Dartmouth Students Rebel Against Feminist Professor, She Sues Her Students (Part IV)
May 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: In my blog posts Dartmouth Students Rebel Against Feminist Professor's Manbashing, She Reacts by....Suing Her Students! (Part I), Part II, and Part III, I explained how a group of Dartmouth students rebelled against a feminist professor and her manbashing. The professor, rather than engaging in debate, pretended to be a victim, cancelled classes for a week, scurried off to another school to teach, and is now suing her students.
Some of what the students had to endure reminds me of what I saw when I went to graduate school at UCLA in the late 1990s. In my column Why Males Don't Go to College (She Thinks, 11/13/02) I wrote:
"I recall, for example, my Latin American folklore class, taught by a woman whom we'll call Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith is a kind, gentle, elderly lady whose bigotry rings as loud and clear as that of any stereotypical racist Southern cracker. The sometimes subtle, sometimes slap in the face prejudice which males endured in her class is typical of what occurs in many modern university classes.
"Early in the semester Ms. Smith informed the class that all folklore was widely believed to be a code of misogyny that was developed and employed by men to suppress women. Ms. Smith did say she considered this to be a slight exaggeration, yet whenever a folktale contained a negative portrayal of a woman, it was cited as evidence of the rampant misogyny in men's dark souls. What Ms. Smith never explained was why this 'misogynistic' folklore contained far more negative portrayals of men than of women.
"Ms. Smith also informed us that folklore was largely invented by women, because it was women who had the 'long, tiresome, boring jobs' and thus the motivation to invent it. Unanswered were two questions. One, why would we say that folklore was misogynistic if it had, in fact, largely been invented by women? Two, did we really imagine that the men of that era--or at least 98% of them--did not also have 'long, tiresome, boring' jobs?
"Ms. Smith wrung her hands over the stigma, enshrined in some Spanish folklore, against romantic or sexual activity by Spanish women whose men had gone off to fight the invading and occupying Moors. This was, she said, another example of the oppressive social controls which men placed upon women. What Ms. Smith never mentioned was the nature of the oppressive social controls which made 12 and 13 year-old Spanish boys march obediently off to war for years at a time, many of them never to return.
"Most of the males sat in the back of Ms. Smith's class, an arrangement which started to feel more and more like the back of the bus. The females in front were fully engaged, enjoying the class and its anti-male tales. Not surprisingly, many of the males were disengaged, and seemed to be there simply to put in their time.
"One day, after an hour or so discussing tale after tale where Ms. Smith concluded that the men involved were always wrong or evil or cruel or stupid and the women were always right and good and kind and smart, Ms. Smith began softly describing a soothing tale of a father and his daughter setting off through the woods to go to the big city.
"'The father....and his daughter....rode together... as they went through the beautiful Spanish countryside,' Ms. Smith said softly.
"I sat back and closed my eyes.
"'They...were on their way to the big city....the daughter had never seen the city before.....she was happy that her father was taking her...'
"I imagined a special, loving, father-daughter bond.
"'..and then.....he rapes her.'
"Jolted, I sat up. A male in the back of the classroom pushed his heavy book off of the table and it made a loud, crashing sound.
"I did sometimes protest in Ms. Smith's class and others, but a 6'2" male confronting a female educator about her bigotry, however politely, is quickly perceived as a bully. In addition, tension and arguing make the days and semesters long and hard, and there were times when it was easier to tune out, as so many other males had done. Some male students have told me that they had been retaliated against at grade time for speaking out against misandry. I never had this experience, and Ms. Smith did grade me fairly.
"In Spanish language class we were reading and discussing Snow White when a properly PC-educated male student raised his hand and lamented the poor, womanly lot of Snow White, 'forced' to cook and wash dishes while the dwarfs 'did nothing.' Naturally I raised my hand and explained that mining (the dwarfs' trade) was a hard, dangerous job which required a lot of sacrifice. I was immediately fighting a battle against the male professor and 10 other students (the usual odds one faces when confronting misandry in our universities) but I defended those seven dwarfs the best I could.
"One woman, an older student obviously infused with decades of anti-male bigotry, smiled contemptuously and explained that whatever the dwarfs did, they still didn't do housework and were thus morally indicted. In her world, whatever men do, whatever their special sacrifices and their burdens, all that matters is who washed the dishes last night.
"Part of the reason it is difficult and unpleasant to be a male college student today is that anti-male bigotry pops up by surprise all the time in the most unlikely of places. For example, on my Portuguese final we were presented with some disputes and were expected to discuss possible solutions to them in Portuguese. A couple of the problems were between married couples, and in both situations there was a clear person who was right and a clear person who was wrong. The reader can guess the gender of both offenders without my assistance.
"In answering one of them, about a husband who was oppressing his wife by not 'doing his share' around the house, I explained that numerous studies have shown that, when all work--both housework and breadwinning--is considered, American men are doing at least as much in their households as women are. I also noted that I was unhappy with this negative portrayal of men.
"To her credit, the professor graded me fairly and responded to my objection. She explained that my complaint was not valid because men's control of society and women were so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice paled in meaning beside it. In other words, it's OK to say whatever you want about men, no matter how unfair, cruel, or inaccurate, because all the man-hate in the world could never amount to more than tugging on Superman's cape."
For an example of when men were faced with outrageous bigotry at a graduation ceremony and should have stood up for themselves and didn't, see my column The Best Valentine's Day Gift for College Students: Gender Reconciliation (She Thinks, 2/13/03) and search for "Catherine MacKinnon."
"));
19 queries. 0.502 seconds.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The feminist movement has spearheaded the cultural acceptance of the routine disrespect of men.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
"She explained that my complaint was not valid because men's control of society and women were so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice paled in meaning beside it."
This is how some justify allowing mothers to take children from fathers based on no fault.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
And all this time, I was under the naive impression that colleges and universities were educational institutions immune to this blantant prejeduce. With stories like these, they're more into reinforcing the climate than letting students question and debate it.
One thing that gets my gall, as a writer, are "Feminists" like Glenn's old Latin American Folklore teacher erroneously claiming folklore as feminine oppression propaganda written by men. I happen to enjoy a good folklore story and here is this feminist suggesting I oppress every women for every word I read from these tales. If "Feminists" like her are so concerned about women being indoctrinated by folklore, I'm surprised they just don't stage a protest in front of the gravestones where the original writers are buried.
I'm into feminism. But not into "ism" professing loons like her.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hi Glenn, your link to "Why Males Don't Go to College" doesn't work for me.
This piece is one of my favourite articles I've ever read.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
George--fixed it, thanks.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Very well written.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
The word misogynistic is overused.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
"Why Males Don't Go to College" is a keeper.
I recommend Web Snapper for macs
http://www.tastyapps.com
I recommend Surfulator for windows
http://www.surfulater.com/
May 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
"One day, after an hour or so discussing tale after tale where Ms. Smith concluded that the men involved were always wrong or evil or cruel or stupid and the women were always right and good and kind and smart..."
What a coincidence, I just made a button to wear in public after my experiences in college.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Buttons/IsYourCollegeProfessorAMarxistShill.jpg
May 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
"The word misogynistic is overused."
JRP, I agree with you but I surmise it is for different reasons.
The word 'misogyny' IS used a lot these days -- far more so than the word 'misandry' -- and I have observed that a lot of people don't even know the word 'misandry'. They don't know it's meaning or they know the word 'misogyny' but aren't aware of its antonym. Indeed, as I type this, I notice that the Firefox browser (which has a built-in spell checker) recognizes one but not the other. Hmm.
This situation suits me just fine, though. Feminism is a culture of victimhood, with its own lexicon of code words. Many of these code words are gender-specific: misogyny, patriarchy, etc. Glenn, however, keeps his message spot-on target by usually using language not based in persecution, but rather in the concept of right and wrong.
