respectfully, is not only dubious (as extremely complicated retrospective studies would be required to make any "meaningful" determinations but, once again even assuming such studies could be done (let alone were worth doing) no one can “prove” the findings you can only hope to explain them in the context of all the variables (innumerable) that influenced the ultimate outcome – you can NEVER put it to the test.
So, w/r to the original story, did anyone see the film “A Clockwork Orange” directed by Stanley Kubrick? It was based on the novel by Anthony Burgess. This ad campaign is somewhat reminiscent of the notions of socially useful “behavior modification” programs. If you haven’t seen the film no amount of description can do it justice – but here are some words that I think apply – frightening, chilling, disturbing and extraordinarily thought-provoking. It was as dark as 1984 but perhaps more frightening due to the insidious nature of state-sponsored mind control.
I must admit that the film had a profound effect on me and I thought the film should have been banned when I first saw it (I am no shrinking violet and mostly against censorship but it was truly disturbing). Kubrick ultimately removed it from circulation for over thirty years. The basic question being asked was exceedingly thought-provoking – viz do the ends justify the means in eradicating evil from society. The specific evil in question was violence, in this case perpetrated by young males, and the means employed by society were the use of various forms of nightmarish behavior modification. There were many sub-themes also examined such as, do we lose part of our humanity when the free-will choice between good and evil is removed? Does the state have the moral right to deprive individuals of free-will? The film was re-released in 2000.
If you haven’t seen it I can now recommend it – for its edifying nature, although some also say that it was Kubrick’s finest effort ever.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Betsy, I think most of the men here really don't want to insult women or engage in gender stereotyping by claiming women are inferior, or flawed or evil. That's the sort of thing we're fighting against having done to us, and we need to be careful not to do it. I think most of us are thankful that there are female perspectives on this board. Emotions run high for a lot of the guys sometimes, and it's an unfortunate human habit to take out frustrations with a particular woman or with the system on an entire gender. That is not right, and we need to remind ourselves of that.
As for the genius debate, we have all seen the study, I think, that the radical gender feminists condemn about how males skew wider than women -- a lot more super geniuses and a lot more men at the bottom. That's not to say there are not women geniuses -- there are plenty -- or that there are no women at the bottom (there are). It just means it all evens out. Most of us -- men and women -- fall somewhere in the middle.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Besty,
Somewhat taken aback by your wounded response, I reviewed my post. My statement, " That anyone could reasonably view this [historical] situation as particularly oppressive to women is absurd, and callous in the extreme," was not directed at you, but instead to the feminists who pound out the relentless drum-beat of women's purported historical subjugation. I know very well that you are not among them, and I did not mean to imply that you shared their attitude. I am sorry that I was not more clear on this.
You had made clear in your prior post that you had not determined whether or not women can be considered particularly oppressed historically. I hoped only to suggest that, at this point in time, and notwithstanding any difficulties in examining the question, it is counter-productive for any of us even to ask which of the genders has been more or less "oppressed" in the past -- if we are to have any chance of moving forward without further acrimony. My personal view is that men as a group have been the most oppressed historically. To which I also respond, SO WHAT?! At this point, what difference does that make? Should the distant past, viewed darkly through the glass of our modern mores, control whether men owe women respect or whether women owe men respect? It seems to have resulted in the extinction of respect across the board.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
"As for female geniuses, I can name many brilliant female scientists who never go the credit they deserved, like Rosalind Franklin, whose experiment revealed the helical structure of DNA, and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered that the most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. "
...and Maria Goeppert-Mayer, who helped develop the shell model of the nucleus (but she was a co-winner of the Nobel prize though) or Emmy Noether whose 3 isomorphism theorems of Group Theory are a keystone of physics (and the standard model)....
January 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Betsy said:
“I overlook about 99% of the rudeness and unfairness on this blog site, but it is really, really starting to wear me down.”
Betsy, I hope you don’t give up on this site – it is without doubt the best one of its type going. The new poster Tim Murray has it right when he said:
“Emotions run high for a lot of the guys sometimes, and it's an unfortunate human habit to take out frustrations with a particular woman or with the system on an entire gender. That is not right, and we need to remind ourselves of that.”
The individuals who post here are united in one cause – fixing a failed system. The debate on how that is best done will always be lively and sometimes even rude or unfair or completely off-topic or irrelevant – but we shouldn’t let that deter us from the principal goal. I hope you will hang in here!
January 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Correction: It is Noether's theorem (and not her three theorems on isomorphism) that is considered a keystone of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
"Alex, you're the same age as my eldest son, and I do hope he can write as articulately and even-handedly as you do. Masculist, you have no idea how your posts have improved my reading. I'm often intrigued by your many quotes, Kant, of whom I read a great deal back in college, in particular. Nice work on your letter.
Young men like you are the epitome of what this movement is about for me. Keep up the good work!"
Much obliged, Davina. :)
Dan: I do agree halfway that men don't need women's permission to express anger over what they go through. It's a matter of how you go about expressing it, though. You can't go around looking for a confrontation, or you're going to turn a lot of people off toward your messages. What's needed is a happy medium between being overly aggressive and being silent or overly passive. Fair and firm and at the same time.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
"OK, one of you (Lewis) is chastising me for taking too long to name female geniuses"
NO. Not a personal chastisement. Not meant solely at you. A general chastisement to all who didn't share any names. I include myself as I should have known Rosalind Franklin having read about Crick and Watson (although I seem to think there was some measure of overstating her contribution contorversy. That turned out in Ms. Franklin's favor?)