Words like 'bigotry', 'bias' and 'fairness' will serve us much better, because those words are much more true to the cause of equality between the sexes. After all, many people who oppose us think it is just fine to be misanthropic, but nobody wants to be labeled a bigot.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hi Dave,
I'm curios as to why you think that feminism is a "culture of victim hood"? To me, feminism has always been about empowerment. In order to become empowered in the present, you have to acknowledge the past. Because of this, it may seem to you that feminists (or women in general?) are in love with their victim hood. But I don't think that acknowledging injustices in the past, and the way they have played into the present, necessarily make one a man-basher. In your post you mentioned the word bias. Bias is actually a word that most feminists are familiar with. I think there is a general misconception on this board that feminism is somehow about demonizing men, and that only women benefit from it. But here is the thing- to most feminists the triumph comes from lightening up the stereotypes about gender- such as men being emotionally distant, while women are inherently nurturing. I think the male bias in the family court systems results not from feminism's obsession with victimization, but the (rather conservative) idea that women were meant to be the primary caregivers and nurturers, while men were supposed to be the breadwinners. That is why I question the utility of polarizing websites such as these. Instead of working against feminists, you should be working with them!! They want the same thing you want- a world where women aren't automatically assumed to be nurturers because they're women, and a world where men aren't assumed to be unable to care for a child by himself simply because he is a man. Personally, I believe that both men and women would serve to live in a world where perception of gender roles are more flexible. Maybe if they were, more men would win custody battles. Also, I would just like to say that feminism isn't this monolithic entity that means the same thing to every person- the definition varies.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
She explained that my complaint was not valid because men's control of society and women were so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice paled in meaning beside it. In other words, it's OK to say whatever you want about men, no matter how unfair, cruel, or inaccurate, because all the man-hate in the world could never amount to more than tugging on Superman's cape."
This is similar but different to the feminist claim that sexism is prejudice plus power therefore women can't be sexist towards men, and say, african americans can't be racist towards caucasians because these groups have no power. They can be prejudiced, but that doesn't matter. Without power they aren't sexist or racist.
Short definition: Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.
Sexism versus gender-based prejudice
Quick jump: Sexism vs Prejudice | Benevolent Sexism | Unintentional Sexism
If you’re here, chances are you’re familiar with the feminist definition of sexism = prejudice + power and chances are you think that, in itself, is sexist.
Let’s start off by looking at an explanation of why the “power” is in there (Kristi is discussing racism, but the same argument applies to sexism):
That ‘+ power’ portion of the equation is one of the most important parts. This is not to say that the disenfranchised cannot be prejudiced, because many of them are, but without power, they are not actually working within the systematic framework of advantage created by the majority to privilege themselves. Thus it is only “racism” if the person is capable of using that framework; otherwise, it is prejudice.
[Kristi (Failure to Communicate): Prejudice.]
Now, before I say anything else, the obligatory disclaimer: When feminists say that women can’t be sexist towards men, they aren’t saying that women being prejudiced against men is a good thing, or something that should be accepted. Prejudice is bad and should not be accepted.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s look at why feminists make a distinction between sexism and gender-based prejudice when the dictionary does not. A running theme in a lot of feminist theory is that of institutional power: men as a class have it, women as a class don’t. Obviously the power dynamics do shift around depending on the culture and the time period (not to mention the individual, the other privileges that the person does/does not have, etc etc), but ultimately the scales remain tipped in favor of men in general (if you disagree with that statement, please go read the Why do we still need feminism? FAQ entry first before proceeding).
There is so much doublespeak and doublething involved.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
"That is why I question the utility of polarizing websites such as these. Instead of working against feminists, you should be working with them!! "
Most people who post here have tried. But if you are a man who doesn't believe in concepts such as "patriarchy" or "male privilege" you are given no voice on feminist sites.
"think there is a general misconception on this board that feminism is somehow about demonizing men"
Feminism doesn't deliberately set out to demonize men but due to its one sided look at gender issues it only sees men as "privileged". And due to this bias from the outset many feminists even though they do not intend to be sexist fail to see the male point of view with any clarity. Thus anyone who does speak of the disadvantages males face is seen as whining. Feminists even the liberal ones have a dogmatic belief that women have it worse than men. This belief can never be challenged. Because any view on who has it worse when it comes to male or female is highly subjective. To have a dogmatic belief on something which is entirely subjective creates this conflict.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
"The word 'misogyny' IS used a lot these days -- far more so than the word 'misandry' -- and I have observed that a lot of people don't even know the word 'misandry'. They don't know it's meaning or they know the word 'misogyny' but aren't aware of its antonym."
Most if not all dictionaries seem to be biased when it comes to certain antonyms. While they define terms like "misogyny" or "feminism," the antoynms "misandry" or "masculism" are left out. Also, the definition for "sexism" often includes a disclaimer that the term mostly applies to women.
I wrote to a dictionary once about this, and they told me that only when certain terms become popular enough do they make their way into the dictionary. While there may be some truth to this, my hunch is that feminist politics have something to do with it as well.
MXY
May 17th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
To "an observer",
If this is your first time here, welcome. I think you're mistaken about many issues, but in some ways, I do agree with you that: a) websites that do nothing but polarize are a problem, and b) men and women should be working together to overcome class and gender based prejudices.
But is that struggle feminism? My experience is that the various feminists discussed here do fetishize and cherish their victimhood. I am often told what you just wrote, that Instead of working against feminists, you should be working with them!! They want the same thing you want- a world where women aren't automatically assumed to be nurturers because they're women, and a world where men aren't assumed to be unable to care for a child by himself simply because he is a man., this is often worded as "feminists are MRAs best friends but MRAs are too dumb to realize that. As I've pointed out before, my "best friend" takes seriously issues of joint custody and doesn't lobby against it as NOW does and so many feminists do. My best friend takes seriously issues of false allegations of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse and doesn't pooh pooh these issues as being insignificant or lies. And my best friend takes issues of the abuse of restraining orders and other parts of the legal system seriously, and doesn't advise women on how to abuse these orders.
Now, I'll be the first to say that many feminists DO take these issues seriously. But sadly, these days this is not "mainstream feminists". And many of the feminists that fight for free speech, or equal rights, are labeled as anti-feminists and derided and scorned.
I find Wendy Kaminer and Nadine Strossen to be very interesting feminists. Wendy Kaminer blogs at The Free For All. I also find RenegadeEvolution an interesting feminist (or sometimes she labels herself a feminist ex-patriot) that you may wish to read to find out about how many feminists believe mainstream feminists (mostly radical feminists) push a message of victimhood, and women that are not rational, or have no agency.
Another feminist blogger I read from time to time is The Apostate who is a young woman living in San Francisco who was formerly muslim. (I'd link but I believe that too many links sends comments into the moderation queue, but you can google for apostate blog.
And other feminists that dissent with the mainstream can be found at TalkLeft and Ann Althouse.
What I find most interesting is that often the dissenting feminists are ones that um, actually work for a living, and whose career and profession is outside that of the "women's studies set", or avoided the whole "deconstructionism" trap of English Studies.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
@an observer Says:
"That is why I question the utility of polarizing websites such as these."
If you believe that Mr. Sacks site is nothing more than a utility to polarize the genders than you seem to know scarcely anything about it, or him.
You mentioned feminism, well feminism is polarizing. In fact, it is the poster child of it.
"Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism's business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal tyranny." In this undertaking, the male's civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany." -- What civil rights has wrought. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Hello observor. If you are a new poster here, thanks for coming. I appreciated much of your 10:33 post. I would like to add some further information.
Many masculists, including Warren Farrell, make a distinction between victim/adolescent feminists and empowerment/adult feminists. The former is the one that many of us on this site particularly have a problem with. They utilize the "patriachal paradigm" to appoint females as a victim-class by default (an ironically traditional paradigm that focuses on neo-chivalry and the modern-day "damsel in distress"). This type of feminism seems particularly popular nowdays. Too often this type of feminist wants the good parts of BOTH the traditional male and female roles.............the freedom to start a career OR be a stay at home mom. Males are hardly encouraged to do either. Even the DSM-4 acknowledges that there is a larger stigma attached to femininity in men as opposed to masculinity in women. This is hardly surprising.............there isn't even an antonym for "emasculated". The word "effemilated" isn't even in the dictionary. This is further illustrated how the phrases "daddy's girl" or "tom-boy" are largely positive while "mama's boy" or "sissy" are largely negative.
I think you are right in that feminism unduly receives too much blame for our less-than-savory state of affairs. Personally, I believe that there are 3 ingredients that feed into misandry in the 21st century:
1). Chivalry.
2). Restrictive male socialization of disposability and emotional suppression
3). Gender-feminist patirachal paradigm (female victim/male oppressor)
I believe that in general women are unfairly stereotyped as lacking intellectual intelligence while men are unfairly stereotyped as lacking emotional intelligence. I also agree that too often females are objectified as "sex objects" while men are too often objectified as "status/success" objects.