I meant that more as "Why did it take so long for anyone to offer a name?" (Marie Curie came immediately to mind when I first read Roy's comment actually.) It wasn't meant as "Why did you, BETSY, not have a name." Meant it in a rhetorical sense.
I am duly corrected that Roy did not ask a question and so no answers were 'required.' That would make my rant bit more tangential than it already was.
Again I did not mean "Was that so hard, Betsy?" I'm sorry, Betsy, that you have taken it personal it was not meant as an attack on you. Like others I have found that my feelings aren't always considered relevent and I am sometimes prone to behaving that way to others (particularly when I feel I am engaging in an intellectual exercise.) I apologize for inadvertently making you one of them.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Excellent post Cecilia. And I would like to mirror the thoughts of Tim. Betsy, in my short time here your insights and perspective are valuable.
Jay R,
"Feminists, by focusing on areas of natural male aptitude, set themselves -- and women -- up for failure."
This comment caught my attention as I think it spoke to how this post has traveled down this path. As Cecilia reminded us, we began discussing a billboard and how it unfairly depicted and labelled boys. That billboard is a symbollic example representing a current social structure that is not working, And that is why this comment struck me, we are talking about a paradigm that has created very unrealistic expectations for any of us, male or female to meet. We have talked about suicide rates, depression, rights, dating expectations revisionist thought... . And we are all on the losing side in that equation as a result of an imposed paradigm. Removing the "carrots" for one group, while offering the "carrots" to another group is not having the utopic results. Particularly when you add the stick to the group who has has no carrots (I forget whose metaphor this was- but I liked it). It would be remiss to not reflect and evaluate how the "carrots" have been offered in the historical context as Betsy alludes to. Or even what the "carrots" actually were in the historical context . But when trying to better frame an understanding as to why the current "carrot" distribution is dangerously flawed, Cecilia brings it home with "A Clockwork Orange". A prescient example (I hope not) that we collectively identify with in that billboard, and there is anger, concern, fear of what it represents in the bigger scheme of things. We can argue over the "carrots"; how to distribute, who distributes, are the "carrots" rotten, but all of your voices motivate me to remember to do my part to assure that we keep the field fertile so that we can continue to grow "carrots".
January 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
And THAT, my dear, is holistic thought in a nutshell. We all talk about the issues at hand nearly all the time, even if we aren't truly aware of it at the time.
Alex:
I know what you are trying to get across, but you have to keep in mind that simply pointing out misandry politely, and then walking away as you suggest - even THAT would be exhausting if I did it every time I encountered misandry. I choose to conflict because it's only the high-potential debates that I am willing to devote my time to.
I pick my battles, often poorly, and do my best with the limited resources I have. I suspect a lot of us do. I simply choose to direct my efforts toward the more egregious examples of feminist groupthink... mostly.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
It's funny but I discussed this with my wife a while back. She has no problem with hitting me in the arm or chest when she is angry (and yes it does hurt though she doesn't believe it) but it is not OK for a guy to hit a girl. What ever happened to no hitting period. Violence is violence and should be genderless.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
"Alex:
I know what you are trying to get across, but you have to keep in mind that simply pointing out misandry politely, and then walking away as you suggest - even THAT would be exhausting if I did it every time I encountered misandry. I choose to conflict because it's only the high-potential debates that I am willing to devote my time to.
I pick my battles, often poorly, and do my best with the limited resources I have. I suspect a lot of us do. I simply choose to direct my efforts toward the more egregious examples of feminist groupthink... mostly."
I'm hardly suggesting just pointing it out and walking away politely at all. Being firm, resolute, and outspoken is a must, and the anger that such issues inspire needs to be expressed so that the importance of your message is highlighted. It just needs to be a contained anger, is all, so that those listening to you find that your message is both serious enough to warrant an emotional response, while also articulate enough so that the rationale and goals of what you are trying to get across are clear, and not lost in a mess of hostility.
And regarding picking your battles, sometimes it doesn't necessarily have to be a "battle" per se in order to spread word of your cause. For example, say that you're watching TV with a female friend, your girlfriend, or your wife, and a misandrist TV commercial comes on. Simply saying out loud to your friend/gf/wife "that commercial is such bull. I hate sexist commercials like that," without getting into a major speech, could be a way of bringing attention to your beliefs.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Betsy Says:
I totally misunderstood you the first time. D'oh!! I agree that most men realize they can be masculine without using violence. I think there are still some who don't.
----------------------------
For sure. This has always been the case, and will always be the case as long as humans walk the earth. Deviants prevail in all matters of life. Where there is something ordinary, there will always be something out of ordinary too. However, we seem to agree that the intrinsic message of these ads (that men are predisposed to be violent) is highly skewed.
I do believe in many repects we become products of our environment, and one can hardly say we live in a society where the subjugation of women is embraced with gusto. Quite the contrary indeed. Men are often shamed (again as per these ads) into thinking of themselves as "testosterone infected" miscreants much obliged to show deference to women as penance for their past crimes.
I'm of the opinion that most men have evolved beyond the "wicked" deeds of their forefathers. The majority of modern men, regardless of which side of the fence you lean, doesn't appear to be preoccupied with keeping women "under their thumb".
My perception (and it could very well be wrong since I am known to create my own reality from time to time) is that the majority of men do not engage in extravangantly violent behaviour toward women (I can be convinced they do so toward other men) but we have this climate of fear against men in our society because the mainstream media have led us to believe so. Furthermore I also assert that in more cases than the radicals would have us believe any amount of DV committed against women by men is not considerably more than what women commit against men. I'm really bad at citing statistics, not because I can't but usually don't have the time (and right now the energy due my illness) to dig them up. I will take it for granted that you've familiarised yourself with the variable amounts of statistical evidence that has been provided on the this both by Glenn and many of the other posters.