Some further examples of masculist literature can be found on the following site. Note that many of them are not necessarily anti-feminist..........particularly Warren Farrell or Herb Goldberg.
ncfm.org/book-store.php
Thanks again "Observor" for your thoughtful post,
MXY
May 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Dear Glenn,
Stereotypes and double standards effect everybody - not just men and not just women. Wouldn't you like to see a world where all people work together to diminish stereotypes and double standards? While I understand that you are frustrated, I just don't see the productiveness of posting news articles out of context and then labeling them as some sort of "smoking gun". You've said yourself that there is two sides to every story (I'm presuming thats what "his side" is all about). How do you know that this professor is automatically is in the wrong?
I feel for single fathers. It must be really frustrating and hurtful to be marginalized like that. And I admire you effort to get rid of stereotypes. But it really depresses me the way you go about this. Stereotypes and biases are things we can all relate to you and that effect as all! I think that if you took a conciliatory approach rather than a "us vs. them" position you would see results much faster. I used to be a male rape victim counselor. Most of these men (who were in so much pain) were afraid to come forward to the police not because they were afraid that a feminist would call them a liar, but that their male friends and family would think they were "sissies" or weak. I'm not using this as an example to say that all men somehow judge their friends for not being "masculine" enough, but that stereotypes are complex. I'm sure that there are many women out there who would not take male rape victims seriously as well. But we need to stick together in order to make the world understand that we are capable of suffering, just as we are all capable of hurting. Thank you
May 17th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Observor said:
"I feel for single fathers. It must be really frustrating and hurtful to be marginalized like that. And I admire you effort to get rid of stereotypes. But it really depresses me the way you go about this. Stereotypes and biases are things we can all relate to you and that effect as all! I think that if you took a conciliatory approach rather than a "us vs. them" position you would see results much faster. I used to be a male rape victim counselor. Most of these men (who were in so much pain) were afraid to come forward to the police not because they were afraid that a feminist would call them a liar, but that their male friends and family would think they were "sissies" or weak."
I think if you go to feministing.com you will find that Glenn Sacks is MUCH more balanced. If you take the time to read one book from "our side," I highly recommend Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power." In my opinion it is essential reading for anyone with an interest in gender issues.
These are some shocking statistics that concern men:
*about 4x of suicides are male
*over 90% of the prison population are male
*over 90% of job fatalities are male
*females control/influence over 85% of consumer spending
*the pay gap is a myth
*over 85% of the homeless may be male
*about 50% or rapes may be false
*females outlive males by about 5 years
*most victims of violence are male (and yet we have a "violence against women act")
*most health funding goes to women (such as for breast cancer)
*males are 5x as likely to abuse alcohol
*males are often objectified as status/success objects by women
*males are often treated as lacking in emotional intelligence (take it like a man)
*the terms "masculism" or "misandry" are not even in the dictionary to validate male concerns.
*when prison rape is included, more men may be raped than women every year
*Female power and male victimization are often treated as myths
*about half of domestic violence perpetrators are female, and about 1/3 of injuries are male victims
*etc.
This is why we need a men's movement.............not as a reaction or enemy of feminism, but as checks and balances. This neednt be adversarial.
Take care,
Darrin
May 17th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Hi Jorge, Jerry and MasculistXY,
I appreciate your replies. I was just wondering if you think there are any concrete ways to make feminism less polarizing and alienating to men? Do you think that's possible? The reason I said this was a polarizing website is because I've alway considered myself a feminist and an advocate for men's rights. I didn't think that they were mutually exclusive. But coming to this website, I felt like I had to choose between the two.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I don't choose observer... i call myself an egalitarian.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Observer, you would have done better to actually READ this blog before you deem it to be "polarizing". You would see that Glenn Sacks has the integrity to agree with and applaud the other side when they are actually correct about something. It was only just yesterday that Glenn posted about a father who lost custody of his children because of his own hideous behavior. Glenn rightly points out that the standards we set for parents MUST apply to both mothers and fathers. That's hardly a "polarizing" point of view.
Why don't you go out and try to find a post on a feminist blog that contains a similar story but with the genders reversed (i.e., a mother losing her children), wherein the blog's author has the integrity and fortitude to come out and say "this was probably the correct outcome". Good luck!!
May 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
@an observer
You are welcome here as far as I am concerned. :-)
"I was just wondering if you think there are any concrete ways to make feminism less polarizing and alienating to men?"
That is an excellent question. To be honest I am at a loss to be able to answer it? Perhaps you could educate us. I highly recommend the book Legalizing Misandry and maybe after you read it you could answer that question for us?
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211083167&sr=8-1
May 18th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Observor said:
"I appreciate your replies. I was just wondering if you think there are any concrete ways to make feminism less polarizing and alienating to men? Do you think that's possible? The reason I said this was a polarizing website is because I've alway considered myself a feminist and an advocate for men's rights. I didn't think that they were mutually exclusive. But coming to this website, I felt like I had to choose between the two."
Thanks for the reply. The term "fem-inism" is sexist, because it has a "feminine" prefix. To remedy this, I believe that optimally one of two courses of action should be considered in this matter:
1). Eliminate the use of the term "feminism" altogether and use a new term such as "gender-ism."
2). Utlize both terms "feminism" and "masculism" and have them both act as checks and balances to the other. Just as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are not always adversarial, the same applies to "masculism" and "feminism."
After semantics are dealt with, then we can tackle the issues of double-standards, chivalry, female power, male power, female privilege, male privilege, and restrictive socialization.
There are two masculist books in particular I think you might be interested in, since you also consider yourself a feminist:
* The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell (previous member of NY NOW)
* Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Priivilege by Herb Goldberg (also a feminist)
MXY
P.S. Blogs often serve the purpose of the emotional and the logical. Thus, many of us do like to rant a bit and vent some frustration here and there. I believe that one of the motivating reasons why a masculist or feminist gets involved with gender issues in the first place is partly due to bad experiences with the opposite gender. This is okay, as long as emotions don't get too much in the way of logical argument.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:28 am
"What Ms. Smith never mentioned was the nature of the oppressive social controls which made 12 and 13 year-old Spanish boys march obediently off to war for years at a time, many of them never to return."
Well, you know the standard feminist response: it is men who send these boys to war. The feminists, in giving this response, speak as if any individual man would gladly fu** himself over.
(The response is illogical because it blames an entire class of people for what some of its members do. And in this particular case, it also ignores the fact that historical analyses have shown, that women in high political positions are no less likely to be war-mongering than their male counterparts).
Basically, the existence of a"patriarchy" provides an airtight response for feminists to give to many arguments: men create the problems, thus if men in turn suffer from these problems, the whole thing becomes an issue men must solve, indenpendtly of women; and it further proves the existence of the patriarchy.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:31 am
MasculistXY,
Farrell states in one of his books that he is "not a masculist". He also says there should not be such a movement, except if necessary to undo the actions of feminists - and then only temporarily.
I think what he's getting at is that a "masculist" is no better than a feminist - it is just a reversal of the problem (that's his opinion, not necessarily mine).
May 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Observer, I consider myself a feminist too.
I think Dave is right, and it's something I've asked quite a few feminists to do, and none have ever had the courage to do. Pick any month of Glenn's at random. Read his posts. Decide for yourself if he is polarizing or an anti-feminist.
Anyway, I do consider myself a feminist, but definitely not a radical or mainstream feminist. To be really arrogant, I think much of the real work of feminists these days are done by "feminists with real jobs" and by fathers. By feminists with real jobs, I mean the engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, judges ... basically women busy working in the real world and facing it head on. And by fathers, I figure that with an average of two kids in a family, that means that 75% of all fathers have one or more daughters. And most of the fathers were born AFTER the Equal Pay Act, AFTER TITLE IX, and most probably had a mother with a job or full time job. So I suspect most fathers know exactly what their moms went through and what their dads went through and want none of that for their kids. And so they fight for women's rights at work, interviewing women, hiring women, mentoring women. At least, that's what I see around me in the companies I have worked at.
I don't think you have to choose between father's right and women's rights. I think we have to work for human rights and recognize that no one has a monopoly on jackasses. Right now though, I do think that the trend in the mainstream women's rights movement is against human rights. Against civil rights. Against free speech. Against due process, against equal protection. And so that's how I determine what's what.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Masculist XY said
"I believe that one of the motivating reasons why a masculist or feminist gets involved with gender issues in the first place is partly due to bad experiences with the opposite gender"
I tend to take the view that regardless of why, or what in particular may have triggered, somone to go into a given movement is not the point in the bigger scheme of things. The things that matter are, "Will such a movement improve a bad situation? Is it morally right to belong to this movement? Is there a basis in truth or reality to what the movement stands for and what it is doing? Do its members behave ethically?" etc. What I'm getting at is that regarding the big picture, doing what is right always matters more than any one persons individual psychology.
[as an aside, that is why psychoanalysis, psychotherapy and the like will never result in any improvement in society as a whole. It is completely focused on one person's psychology (the "patient"), and generally enables the subject to be able to function in an existing bad situation - which arguably, makes the situation itself worse. And, a side effect of this is that therapy contributes toward generating its own business, thus there will be an ever-increasing number of patients out there, and an ever-expanding industry to "treat" them.]
May 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am
This topic of Glenn's reminds me of a couple books I've been reading recently.One is called "Literature.." by Barnet et. al. I should have perused it more carefully while in the bookstore before shelling out $25 (used). As soon as I started reading it at home, I noticed there seemed to be a roughly equal number of works by men and women authors. Now, needless to say, almost all the women writers are unheard of and produce nothing but junk (I guess that means that "historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think").
But the point here isn't the quality of the sample works in the book, but the literary analyses of these. The authors are consistently misandric as well as P.C., and the last straw for me was when I read a sentence that said, "That man is extremely piggish; he is a great pig." (the sentence is created by the authors to illustrate a point, and is not referring to any particular man). Of course there are no such statements about women. And, none of the authors is a woman.
The other book is "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo (the basis for the musical). Hugo occasionally reminds us that men are the root of all evil, and he is also guilty of victimology regarding some of the female characters. (Of course he's talking about late 18th/early 19th-century France, but it's still misandry.) I think this book would serve as a good basis for a Men's Studies course - "Misandry in Europe After the French Revolution" (or whatever).
May 18th, 2008 at 1:22 am
we need more male only schools....
May 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
---That is why I question the utility of polarizing websites such as these. Instead of working against feminists, you should be working with them!!----
An interesting point. I have seen many feminist blogs and sites that constantly beat themselves in the degree of polarization. Calling this website as polarizing is bizarre to say the least.
And i find it very amusing :)
May 18th, 2008 at 1:45 am
This site itself isn't "polarizing'. Glenn presents topics in a fair and equitable manner, and goes out of his way to present opposing views.
What makes it appear polarizing is, that since most of the people that comment here are of course men, you're going to get mostly the male point of view. As a result feminists react in anger, because historically they have been able to define and dominate the debate on gender issues. So then in turn, the feminists attack Glenn and the site (especially some of the ones who comment here), then the male commenters respond to the attack, etc.....
May 18th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I don't find this site polarizing either. Quite the contrary, it's a welcome relife from what I have experienced when trying to understand feminism.
Like you, Observer, I have an interest in feminism. There are parts that resonate so deeply with me, particularly when it comes to respect of of the female universe. That is where I have found common ground: Advocating a paradigm that is different from mainstream; women and feminiity.
Unfortunatly, I have encountered moments demonstrating what the 'other' side of feminism is capable of. While I applaud the efforts of women to advocate for their rights, I can't help but feel uncomfortable with the underbelly of their arguments. Mainly, there is a general trend, especially apparant in today's feminism, that sees all masculinity as an evil to be suppressed or eliminated. The radical side is more blunt in their approaches, while other parts of feminism still possess this bias against anything male. Sure, they're not "Anti-male" (then again, they claim they're not) but that doesn't eliminate the fact that masculinity makes them shudder. I agree that masculinity can go too far, but so can feminity as well. What feminists nowadays would have you believe is that feminity is a perfect creature and masculinity (including the positive aspects) is the pollutant.
You know what this view has gotten me labeled? "Defender Of The Partriarchy". When I explained that masculnity isn't all bad, I was told it wasn't my job to defend patriarchy. I even had debates with other feminists and they ganged up on me. Yet, I stood my ground and refused to budge but was emotionally wiped afterwards. Labels were tossed at me like the claim I was going to sabotage the movement and become taken in by right wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh who make it their habit to insult feminists.
I'm still interested in the CORE of feminism, but to tell you the truth, I'm sick and tired of encountering these feminists who claim they are about equality yet label me a defender of patriarchy just because I don't share their belifes to the letter. And if I hear one more feminist who thinks I'm going to sabotage the movement, then I guess I will since they are so desperatly wanting to create a physical scapegoat for their problems. If they want it, they can have it.
Sorry about the last few sentences. They were rather harsh. But I'm sure you can understand just how bewildered I am when feminists say they're about the core of feminism but then throw labels at you equivilent to the rate misogynic men throw at women.
I don't find this site polarizing at all. And I still consider myself a feminist...partially as pertains to equality between the sexes. But I'm also for men's rights as well where "equality" is used as an excuse to demonize all masculinity.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Eagle30 said above,
"I'm sick and tired of encountering these feminists who claim they are about equality yet label me a defender of patriarchy just because I don't share their belifes to the letter."
That's one characteristic of an ideological movement - the group punishes or ostracizes members who do not adhere completely to their beliefs. At least you didn't get scalped for disagreeing with them, like that one girl did a few years ago.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Our latest troll said...
“Wouldn't you like to see a world where all people work together to diminish stereotypes and double standards? “
That would be great- perhaps you should go over to feministing and NOW and convince them to see it that way. When the feminists stop not only tolerating but indeed promoting the negative stereotypes about men, we’ll get in there and knock the negative stereotypes about the gals on the head. It is typical of feminists to call for a Kumbaya moment amongst the enemy but rarely among their own ranks.
“While I understand that you are frustrated, I just don't see the productiveness of posting news articles out of context and then labeling them as some sort of "smoking gun".”
I cant answer about the frustration but what do you mean by “out of context”? This could be applied to just about every article ever written- providing of course, you don’t agree with it.
“ How do you know that this professor is automatically is in the wrong?”
No one said she was automatically in the wrong. We looked at the testimony of her students, and then we looked at the interview she gave to the Dartmouth paper, and then we decided the poor woman has lost the plot. I defy anyone who read the interview to tell me this is not a woman in the grip of an incipient psychosis.
“I think that if you took a conciliatory approach rather than a "us vs. them" position you would see results much faster.”
Again, this should be said to the feminists as they are far more adversarial than we.
“I was just wondering if you think there are any concrete ways to make feminism less polarizing and alienating to men?”
No there aren’t. The very existence of a “philosophy” named Womanism (the word feminism comes from the Latin femina, meaning woman) is alienating to men. You’d have to rename it and that’s not going to happen because most of you just love to call yourself “womanists”.
“Do you think that's possible?”
No, I don’t.
“The reason I said this was a polarizing website is because I've alway considered myself a feminist and an advocate for men's rights.”
If that’s true then congratulations- it’s a balancing act few feminists can achieve. You’re not trying to give us the impression such feminists are the rule rather than the rare exception, are you?
“I didn't think that they were mutually exclusive. “
You obviously haven’t read much in the way of feminism. Read some books by the likes of Steinam, Greer, Dworkin, McKinnon, Daly, or better yet, do a .edu search for “Womens studies”. If you’re genuine in saying that you didn’t think they were mutually exclusive you’ll be unpleasantly edified.
“But coming to this website, I felt like I had to choose between the two.”
And you always will, until the great bulk of feminists decide that kicking men in the teeth is not life’s greatest joy.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:40 am
"To her credit, the professor graded me fairly and responded to my objection. She explained that my complaint was not valid because men's control of society and women were so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice paled in meaning beside it. "
Feminists are often extremely vague about how the patriarchy is supposed to work. A feminist professor at my college said "Women don't return to the labour market full-time after having children, because they have been inculcated with the belief that it is inappropriate to do so." The patriarchy therefore becomes some sort of conspiracy theory, and it is notoriously difficult to debunk conspiracy theory because any attempt is immediately seen as part of the cover-up.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
An observer:
We've all grown up with feminism - the doctrine that women everywhere are powerless and oppressed by the motiveless tyranny of men, who are all powerful, and therefore (a) are never responsible for their actions, and (b) need the law rigged in their favour. Somehow, when feminists demand the law be rigged, the evil oppressive patriarchy duly rigs the law, and yet feminists still insist women are powerless and oppressed.