Cognizant of this, I'm likened to believe that the majority of women, if given the insight many of us here have and if ever they truly embraced a true desire for equality, they will eschew all forms of the hypocrisy that is modern day feminism.
With regard to the genius debate, bear in mind the source from which the original comment that started this debate came. Roy has never denied his cynicism toward women. Indeed, Roy gives the distinct impression that women should have no any influence or participation in the discussion of men's issues due to women's inherent nature of acting in their own self-interest. Roy brings a lot of un-PC, often good, arguments to the table, and I can't say there's been a lot of his comments that has offended me. Indeed, I think his evaluation is definitely true of some women (someone who normally posts here comes to mind but I will refrain from calling names because I don't want to head off into another tangent more than we already have). However, whether you believe his stance is a correct one or not, is blog post all to itself. It doesn't do us any good to be backing and forthing with someone's personal opinion. We can state whether we agree with it or not and move on.
What I think you should focus on Betsy is how many of us supported you in telling Roy his comment was out of line. The rest is all in the spirit of debate. Do not become downtrodden when people nit-pick your posts, just try to find the humour in it (like previously with me and Bernie ... who always seem to have something to say to me! :) Just keep your eyes on the big picture: we're all united in our efforts to see men gain the rights they're entitled to as members of the human race. The rest (what we think and believe about who was more oppressed than who and a horse died and a cow got fat) essentially is of little bearing.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Males are victims of violence at far higher rates than females from infancy on; yet, it goes ignored. This sets me ablaze with rage just thinking about that. If you think I'm just spewing forth unfounded claims, just type in "crime statistics" at a search engine and click on some of the links displayed in the search results, and you'll see just what I'm talking about. The only area of violence in which women are possibly victimized at higher rates are in intimate partner violence and sexual violence -- and this is under scrutiny because many men who are victims of sexual violence or domestic violence are far less likey to report it.
What's even more disturbing and enraging is that MALES perpetrate violence against each other at far higher rates than they do females, while females perpetrate violence against males at higher rates than they do other females. This is a prime example of males warring, hurting, harming, and killing their own, while females tend to look out for each other.
Considering the statistics, perhaps men should be the ones taking self-defense classes and carrying pepper spray, mace, stun guns, tasers, and handguns because MEN, NOT WOMEN, are the ones who have a higher chance of becoming a victim of violence and will usually be subjected to more brutal and lethal forms of violence than women.
More focus MUST BE PLACED on violence against men. Boys and men should be taught, not only to respect women, but to respect each other, respect everyone -- men, women, boys, girls, young, and old. Women and girls are not the only ones deserving of respect, neither are they the only ones who shouldn't be subjected to violence. Men and boys want and DEMAND respect, and if it is not given, none will be given in return -- well, at least not from me. If a violent female attacks a male, he has every right to defend himself against her just as he would if it were another male making a violent attack. Of course, our society doesn't see it that way. They don't care anything about the horrendous violence men often fall prey to. Males can hurt, brutalize, and kill each other as long as they don't hurt females; females can hurt, kill, and brutalize males because males are evil savages who deserve it. This is their logic, and it's absolutely disgusting!
January 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Dan M said:
“I pick my battles, often poorly, and do my best with the limited resources I have.”
Dan, one of the reasons I devote as much time as I do to this site is that it is can be and often is a great source of “information” including useful facts but also knowledge more broadly – including the myriad of views and beliefs held by those who are concerned with fixing our failed system and their notions of how best to deal with certain vexing issues. Thus, participation in this site provides more than a place to vent – it is a sounding board for thoughts and ideas, any one of which might prove valuable (or perhaps pivotal), in the fight to set things straight. It is refreshing to witness the younger posters (and not so young ones as well) hone their debating skills and increase their KNOWLEDGE (in the broader sense) through active participation here – let’s hope it continues and let’s encourage open debate. I strongly suspect (and no doubt some will declare its obviousness) that the value of this site is greater than the sum of its parts – which gives rise to the concern that I and others have expressed regarding Betsy’s disappointment with today’s discourse. I can understand Betsy’s disappointment but by the same token I am convinced that frank and honest discourse is crucial to maintaining momentum in getting the job done.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Taj said:
“Males can hurt, brutalize, and kill each other as long as they don't hurt females; females can hurt, kill, and brutalize males because males are evil savages who deserve it. This is their logic, and it's absolutely disgusting!”
This is the same argument that was wheeled out in response to “black on black” violence for years but of course no one “really” did anything about that until, through the increase in gang participation, it began to spill over into the wider community.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
From Davina: "What I think you should focus on Betsy is how many of us supported you in telling Roy his comment was out of line. The rest is all in the spirit of debate. Do not become downtrodden when people nit-pick your posts, just try to find the humour in it (like previously with me and Bernie ... who always seem to have something to say to me! :)"
Davina, I love your posts and think you are awesome. But I do respectfully disagree with this suggestion. I do not have a problem when people politely disagree with one another and I am extremely glad that 90+% of the commentators are reasonable. The problem is, as I mentioned, when people are rude to one another or when they accuse one another of saying things they did not say or having attitudes they do not have. Honestly, I am dedicated to the ideals of true gender equality and a voice for men in today's society. So if I am perturbed by the amount of acrimony that gets aimed at me, how would a truly moderate person feel? We need to attract the mainstreamers to these issues. That is the only way to have our voices really heard.
Imagine a blog devoid of rants and ridiculous statements but completely full of friendly disagreements, interesting points of view, thoughtful insights, and polite commentary. I think a blog like that would attract many people with intellectual interests. Right now, I think this blog is pretty close to that ideal, but it still occasionally falls off the edge of politeness and into the ranting abyss.