Meanwhile, for as long as history has been written, men have been worked to death, from building pyramids to mining for minerals. For as long as history has been written men have been drafted into armies and forced to kill, die, get maimed and pyschologically traumatised - and yet "shell-shock" (or "post-traumatic stress disorder") was't recognised until the 20th century, and Hillary Clinton can get away with claiming that women are the "primary victims of war", because they lose their husbands and fathers and sons.
And now, thanks to the aforeseaid law-rigging, men have fewer rights, choices and freedoms, and more responsibilities and obligations, than women, in employment, in personal relationships, in family law, even in the criminal law, where women are routinely given lesser sentences than men for the same crimes, and women who murder their husbands in their beds get off scot-free at the merest unsubstantiated allegation of abusive behaviour on his part.
To be a man is, unless you're exceptionally wealthy and successful, not to matter; even those who are exceptionally wealthy and successful matter only for what they can do - their health and happiness is irrelevant.
And what do feminists say whenever a man attempts to air such issues? They say "shut up". Just like you've just done.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:19 am
To clarify, in my last post, it's women who "(a) are never responsible for their actions, and (b) need the law rigged in their favour." The structure of the sentence left that ambiguous.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am
thanks patrick brown. your 6:17 post spoke for me. i was going to tell "an observer" to put some ice on it.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
an observer: "To me, feminism has always been about empowerment."
Empowering women to take children away from their fathers' by force of government based on no fault.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am
An Observer,
What Michael Claymore said.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I believe newcomers to this site should get some basic education, in order to challenge the "Lace Curtain" education that is being dished out in most universities. One of the most powerfull books to this aim, is Dr. Warren Farrel's bestseller, "The Myth of Male Power".
May 18th, 2008 at 10:36 am
@Norman L. Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Good post...
I would also like to add that most women deny misandry. When challenged, which happens occasionally, they use three main strategies: excusing it, justifying it, or trivializing it.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
"She is also readying lawsuits against her superiors, who she says papered over the harassment, as well as a confessional exposé, which she promises will "name names.""
Are you sure she's suing her students? I couldn't find a reference to that in the article.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Looks like Observer has been conspicous in his abscence. So far, no response yet or attempts at refute.
Well, if Observer comes back, then I hope he answers these questions. They are very simple and talking points from feminist theory or women's studies don't count.
A) Is ALL masculinity a problem that should be suppressed or eliminated?
B) Am I defending the patriarchy just because I believe all masculinity isn't bad?
That's all. Yes or no questions that I'm now going to base my opinion of any feminist on from their answers. Let's see if Observer is willing to step up and clarify his belifes. (Yeah, right)
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
"Now, needless to say, almost all the women writers are unheard of and produce nothing but junk (I guess that means that "historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think")."
It is perhaps annoying that I continually bring up instances of misogyny here, but very often there are ones I consider obvious. This one, for instance. I swear, nothing short of saying "I hate women" is considered misogynistic here.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
If her case is laughed out of court. The following would be the response:
NOW president would make a statement denouncing the US Judicial system on its perceived failure at deliverng the case to victim-card brigade. The professor, who has initated the lawsuit, would go to Oprah Winfrey Show and denounce the "patriarchal justice system who is glove in hand with a sexist state." Hillary Clinton would be too eager to make this as one of the points of her presidential campaign, painting the picture of Universal SisterHood united as "victims".Feministing.com and other feminist bloggers would blame patriarchy and male judges for the "failure" of legal system.
Meanwhile visitors to this site and students of dartmouth college would have a hearty laugh seeing the above pointless events.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
"Farrell states in one of his books that he is "not a masculist". He also says there should not be such a movement, except if necessary to undo the actions of feminists - and then only temporarily.
I think what he's getting at is that a "masculist" is no better than a feminist - it is just a reversal of the problem (that's his opinion, not necessarily mine)."
I was going from what was stated in Warren Farrell's "myth of male power." Farrell said that before we have a "gender transition movement" we need to have a men's movement.
Could you give me the book and page number where he supposedly doesn't consider himself a masculist? It would be appreciated.
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Norman said:
"Farrell states in one of his books that he is "not a masculist". He also says there should not be such a movement, except if necessary to undo the actions of feminists - and then only temporarily. I think what he's getting at is that a "masculist" is no better than a feminist - it is just a reversal of the problem (that's his opinion, not necessarily mine)."
I was just going from what was stated in Warren Farrell's "myth of male power." Farrell said that before we have a "gender transition movement" we need to have a men's movement.
Could you give me the book and page number that you are referring to in relation to Farrell's comments? Wikipedia at one time mentioned that Farrell considers himself both a feminist and a masculist. Then again, Wikipedia is not always correct.
Personally I agree that the term "masculist" is not any better than "feminist" when used alone.............but I think it is okay to use them as long as both terms are used together as checks and balances for each other.
MXY
May 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
to whoever wrote this -
"I appreciate your replies. I was just wondering if you think there are any concrete ways to make feminism less polarizing and alienating to men? Do you think that's possible? The reason I said this was a polarizing website is because I've alway considered myself a feminist and an advocate for men's rights. I didn't think that they were mutually exclusive. But coming to this website, I felt like I had to choose between the two."
Feminism cannot be any less polarizing. It does not require you to have a vagina to be a member, but you definitely need to see men as second grade humans. Again, I am talking about the contemporary ideals, however, even classical feminism had aspects of chivalry which is again demeaning to men - aka making them second class humans.
If this website is polarizing, I extend Dave's challenge to you. And if it is polarizing, I am all in favor of polarization. It is a long time (few of millenniums) overdue that men take what is rightfully theirs - status as first class humans.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
My ongoing problem with feminism as a theory is its naive conception of power.
This traces back to the Second Wave feminists' adoption of Marxist class warfare ideas, when they very slyly substituted men for oppressor capitalists and women for disempowered workers.
Then they extrapolated that since a few men are powerful, then all men must therefore inhreit this power via their gender.
If you review the statistics posted above from Farrell's book that document all the ways that men are NOT powerful, it becomes necessary to be very selective and sexist in how you define power (and patriarchy.)
If you look outside formal institutional forms of power (i.e. numbers of men vs. women top CEO's etc.) you can identify many spheres where women enjoy power, and, arguably dominance.
- majority of K-12 school teachers are women
- majority of healthcare providers are women
- majority of college students are women
- 85% of domestic spending is controlled by women
- 70% of divorces are filed by women
- churches are largely focused on women's needs
- women control access to sex
- women control reproductive choices
Are these not all examples of actual, tangible power?
The argument that all men are more powerful than women by virtue of their genetalia is so patently foolish, I am amazed that it can still be stated with a straight face.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
What makes it appear polarizing is, that since most of the people that comment here are of course men, you're going to get mostly the male point of view.
I'm a woman, and I post here from time to time, and my point of view is neither male nor female but a point of view that favors truth and fairness. I see feminism as a form of victimization worship, and the pretense of going for equal rights with a real goal of getting special rights. I'm against that sort of thing.
An example: "Equal pay for equal work." Half of this statement is "equal work." If you leave at 4pm, that's not equal work. If you take time off to have babies, you're of course going to make less than a man who stays on the job -- or a woman like me who chooses not to have children. And you should make less.
Finally, I took a women's studies class at the University of Michigan in the mid-80s, and you can thank that class for convincing me that I would never refer to myself as a feminist. (I instead say I'm a humanist -- for equal rights for all, not special privileges for women, and infantilization of women, to boot). Anyway, I have never read or heard such a big pile of nonsense. It was not reflected in the slightest in my experience with my father or other men, or in any experience with men in the world. "Most marital sex is rape," Diana E.H. Russell says, for example. Just a recent example that comes to mind. Utter idiocy from women who've turned the cult of victimization and manhating into an industry.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Hari Narayan Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
"Now, needless to say, almost all the women writers are unheard of and produce nothing but junk (I guess that means that "historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think")."
It is perhaps annoying that I continually bring up instances of misogyny here, but very often there are ones I consider obvious. This one, for instance. I swear, nothing short of saying "I hate women" is considered misogynistic here.
I don't even know where to start with this one. Fortunately, it only merits response on the grounds that it provides a perfect snapshot of what passes for "reason"among feminists and their lapdo..., I mean "sympathizers," so a brief response is more than enough.
This stament is, I believe, inaccurate - "Now, needless to say, almost all the women writers are unheard of and produce nothing but junk ." While it would approach accuracy to the point of being spot on if it were modified to say "almost all feminist writers... produce nothing but junk" (unheard of would be inaccurate in this context - the most juvenile screeds reach the highest levels of acclaim when they are "feminist"), the fact is that, in my estimation, many fine women writers exist and their work has certainly influenced my life. However, that is a matter of perspective - note my use of the term "in my estimation." Reasonable minds can certainly differ, and often do. Writing, like all art, is subjective.
However, there is nothing, I repeat nothing in that statement that even approaches, suggests comes close to "I hate all women." To suggest otherwise is called "constructing a strawman."
To point that out is to be called a "misogynist."
Observer, now that you mention it, I can think of a way to make the conversation less polarizing.....
May 18th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
"An example: "Equal pay for equal work." Half of this statement is "equal work." If you leave at 4pm, that's not equal work. If you take time off to have babies, you're of course going to make less than a man who stays on the job -- or a woman like me who chooses not to have children. And you should make less."
With respect to Mlle. Alkon, and in the interest of respectful yet vigorous driving for the truth obscured by feminist man-bashing and victim fetishism, she is only half right.
In reality, women receive more than equal pay for patently unequal work. As I don't wish to consume a lot of space here in the comments section, and at the risk of "plugging" my site here, interested parties can consult the blog post where I lay out the evidence that leads me to conclude that women are paid preferentially to men for less work.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
All,
Re-reading my post, it appears that this statement:
"With respect to Mlle. Alkon, and in the interest of respectful yet vigorous driving for the truth obscured by feminist man-bashing and victim fetishism,"
could be interpreted as a shot taken against Mlle. Alkon. It was not intended to be so...by my statement I did not mean to imply that Amy Alkon engages in man-bashing and victim fetishism. I do not believe that she does.
My apologies to everyone for my lack of clarity.
May 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Observer,
So you agree with these two precepts?
-- Responsibilites for women commensurate with their existing rights, and
-- Rights for men commensurate with their existing responsibilities.
If you do, well then stand back and Katie bar the door!
May 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
"I don't even know where to start with this one."
That is obvious.
"Fortunately, it only merits response on the grounds that it provides a perfect snapshot of what passes for "reason"among feminists and their lapdo..., I mean "sympathizers," so a brief response is more than enough."
Thank goodness. Actually, saying "here, look at his obvious x" is not exactly reason, but appeal to reason. It is you who have failed in terms of reason and common sense.
"This stament is, I believe, inaccurate - "Now, needless to say, almost all the women writers are unheard of and produce nothing but junk .""
Good for you! But the author of that quote doesn't.
"While it would approach accuracy to the point of being spot on if it were modified to say "almost all feminist writers... produce nothing but junk" (unheard of would be inaccurate in this context - the most juvenile screeds reach the highest levels of acclaim when they are "feminist"),"
What good would a comment be without an unrelated aside about how lame you think feminism is?
"the fact is that, in my estimation, many fine women writers exist and their work has certainly influenced my life."
Hooray for you! Unfortunately I just put my cookies away.
"However, that is a matter of perspective - note my use of the term "in my estimation." Reasonable minds can certainly differ, and often do. Writing, like all art, is subjective."
This means exactly nothing. Male and female writing is staggeringly diverse; if you think all or most women's writing is crap, you are probably bringing a lot of subjective bias. Where do you think that bias likely comes from?
"However, there is nothing, I repeat nothing in that statement that even approaches, suggests comes close to "I hate all women." To suggest otherwise is called "constructing a strawman.""
Have you heard of a literary device called "show not tell?" Norman L. does. Instead of the boring "I hate women," he has been more creative. He has SHOWN his audience, by essentially saying women can't write anything worth reading. Isn't that a stronger, more descriptive way of presenting his contempt?
May 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
"by essentially saying women can't write anything worth reading."
I almost forgot, he also said women can't think.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Uh, No he didn't say women can't think. He said that the dearth (in his opinion) of good books by women would probably be explained by historical oppression denying them the opportunities to think.
You just answered my accusation of using strawman arguments by - guess what- a strawman argument. I hardly stand corrected.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Actually, I'm not sure it was a strawman argument exactly, or simply a mischaracterization. It may have been deliberate, but I would charitably chalk it up to a case of "I don't know what you said, but it wasn't funny."
May 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
"Uh, No he didn't say women can't think. He said that the dearth (in his opinion) of good books by women would probably be explained by historical oppression denying them the opportunities to think"
"(I guess that means that "historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think")."
This is obviously sarcasm.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Hari,
Are you saying that it's not true - that the women authors in the book I refer to, write mainly junk? Gee - really? Have you read the book? Do you know what literature is? What good writing is? Have you bothered to compare Jane Austen with Ernest Hemingway?
How's my statement "misogyny"? That's like saying it's mysogony if I say "champion men sprinters are faster than their female counterparts."
As usual, it's not P.C. to say anything negative about women. It's really too bad if you don't like some of my factual statements - you are free not to read my posts, they all start with "Norman L."
What the heck are you doing on this board anyway??
May 18th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Yes, when I said,
"I guess that means that historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think", it is sarcastic. Anyone who takes that to mean "women can't think" needs to stop finger-painting, and go back and take his GED.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
What are some of you guys even talking about?? I just now read above where someone else besides Hari thinks it's misogyny..maybe you guys need to join "R.A." - Readers Anonymous ,since you're in denial on this issue. Maybe even "Deniers Anonymous"
May 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
"It is perhaps annoying that I continually bring up instances of misogyny here"
Yes, it is. Please stop doing it - this is an MR board, not a "gender reconciliation board", "chivalry board", or "oh lookie here you messed up!" board.
May 18th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
"I'm a woman, and I post here from time to time, and my point of view is neither male nor female.."
"Some of us are pure white as snow. We like to pretend that we're completely unbiased, and further more we're all veritable asexuals, psychologically speaking. (We also like to take things out of context and equate 'female point of view' with 'feminist point of view')"
May 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
MasculistXY,
will check and get back to you within next couple days (on source of that statement).
May 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Jorge,
excellent post! You said,
"I would also like to add that most women deny misandry. When challenged, which happens occasionally, they use three main strategies: excusing it, justifying it, or trivializing it."
You sound like you're read "Spreading Misandry" by Nathanson and Young; or at least read a synopsis of it or comments about it, or something?
May 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
"The word 'misogyny' IS used a lot these days -- far more so than the word 'misandry' -- and I have observed that a lot of people don't even know the word 'misandry'. They don't know it's meaning or they know the word 'misogyny' but aren't aware of its antonym. Indeed, as I type this, I notice that the Firefox browser (which has a built-in spell checker) recognizes one but not the other. Hmm."
You can find a few entries for "misandry" at www.dictionary.com. Keep using the word and more people will know what it means -- kind of like "vegan."
May 18th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
"if you think all or most women's writing is crap, you are probably bringing a lot of subjective bias. Where do you think that bias likely comes from?"
It comes from the reality that people have been reading Plato for over two thousand years, whereas if anyone knows who Joyce Carol Oates is one hundred years from now, well...what do you think?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
"Are you saying that it's not true - that the women authors in the book I refer to, write mainly junk?"
"It comes from the reality that people have been reading Plato for over two thousand years, whereas if anyone knows who Joyce Carol Oates is one hundred years from now, well...what do you think?"
So which is it? Just the books on the list, or all books written by women? Your initial statement was ambiguous and so are your subsequent ones.
"Yes, it is. Please stop doing it - this is an MR board, not a "gender reconciliation board", "chivalry board", or "oh lookie here you messed up!" board."
I'm afraid I can't help it. It's not the misogyny, per se, but the persistent, casual lie that that is not what it is. And since when do men's rights have anything to do with misogyny or male supremacy? It was your initial aside as to women's inferiority that initially went astray of the supposed purpose of the site. Airing one's grievances about aspects of a system that disadvantage your gender is different from talking sh*t about the other gender. It's the same with feminism and misandry; but for all the MRA talk of misandry by feminists, they have excised more of it from their discourse than MRA's have with misogyny (though feminists also have a lot of work to do in that respect).
May 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
""I guess that means that historically, women have been denied the opportunity to think", it is sarcastic. Anyone who takes that to mean "women can't think" needs to stop finger-painting, and go back and take his GED."
What does it mean then? That women don't want to think?