What I want is for Open Minded John and Jane Doe to log in and get pulled into an interesting discussion from a plausible perspective they haven't seen before. If they log in and are immediately hit with, "There are no female geniuses." or "Let's go vandalize a bunch of privately owned billboards." or "Let's patently ignore all of human history as a context for this discussion." or "Men are obviously just better at (science, medicine, art, you-name-it)." or "I disagree with so-and-so, thus he must be a Nazi." what will they think? They will scamper back to USA Today. Not what we want.
My suggestion to commentators is this: Imagine that you are writing an article that has your name on it and that 12,000 people are about to read.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Or better yet, imagine that you are about to stand up and speak to 12,000 people. What do you really want to say?
January 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
[girl standing on white background]
This is Angela. She is a statistic. Angela could be your daughter. She is between 16 and 24 years of age, and she will be killed in an act of violence this week.
[pan out to include seven boys of various races]
As will Steve, and Ricky, and Jamal, and Chris, and Juan, and Aaron, and Robert.
[fade to black]
January 29th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
In fact, if anyone can supply me with accurate stats, I would be happy to produce that exact 10 second spot.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Perfect Dan M!
Betsy said:
“I think a blog like that would attract many people with intellectual interests.”
I think that this blog currently does attract people with intellectual interests. In fact it is appealing to (and certainly appears to attract bloggers) from all walks of life – something that I feel is highly desirable and indispensable if we want to see the complete picture.
It is not just those with intellectual interests who are hurt by the current system (their voices need to be heard) and it is largely due to the undue influence of those with a particular intellectual bent that have caused many of the problems that we face today.
I agree with –
““Right now, I think this blog is pretty close to that ideal, but it still occasionally falls off the edge of politeness and into the ranting abyss.”
The occasional falling off the edge, in my view is neither surprising, reprehensible nor unforgivable.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Dan M.: The CDC website has some moderately easy-to-find statistics on violence. They may have what you need. (www.cdc.gov)
January 29th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Agree 100%, Betsy. Some people like to vent, and sometimes it's appropriate so long as it doesn't treat people unfairly. But if you want to persuade people who are not familiar with these issues, and most people are not, we need to develop positions that will be tough to disagree with. Insulting an entire gender just doesn't cut it, regardless of what some members of that gender have done. We need women to stand with us to eradicate unfair gender stereotyping that allows an individual to be treated unfairly solely because of his or her sex, period.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Betsy, in answer to Melissa's suggestion that he moderate his blog Glenn responded:
"Yes, perhaps my laissez fair approach to moderating is counterproductive. I suppose what I want is instead of banning or deleting the posts of radical masculists is to have reasonable voices, male and female, defeat their arguments. Defeating someone politically is far more effective than defeating them through repression or censorship."
I think his answer pretty much sums up my point very well when I recommended that you focus on those who did call Roy on his comment. Hopefully we are, or becoming, the reasonable voices Glenn hopes for.
I'm afraid you dabble in idealism when you made the following statement:
"What I want is for Open Minded John and Jane Doe to log in and get pulled into an interesting discussion from a plausible perspective they haven't seen before. If they log in and are immediately hit with, "There are no female geniuses." or "Let's go vandalize a bunch of privately owned billboards." or "Let's patently ignore all of human history as a context for this discussion." or "Men are obviously just better at (science, medicine, art, you-name-it)." or "I disagree with so-and-so, thus he must be a Nazi." what will they think? They will scamper back to USA Today. Not what we want."
It is sensible in theory, but not in practice as any movement that seeks to gain people "rights" will be fraught with differing definitions of what constitute "rights" and we're bound to end up with some radicals. We'll never be rid of them (sometimes we ourselves might hold radical views of which we might not be aware), but when they contribute unreasonable comments (such as roy's) the fairminded among us will hopefully point out their error. Which we did in the case in question.
Can we moderate each other more often? Sure we probably can. The challenge becomes finding a balance between giving criticism and allowing people to express themselves without the burdens of pc dogma. What I like the most about the blog is that it provides the men (indeed us all actually) with an outlet for our frustrations and allow us to cybermingle with people of a like-minded inclination. Heavy handed moderation will probably give the illusion of the very thing we all are (but particularly the men) running from: feminist oppression which ultimately dismisses all forms of (again particularly male) criticism--even the valid, irrefutable ones--as misogyny.
So I really admire the way Glenn has chosen to go about this. Not only does this strategy accomplishes the above, but it also shows the feminist radicals and elitist that we're able to single-handedly identify our own bigotry unlike themselves who seek to squelch all voices of opposition to their movement.
I say we hold each other far more accountable than say the folks over at feministing (though I'm not saying that's any excuse why we can not be better at discourse over here.)
January 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Oh and for the rec, I know you were not suggesting that we heavy-handedly moderate each other, but since criticism leads to some level of self-moderation on the part of the person at which the criticism is directed, we have to try and be balanced in our efforts to judge what is passable, semi passable or not passable vs allowing the person their freedom to speech.
Celia Says:
The occasional falling off the edge, in my view is neither surprising, reprehensible nor unforgivable.
------------------------------------
I agree.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
To back up Betsy's suggestion on the CDC for Dan M.
I'd catch this page: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_10.pdf
How exactly to manipulate that is beyond my skills but that is probably where the information can be cited to reliably.
The fast stats link on the CDC seems very useful.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Alex Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
= = =
I agree and thanks for the info
b
January 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
"Insulting an entire gender just doesn't cut it, regardless of what some members of that gender have done."