May 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
@Norman L. Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Jorge,
>excellent post! You said,
>"I would also like to add that most women deny misandry. When challenged, which happens occasionally, they use >three main strategies: excusing it, justifying it, or trivializing it."
>You sound like you're read "Spreading Misandry" by Nathanson and Young; or at least read a synopsis of it or >comments about it, or something?
I've read both Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry. The quote I pasted isn't mine. I don't remember where it came from. Things I find on the internet that I like I put them in my MacJournal program. I have a small journal called misandry which I keep clips in. That was one of them... Here is another :-)
"Equality for women came to result in sexual, reproductive, parental and legal inequality and a disrespect for men."
May 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Hari,
"What does it mean then? That women don't want to think?"
Necessity. It drives everything. Yes women do need to think and sometimes they don't. Same thing for men. If I simplify life for you - out of all possible good intentions - believe me, most often than not you will think less than you would have otherwise. Society has always protected women. One consequence of this POSSIBLY COULD BE it has lead to most of them to think less or think very differently or think more about a different subject than a male perspective - which can be easily perceived from a male perspective as not thinking or thinking less overall.
What does it mean then? I don't know, if the writer has been around women who have lead sheltered lives and/or have very tangential thought process to that of the writer, it would cause a perception of not thinking - and then generalizing to that population. You are welcome to dissect it more, but note that you are explicitly looking for misogyny. I question why you are not looking for misandry as well.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Okay guys, the original topic was the Venkatesan thing (the Dartmouth student rebellion). I just mentioned the literature book because the topic reminds me of academic subjects like literature, as influenced by feminist thinking, - since the late 70's, we have been seeing more emphases on nonsensical concepts such as "feminist interpretation of Huckleberry Finn" and such in college classes. (I'm just waiting for "feminist interpretation of Theory of Relativity).
But it's gotten a little too far off topic when someone picked up on (and misinterpreted) my casual aside that "women have been denied...". ( just for the record, I do believe women can think, of course). That particular statement was a sarcastic attempt to "justify" the mediocrity of women writers, given in the same vein as how feminists justify any difference in record of accomplishment between the sexes. For example, "why are there fewer women CEO's?" Answer: "Because women have been denied the opportunity to be CEO's".
This incessant type of argument makes some sense depending on the context and area of accomplishment, but my statement was meant to imply that there's no apparent reason we shouldn't see as many worthwhile and prodigious women authors as men, since women have not been denied any "opportunities" in areas of creative activity (such notions as the George Eliot myth notwithstanding). (Saying women "haven't been encouraged" is a useless argument..men haven't been encouraged to participate in home life to the same extent as women, they haven't been encouraged to knit, etc.These are probably due to innate differences in aptitudes and preferences, men being status-seeking by nature, but that is a different subject).
Anyhow, my point with the book is the issue of the authors themselves saying "He is a piggish man; he is a great pig." Certain honorary women posting here fail to see the gender issue with that statement, or they refuse to see it out of misguided chivalry. In fact, not only do they not pick up on that statement, bound to be seen by thousands if not millions of people who read that book; instead, they nit-pick on some comment I made above which may be seen by all of a couple dozen people, and most of them are already hardened MRA's, not malleable young college students who are subjected to unrelenting misandry in our ideological..er, excuse me..educational institutions.
Let's get our priorities straight, recognize which gender is on the wrong end of the stick here; and get back on topic while we're at it.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Jorge,
The final of the trilogy is supposed to be "Transcending Misandry". I think it's at least a couple more years away.
I think it suffices for a well-informed sophisticated MRA to read just 3 or 4 books:
"Myth of Male Power" (as an introduction to the issues)
"Spreading Misandry" and "Legalizing Misandry"
"The Woman Racket" by Steve Moxon
but even MOMP is not really necessary, since Moxon's book includes much of the same material, without the "head in the clouds" thinking of Farrell.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Oops, I guess that's off topic.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Hari, hari....
“Instead of the boring "I hate women," he has been more creative. He has SHOWN his audience, by essentially saying women can't write anything worth reading. Isn't that a stronger, more descriptive way of presenting his contempt?”
No. It isn’t. From his statement that all women writers are inadequate the most you can say is that he has a low opinion of women writers. You cant even argue that he hates women writers, much less that he hates and holds all women in contempt just because he thinks women writers suck.
“I'm afraid I can't help it. It's not the misogyny, per se, but the persistent, casual lie that that is not what it is.”
And again you make the claim of “misogyny” without giving evidence. Perhaps if you state it often enough, even without providing evidence, someone will be stupid enough to believe it.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Just to clarify: I don't hate anyone (except this one neighbor I have, but it's not a gender issue).
It is my opinion (and that of many others) that women writers of literature are mediocre. But compare for yourselves, and you might see what I mean.
Just buy one of those compendiums or anthologies they sell at Barnes and Noble, that has abridged works or excerpts. Compare the Brontes and Woolfe, and Eliot, with Tolstoy or Cervantes, or for that matter even John Updike. Trust me.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:17 am
wow UNI people gezzz, those who can't do, those who can't teach.....
May 19th, 2008 at 3:29 am
MasculistXY Says:
May 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
very true, I think feminism has become some kind of religious cult, good old blind faith at it's best....
I tell you one thing guys can do, is to avoid them in the dating phase, breed them out.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Getting back, briefly, to Glenns experience in college dealing with misandrist... errrrrrrrrrr excuse me 'feminist'.... professors. It matters nary a whit that you can dispute... errrrrrrrrrrrrrr excuse me 'bully'... a misandrists ... errrrrrrrrr excuse 'feminist'...
Oh screw it we all know what's going on here, so let's dispense with the PC BS and call a spade for the spade that it is, okay?
Telling a misandrist college professor she's fulla schitt is not without peril when it comes time to grade the class, and how decidedly you can, or cannot, voice the data or history, or expose the blatant misandry in the professors teachings (ie how accurate or inaccurate you are)... is a moot point.
To use an analogy (and military history is a topic I am WELL versed in) I remember discussing the Cuban Missile Crisis with a collegiate at one point and when I broached the topic of Project Jennifer and the Glomar Explorer purpose built to recover the K-129 in 1968 she was dumbfounded.
Believe it or not folks I actually started her thinking perhaps events of those 2 weeks in October of 1962 wasn't as clear cut as the history books portrayed it. When I finished discussing Operation Boresight and the connection to the Glomar Explorer she had enough questions to start asking herself "what really happened?" (the short answer is we had Khrushchev over a barrel, we knew where his subs were and we demonstrated this by sinking one in the Kara Sea by some accounts, in the Atlantic by other accounts... they retaliated by sinking the USS Thresher SSN 593 the following year).
Anyway, a month or so later she returned to me with a new appreciation for our array of listening posts ringing the former Soviet Union... and an open mind to what I had to say about what REALLY ended the Cuban Missile Crisis (as she walked away I asked if she wanted to know when the first atomic device was detonated).
The point is had I been a student in her class, I'm quite certain the results of such an encounter would have been vastly different, and my grades reflecting that difference.
History teachers hate me when the WWI and later era is discussed, and they decidedly do not like discussing the Hungarian gold train or the Struma episodes either!!!
Alas, as you walk into a college classroom and view such literature as "3 out of 4 college women are raped" and other such nonsense... dispute it with care, for your knowledge of such (and your willingness to speak of such knowledge) may be a seriously detracting factor when your grades are issued (especially if you can and do prove the proctor wrong in front of the class).
You have been forewarned, proceed accordingly... and have fun!
Gunner Retired
May 19th, 2008 at 7:44 am
"I question why you are not looking for misandry as well."
I don't know why you assume that--this just happens to be a place without much of it.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:14 am
This just saddens me. Feminsts has legitimate concerns and gripes to deal with but instead they spend their precious time and recources on lies, propaganda, and deception.
Amy Alkon:
An example: "Equal pay for equal work." Half of this statement is "equal work." If you leave at 4pm, that's not equal work. If you take time off to have babies, you're of course going to make less than a man who stays on the job -- or a woman like me who chooses not to have children. And you should make less.
You're my kind of woman with thinking like that. I'm so glad that not every women has been tainted the Entitlement Virus.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ms. Smith wrung her hands over the stigma, enshrined in some Spanish folklore, against romantic or sexual activity by Spanish women whose men had gone off to fight the invading and occupying Moors. This was, she said, another example of the oppressive social controls which men placed upon women.
I wouldn't call these stories a 'social control'. I would say they're an accurate depiction of reality. I've served in the military and I can attest that the overwhelming majority of women go off and sleep with other men while their husband/boyfriend is fighting for his life in order to ensure her freedom.
I have a word for women who stab their men in the back, while they're in a foreign country, fighting for their life, filled with people who are trying to kill them. They're called scumbags.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
observer wonders why feminists and MRAs can't be allies instead of adversaries. The short answer: Allies reciprocate, help each other out in time of need, etc. For at least 20 years men have been underrepresented in higher education - as students and staff - yet feminists have not once rallied to address the inequity. Of the top 20 causes of morbidity and mortality in the Western world, men lead in all but one, yet feminists have not once rallied to address the problem with such things as offices for men's health, etc. Only men are required to register for the Selective Service, yet the only time feminists even bother to acknowledge this fact is when they are forced to do so. Feminists promulgate numerous myths designed to strip rights from men and give women more privilege, e.g., the so-called "pay gap" (actually it's an earnings gap), "one in four" women are raped, 98% of DV is perped by men against women, etc., etc.
When feminists step up to the plate and address the real, substantial injustices against men on their own instead of obsessing over trivial insults against women and ignoring men's rights issues, then we can talk about an alliance. However, to-date feminists have not been holding up their end of the alliance, which makes them little more than parasites in the partnership where in theory men support women's rights and women support men's rights.
Or to make it really brief: Put up or shut up.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I would just like to add that this is what one gets when one takes a liberal arts direction in college, that, and a job at Pizza Hut.
Later,
B
May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Gunner Retired above,
"Alas, as you walk into a college classroom and view such literature as "3 out of 4 college women are raped" and other such nonsense... dispute it with care, for your knowledge of such (and your willingness to speak of such knowledge) may be a seriously detracting factor when your grades are issued (especially if you can and do prove the proctor wrong in front of the class)."
I've mentioned on this board before that in the early 90's, I took a "Psychology of Women" class in college - but it was in reality, of course, a combination bit** session/feminists indoctrination. As one of only three men in the class, I was shouted down the time I questioned the issue, of the notion of "rape" by the man "getting the woman drunk" on a date. I wasn't even going to make a statement, I just had a question - but they would not let me ask it, cutting me off, and some of them actually shrieked. If a woman were treated that way in a class, she would have immediate grounds for a big-time lawsuit. (of course there would never be a "Psychology of Men" class anyway - since we all know that "psychology has studied men up til now..it's time to study women's". Besides, "women's psychology is different, but men's isn't". I've actually heard feminists use that kind of "logic"!)
May 19th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I'm in college right now, and in one of my current classes - Social Problems - I've been plenty outspoken about gender issues, and gotten almost unanimous support from the rest of my class. My professor also encouraged me to go ahead with the subject of my final paper - gender bias in the legal system. Interestingly, this is the first class I've taken to have almost 50% of the students also be male. Given that the alternative was Women's Studies, I'm not terribly surprised. Not all colleges are that bad these days.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Norman said:
"(of course there would never be a "Psychology of Men" class anyway - since we all know that "psychology has studied men up til now..it's time to study women's"."
I have likewise never heard of a class specific to men's psychology (yet). However, I am happy to report that the APA does acknowledge the study of men and masculinity. It is a relatively new area called Division 51. Men's psychology was my area of emphasis in my master's program, and I had a supportive advisor.
I do believe there is a modicum of gender-feminist bias in Division 51, but there is some good research out there. And I think things are getting better. Even APA president Koocher acknowledged the seriousness of male victims of DV a bit ago in the APA Monitor magazine.
I hear that only about 1 in 4 psychology majors is a male nowdays. This might also have something to do with the fact that men's psychology is often relegated to the back seat.
MXY
May 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
a commentor said:
"I think it suffices for a well-informed sophisticated MRA to read just 3 or 4 books:
"Myth of Male Power" (as an introduction to the issues)
"Spreading Misandry" and "Legalizing Misandry"
"The Woman Racket" by Steve Moxon"
That is definitely some good choices. Some of my other favorites include:
*Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Priivlege (Herg Goldberg)
*The Other Side of the Coin (Roy Schenk)
*If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules? (Jack Kammer)
*Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men (David Thomas)
*The New Mens Studies (Eugene August)
I usually tell people if they only have time to read one book, then read Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power." It is definitely one of my favorites.
MXY
May 20th, 2008 at 4:25 am
MXY,
There's a lot to be said for reading the CMRs, AVSRs and NCJs... many popular myths can be easily and quickly dispelled from these sources alone.
G_R
May 20th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Regarding the feminist Dartmouth Professor suing her students (Part IV), after reading your excerpt about what you experienced in college about the suppression of women and why men aren't doing enough "housework", according to Jay Conrad Levinson's book, "Guerrilla Markering", Houghton Mifflin Co. (2007), ISBN-10: 0-618-78591-4, why is it that women control 60% of the wealth in this country and 75 percent of all family finances?
What seems to be their problem, other than psychological? We need to start suing colleges and universities for causing emotional distress to women.
May 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Retired gunner said:
"There's a lot to be said for reading the CMRs, AVSRs and NCJs... many popular myths can be easily and quickly dispelled from these sources alone."
Thanks for the reply. At the risk of me sounding rather ignorant, could you let me know what these abbreviations stand for?
Thanks!
MXY
May 20th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
OK, I'm of the view that the original article from which all this posting comes from shows a truely batty prof. Perhaps even a nutty professor.
As an aside, yes, women writers tend to write Lifetime style crap, so thats why their work will be little remembered even a
year from now. Its worth pointing out that the great rise of women writers in the field of speculative fiction mirrors pretty much exactly the rise of fantasy over SF in that field. As trends go, those are clear enough.
As to Gunner Retired and his insane and factless claims about sub sinkings post the October Crisis of 1962, all I can say, as a student of matters historical, political, and military for over 4 decades is, wow, that was a massive load of conspiracy looniness, Gunner. Care to offer any fact based citations for your claims ? Uh huh, just like a Feminist.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:37 am
Tim Murray Says:
May 17th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Very well written.
-=-=-=-=-=-
The dissident in me is coming out again, that is to say except for the use of the word "cracker."
b
May 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
The Dartmouth feminist's hash can be settled forthwith, with a complaint to the university that the woman is engaging in hostile environment sexual harassment. From what the story indicates, there should be no trouble in finding testimony to the fact that she creates a hostile environment in her lectures against heterosexual males, which is, quite simply, illegal according to the federal agency with the duty to investigate discrimination against students on the basis of sex or gender (don't ask. . . there's a logic, but I proceed). All schools in the U. S. that receive federal funding must abide by Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Title forbids creation of a a hostile environment on the basis of sex which interferes with equal access to education. This agency is the Office for Civil Rights of the Dept. of Education, which publishes online a "Sexual Harassment Guidance" which contains stipulated behavior that this teacher's classroom behavior fulfills. A student complaint to the appropriate school administrator, with an added threat to go to the OCR if the teacher is not forthwith called down for her behavior should do the trick.
BTW, every feminist teacher in the country who teaches at a school that receives federal funding is vulnerable to such a complaint and to the appropriate discipline.
I myself am engaged in a massive complaint against a large public university on this subject, but I can't share the details at this time. You've got to know the law on this subject, and SH jurisprudence is hell on wheels, but one thing is clear: all complaints that women make against men are the same complaints that men can make against women when it comes to federally-interdicted discrimination on the basis of sex. When feminists begin to feel the sting, we will begin to see serious changes on the gender war front.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Olustee,
You go boy! I am going to date myself and perhaps this was not as dramatic of a situation but we in the very early '80's formed a league because the school had the chair desks and only like one left handed one to each classroom. What is worse is that this school was known for its arts. If you are not familiar artsie-fartsie people are dramatically more prone to being left handed than others, at the time I think on the order of 45%. We fought for and got our desks. Now purely unintentional after that victory I transferred to another school for my sophomore year.
All that just to say that it can be done.
Good luck!
b
August 12th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Yup I agree on the pc bs in education. It is a big problem.
The one guy here says, I saw, that things need not be adverserial if MRA take on a role to reconcile and act as checks and balances.
Unfortunately the systems that are in place, not to mention organisations such as NOW are adverserial to them. It will cease to be adverserial when mens rights are no longer treated and viewed as adverse.