I had wondered why some threads on this blog have loads of misogyny while others, like this one, do not. I am coming to the conclusion that patient, reasonable voices speaking up early direct threads toward a more productive end. These usually have to come from people with some MRA credibility, unlike me, and be polite, also unlike me. :)
January 29th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Alex Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
= = =
Trust me I know all to well about the things you speak of . . .
b
January 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
What's funny is the set of moral standards to which we should be held on this board are fluid. In other words, we set our own tone.
The fact that feminists are the first to complain about differing opinions is ironic, given the moral-relativistic bent of the ideology, in addition to the constant screeching of diversity.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Dan M, it's similar to someone who is always complaining that something isn't fair. They are the first persons to show themselves to be unfair. It's sort of like they want fairness only on their terms. Such thinking is childish and another reason why I will never support feminism. Feminists are the biggest hypocrites because they consciously and wholeheartedly oppress men while whining on and on about how men are oppressing them. It will never last.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
For the record, in the commercial there is a toss-up for who "gets" to be the statistic for the girls....about even chance of being murdered if black or white. As for the boys, there would be 2 white, 1 hispanic, and 3 black boys standing there. This is for the age group 20-24. Scary thing is suicide or homicide tops nearly all of these lists for cause of death for this age group.
Just to see, I checked suicide too...
In that commercial there would be a white girl (5x more often than black girls) standing there, with one black, one hispanic, and 5 white boys. Or, you could have one black girl, 5 white girls, 5 black boys, 5 hispanic boys, and 25 white boys. Maybe it's time to take it easy on the white boys ya think?
Food for thought.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Stephen:
I liken it more to my daughter stamping her feet when she doesn't get her own way.... :)
January 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The exception disproves the rule. In this case the exception suggests the bias. Self-defense has been a long-standing justification for violence. Thus, contrary to what the ad states, there are are times when it is appropriate to use violence against women.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
This thread is all time! There is so much going on in this one thread, one can just sit back and grind on it for an hour easily!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:05 am
For Every women with an IQ over 260, there are 30 men with an IQ over 260. It's in our biological capacity as the xy chromozone, the change factor in nature.
If larry Summers suggesting biology is a factor in certain fields makes you want to puke...
Think about how I feel when I'm told children need to always go with the mother, even if the mother is bi-polar,irrational, emotionally unstable, and violent!!...Ii makes me want to puke!!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
"This thread is all time! There is so much going on in this one thread, one can just sit back and grind on it for an hour easily!"-Stephen Weiss
Perhaps we can surpass 200 comments!
Masculist XY
January 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Well that would require just a bunch of padding. I don't have much more to say on the matter. Except, "Does Loewe's have good deals on spray paint?" :-)
January 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Here are "Ten Things you can teach young men about ending violence against women": (taken directly from the NYS OPDV):
1. Ask young men to tell you what they think it means to be a "man." It helps the conversation if you know where they are coming from.
2. Tell young men that they can be strong and sensitive, masculine and emotional, without using violence.
3. Teach young men that they have the power to change themselves and their world in positive ways - through kindness, acceptance, and appreciation of everyone.
4. Teach young men to express anger without using violence.
5. Teach young men that violence against women is not acceptable. They have the power and the right to speak out and react appropriately and respectfully when they see violence happening on any level.
6. Encourage them to challenge jokes, media images, comments, and behaviors that seem abusive or violent toward women.
7. Suggest that young men talk to women and girls about their experiences. It is important to listen to women express their needs and realities.
8. Remind young men that violence against women is everyone's issue. We need to work side by side with one another - men and women, all races, all cultures - in a unified commitment to one common goal of a safe and peaceful world for everyone.
9. Remind young men that they do not need to buy into the violent role models depicted in the media. Young men are bombarded daily by images and messages that may subconsciously become part of their reality. They may not be aware that they are engaging in subtly offensive behaviors or using hurtful or inappropriate language.
10. Remind young men that they are responsible for all of their choices and behaviors. Encourage young men to discuss and really think about their own behaviors. Nobody can "make" them be violent and there is never a justifiable reason to hurt, abuse, or threaten someone else.
These are FINE ideals to teach our children. Respect for men and women of all races is a NOBLE goal. I think our world would be a much better place if we taught them to our kids. I would have SO MUCH LESS of a problem with this campaign if the language were only gender-neutral. As it is, the campaign itself is highly offensive -- especially the images.
Write and tell the NYS OPDV that they need to direct an equally strong & direct message at young girls.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jeff if those ten items were gender neutral like you said I'd be on the front lines supporting them.
I would also like to note that do to the very nature of this program and items 1-7, 9, and 10 (the assumption that male against female violence is the only type of violence that happens) item 8 is impossible to fulfill. How can people work side by side to end violence against women when the people that came up with this starts off by pointing fingers at all males?
January 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
"10. Remind young men that they are responsible for all of their choices and behaviors. Encourage young men to discuss and really think about their own behaviors. Nobody can "make" them be violent and there is never a justifiable reason to hurt, abuse, or threaten someone else."
I have a problem with number 10. Men have the right to use violence to defend themselves against a violent attacker whether they be male or female. Case closed!
January 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Check out the link to a photo of our protest Monday! (I'm on the right with the hat)
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/newyorkcivilrightscouncil/photos/view/6b22?b=2
Our signs show the Gender Neutral alternative that could have been used (Had we wanted our government to spend our tax dollars telling us how to raise our children).
"I have a Dream...
RESPECT EACH OTHER"
(The girls dress says.. Awaiting Instructions too)
Thank you all who wrote a complaint letter and to all your blogging.
To all you bloggers in here who have not sent an email of complaint to the actual offending source of these billboards, PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO SEND ONE. ( We know we love to write .. make it count!)
The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence
Attn: Executiove Director Amy Barasch, Esq.
80 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
Phone - (518) 457-5800
Fax - (518) 457-5810
Email - opdvwebinfo@opdv.state.ny.us
Peace!
Tim
January 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Thanks Tim. Keep up the good work!!
Masculist XY
January 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Dan M, I like your post to Masculist XY. I'm of the school that the MRM needs a fair amount of anger to keep the engine running. I stop short of death threats and misogyny but no one is going to deny me my anger. The next time I think about going easy on feminists I'll think of the thousands of homeless men who got that way because of a greedy, money grubbing ex. I'll think of men who are denied access to their children because the mother is only concerned about herself.
You know that women are more sensitive than men. Just look at feministing and pandagon with their censorship policies. They got that way because the women there can't handle the truth. If women want equality then they are going to have to deal with harsh realities just like us men.
Some people seem to forget that we are at war, plain and simple. We'll only make deals after feminism is conquered and only on our terms. But until then we must conquer the enemy where ever they hide. We need to stop asking for women to approve our demands for our rights. They took them away and dammit I'm demanding them back. And I refuse to be charmed, shamed or otherwise manipulated.
And if a newcomer is reading this post then I'm glad that they know the MRM is not a game or civilized social activity. Numerous lives have been destroyed by feminism and the monster must be destoyed.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:03 am
"Taking away resources from women is not the answer. Spreading awareness of violence against men and getting funding to help abused men is."
Haq old girl....... Scrapping VAWA is a fundamental step to spread awareness of violence against men and getting funding to help abused men, since the misandrist scum who lobbied Congress to pass it have intentionally cast men as ONLY "abusers" and women as only "victims".
And the rewritten domestic violence bill should be called Violence Against People Act....... instead of insisting that women get their OWN bill (full of special entitlements, legal privileges, not to mention plenty of pork-barrel money to otherwise unemployable feminazi scumbags.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:12 am
"More focus MUST BE PLACED on violence against men. Boys and men should be taught, not only to respect women, but to respect each other, respect everyone -- men, women, boys, girls, young, and old. Women and girls are not the only ones deserving of respect, neither are they the only ones who shouldn't be subjected to violence."
Bingo! The feminazis behind the propaganda campaigns such as the one under discussion harp on how boys must grow up to "respect women".
These campaigns NEVER message how girls ought to "respect men". Or even how boys ought to "respect men". And the feminazis would rather gnaw off their own breasts rather than insist that women "respect men".
Our entertainment programming continuously sends messages that men and boys need not be respected.
Those boys are being set up to accept roles as fourth class citizens as they grow into adulthood: behind women, children, and pets.
Your tax dollars hard at work there.........
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Now it's the boys who have this mysogynist streak in them. Yes, yes.
Can you imagine, between chewing bubble gum, playing video games, skateboarding, hanging around malls and doing the myriad other things that 8-13 year old boys do these days they still somehow find the time to oppress, subjugate and render all women into patriarchal submission. Man, kids these days get to have all the fun. I somehow missed out in all that stuff growing up.
So where are the young lads getting these alleged non-respectfull ideas from? Could these boys' attitudes be coming from watching the actions of "women" so much that even the young boys themselves see through the feminist fraudulence? Or could the young lads be separated from their fathers so much through divorce and separation that there is no balance in the family? A combination of both these two and even other factors? Or could it be that feminists have created so many problems in the family and in the culture so much that it has come back to haunt women in ways that they cannot control so they, once again, choose the innocent youth to pick on and oppress? We see worse treatment to the unborn left in control of the feminist women. So damage to the living youth, especially boys, through insistant orientation to feminist ideals is less than outright murder but ,hey, who is going to notice?
Who knows why this alleged problem of disrespect exists? But this I do know. These alleged problems of non-respect to women are not going to go away with the dominant feminist ideology roaming the country-side. This alleged problem may be rectified by proper examination of the problem and not some neurotic feminist solution. About 20 years ago an older man commented once or thrice to me that in his travels he met many a mother who, along with her daughters, perpetuated the sons not helping out with the unequal housework between the sexes dillema of the day. My friend explained to me that it was the mothers and daughters who would not allow the sons and brothers to do any housework. So men got blamed for that, too.
So the feminist solution to the alleged non-respect is to target and demonize boys with national ad campaigns. The re-education of boys. Sound familiar? Remember the re-education programs of the communist cultural revolutions of the 20th century? How many people died in the U.S.S.R., Chinese and Vietnamese pogroms? Millions. It's just done a lot slower and much different here in N.America.
Solution? Challenge the feminist ideology through rigorous examination of this and other problems and shame these feminist jackasses out of their lucrative arranged areas of assumed authority. The sooner the better.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I don't understand what all the upheaval is about.
Every 15 seconds a woman is beaten by an intimate partner. 1 in 4 women are in a physically or sexually violent relationship. 1 in 4 HIGH SCHOOL students is in a physically or sexually violent relationship. ---Domestic Violence is such a growing problem that in Texas, the governor passed a house bill 121: relating to public school policies designed to prevent dating violence. (b) A dating violence policy must:
(1) include a definition of dating violence that includes the intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal, or
emotional abuse by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another person in a relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, regardless of whether that relationship is continuing or has concluded; and
(2) address safety planning, enforcement of protective orders, school-based alternatives to protective orders,
training for teachers and administrators, counseling for affected students, and awareness education for students and parents.
I work in a Domstic Violence Shelter as a Community Educator, and the one thing I say in all my classes is that DV DOES affect both men and women--but stats say that 90-95% of the victims of DV are women. I also say that this is probably under reported because most men in this position have a whole society telling them that they are suppose to be tough and strong and protectors---so heaven forbid, if this happens to them, they don't speak out due to shame.
Yes, violence does happen to men but PEOPLE!! Let's get real for a second here...the disproportionate brunt of the weight of who this is happening to is women!
"Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey"
"While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner--U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends"
I go into the high schools and middle schools 40 hours every week to talk about healthy relationships in an effort to try to reverse this trend of DV. I bust my butt trying to help these kids out. I do not go into the class to male bash. I never direct what I say towards the boys. But if you're standing infront of a high school class--they will laugh when you tell them that men can be hit just as much as women can. They will fall on the floor laughing when we tell them that one in eight men have experience some form of sexual assault. LAUGH. They laugh. This is a huge problem. So, I work just as hard to convey the message that violence happens both ways. I teach about what healthy relationships look like, and never in the 3 days that I spend with every class I go to, do I say that only women are the recipients of emotional, physical, verbal and sexual abuse.
But I am so sorry to say to everyone on here who is so darn upset that someone dared to say that women need to be respected--women are so much more affected by this problem than men. And for one second stop and realize that by saying that I NOT trying to minimize the sufferring of the men who are recipients of this as well.
"Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners. Center for Policy Research, Stalking in America"
"Eighty percent of women who are stalked by former husbands are physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are sexually assaulted by that partner. Center for Policy Research, Stalking in America"
There is an obvious problem. People don't know how to have healthy relatioinships. They don't realize that throwing objects at your boyfriends head is just as abusive as throwing a punch at them.
Personally I don't care how we get to a world where NO one has to fear violence, just as long as we get there. Call me a dreamer, call me hopeless...but that's why I work my butt off at a nonprofit DV agency trying to fight this uphill battle, instead of sitting on my butt criticizing those who actually get up and do something about it.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
oh, I forgot to ad another disturbing stat---in 2006 in Texas 120 women were killed due to domestic violence the youngest being 14, and the oldest 68. The number of men killed? 0
I hate that any one gender ever be targeted by such disgusting violence but I'm sorry, the odds are stacked against women.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
We are familiar with statistics here, too. For example, in a May 2007 study published in the American Journal of Pubilic Health, a study not concocted by womens' rights advocates by the way, showed that in intimate partner abuse, aka domestic violence, 70.7% of nonreciprocal physical violence is perpetrated by females, and in reciprocally-violent relationships, men incurred the majority of the physical injuries.
A National Youth Risk Behavior Study recently found that contrary to common general perception, males and females equally report being victims of physical dating abuse.
In addition, you would agree that women lie about sexual assault, would you not? In "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (even by the New York Times, which the book skewers) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case, Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson explain that "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent of rape claims are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book Against Our Will, is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false." The authors methodically examine the evidence to reach this conclusion. Among many other things, they note that according to the former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, a woman, of the 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan, "about half simply did not happen."
Men don't report their instances of being victimized by domestic violence but for you to minimize it is insulting and evinces a dangerous misandry. I am sure you'll hear from other readers here, too.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
And incidentally, contributing editor Heather Mac Donald in the winter issue of City Journal (www.city-journal.org/) decries the "campus sexual-assault industry" which operates on the belief that up to one quarter of college females are the victims of rape or attempted rape. Ms. Mac Donald demonstrates the stats are skewed by including sexual encounters that women regret the day after and that even most of the subjects of the studies that purport to show such a high rate of rape themselves say they weren't really raped. (If THEY don't think they were raped, how the hell was the alleged rapist supposed to know?) In 2006, violent crime in Detroit, including murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults affected 2.4 percent of the population, Ms. Mac Donald points out. If the campus rape rate was anything close to 25 percent, Ms. Mac Donald says, "such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency." So why isn't there one? Because the stats are bogus and serve a radical-feminist agenda is Ms. Mac Donald's conclusion.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Sherene:
You may find this hard to believe, but I for one do NOT think that women deserve respect. Neither do men for that matter. Respect is EARNED, not deserved. As to your approach to DV education, I find your wording interesting, in that you take great pains to show that you don't demonize boys, you fail to recognize peer pressure. Try this next time...separate the boys and girls, and say the exact same thing to each. Or maybe tell the boys they can be victims one on one, in private. I bet you get wildly different results. Telling a room full of boys AND girls that men are victims of DV too is virtually GUARANTEED to make all the boys laugh. Who wants to be seen as weak not only in front of your competitors, but also the objects of your competition. That's intensely naive to expect them to get all sensitive on you.....unless it's the result you WANT to see, then it's different.....
I'm glad that you are trying to do a good thing. Problem is, you've been exposed to so little male point of view that you can't even figure out why a boy might not want to admit he's been abused in front of his classmates......pretty big freakin blinders if you ask me....
Also, you need to educate yourself better...the Government of Canada does a self-reported survey every year as part of some people's tax packages (essentially you get a questionnaire you are required to fill out....sort of like a census). Every year it has been done women have self-reported more as the aggressor in DV, and that has been backed up by men's self-reported rate of victimization. These are posed as questions like "Have you ever been punched by your partner", not "Have you ever been a victim of DV"..... BIG difference to a man. Every year women are the "bad guys" more often, in nearly every single category, and this information has been publicly available and the female victim stats are reported on every year. You might hear for example 1 in 6 women will be a victim of X this year.....what you don't hear is 1 in 5 men will be too....
THAT is widespread, socially sanctioned sexism and double standards....exactly what feminism SAYS it's trying to eradicate (but in reality constructs).
February 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Sherene,
As a "Community Educator" You have a responsibility to your students and your community do more then to regurgitate a collection of false, biased, and outdated statistics from the inside of a "Domstic Violence Shelter " pamphlet.
If you are still curious what the big deal is to us then please read this:
http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj
All your arguments are too commonly articulated by our local governments and women's shelters and need not be repeated, especially here.
I do not stand FOR Domestic Violence! I am an ally to you.. I stand against it.
I believe Domestic Violence is a Gender Neutral problem that must be addressed as such to be solved at all.
I believe that our government's misguided one sided attempt to curb violence is not a solution and in fact breeds more discourd and more violence.
I believe current government spending and programs for DV are based on invalid statistics with no proper control group, or no accounting at all for violence against menm, or negating false allegations in the counts.
I believe false allegation of Domenstic Violence are a common divorce tool most used by women to gain advantage in a divorce. They skew the actual statistics because they are FALSE!
True physical and sexual violence must be identified on an individual basis, teh perpetrators punished under a court of law, the victims protected.
I can't believe that my government spent my tax dollars to put up signs to genegrate my son, accuse him of not being respectful of women, and to insult my parenting skills.
I will teach my son and daughter to respect men and women, and to respect honesty, but to reject waste, lies and corruption, and to be weary of anyone who repeats lies unquestionably.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Sherene said: "oh, I forgot to ad another disturbing stat---in 2006 in Texas 120 women were killed due to domestic violence the youngest being 14, and the oldest 68. The number of men killed? 0"
Alisha Aldridge killed her husband, Brian Porter, with a shotgun on 21 July 2006, in Dallas, Texas, apparently because he wouldn't listen to her. She was on probation at the time for attempting to run him over with a car. She was convicted of murder on 7 June 2007 and sentenced to 65 years.
http://brianscottporter.net/
http://brianscottporter.net/Trial.htm
The only way you can say there were no men killed due to domestic violence in Texas in 2006 is if you don't count a wife convicted of murdering her husband as "domestic violence". How many men were killed by their wives or girlfriends in Texas in 2006 I don't know, but you said there were none, so I only need one to prove your statistics lie.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Sherene,
Rather than feeling enraged at your part in perpetuating the myths of DV, and thus ensuring its continuation, I instead feel sorry for you. It appears that you really do care, but that your efforts are corrupted by the 'agit-prop" of gender feminists. Welcome to this site. I see that my cohorts have already begun the process of exposing you to the true facts. It will be hard for you to accept this reality, I know, but if you manage to overcome what you THINK you know, you will end up the better for it. Every recovering feminist is a chance that the family might actually survive as an institution. Feminism is evil, in my opinion, but feminists with good hearts are not beyond redemption. Throw off the chains of your prejudice and be free.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The only way you can say there were no men killed due to domestic violence in Texas in 2006 is if you don't count a wife convicted of murdering her husband as "domestic violence". How many men were killed by their wives or girlfriends in Texas in 2006 I don't know, but you said there were none, so I only need one to prove your statistics lie.
I'm so glad you brought that up. I really would like to know what definition of "domestic violence" was used when counting those numbers. I'll bet when it's male against female the bar is set much lower than when it is female against male.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Sherene, You believe the 1 in 4 propaganda, and the every 15 seconds propaganda. You make a big deal about how you are "busting your butt" try to "solve" a problem that will never be solved...Special interest groups have a good reason to hype the "1 in 4 are beaten" phrases. They want more money for their organization. False accusations of DV, rape, and violence only drive the numbers of "violence" higher than ever, as far as DV organizations are concerned. Also, there are 6 billion people in the world! Therefore, Come on, there is NO chance that we ever will get rid of ALL violence, homelessness, corruption. Deal with it. I would NEVER work in the DV industry, or the "end child abuse" industry. THey are hypocrites. They, in general, seem to look the other way when child abuse is done by the mother....The NOW organization supported Andrea Yates, a mother that killed her 3 kids. They said we should go easy on her. Gee, that's convenient. A man would have gotten the death penalty for that. Do-gooders who are against "violence" are some of the most violent people of all. For many of them it is about power. To many of them, I would say...deal with your anger at your dad on your own time. If you can, go into a different line of work.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I raised my son to respect girls, women and people and not to hit anyone.
He married a bully who hit him and abused him mentally to the point of suicide and family intervention and a lawyer helped him understand he could survive her and have a life.
She is now torturing someone the boyfriend, and having his baby which my son is paying for because the court ordered him to pay for her medical insurance. The boyfriend is hitting my sons kids.
Justice? Not for dads in this country.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Hi Susan,
You should have a look at a more recent entry -
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2203
May 28th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
susan gibbons Says:
May 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I raised my son to respect girls, women and people and not to hit anyone.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Susan,
sorry but I am most of the time a very critical reader. I was just wondering why you said "girls, women and people"? I have always found statements like this interesting and perhaps a product of our social brainwashing.
Why did you mention the individual groups of females but lumped the males into "people"? To me it seems to convey a lower class, or less worthy, when some groups are mentions specifically and others are "lumped" together.
b
February 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Patrick,
What you said is absolutely the truth. I knew Brian personally, and was engaged to him 4 months prior to the murder. A sweet loving man, who would never hurt a soul. Why he went back to his abusive ex-girlfriend, me and his family will never understand. But it's the same instance as with an abusive man and domicile woman. The abused don't have the courage and strength to leave their abusers (most of the time). Brian left Alisha once with help of a police escort. But you see what happened when he tried to leave her a second time. Abuse doesn't know gender.