Dr. Warren Farrell Speaks about New University of Chicago Men's Group
June 1st, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Author Dr. Warren Farrell (pictured), the long-time ideological wellspring of the men's movement, appeared on Good Morning America on Saturday concerning a University of Chicago men's group.
The university has nine female advocacy organizations, and this is the first one for men. One of the founders of the group pointed to the astronomical difference is suicide rates between men and women in their early 20s and the boy crisis in education as their raison d'etre.
Farrell said the women's movement expanded choices for women but men are still largely judged on their ability to perform the male provider role and are not respected as caregivers of children.
To watch the five minute segment, click here.
This article discusses the club--note how the woman quoted who is a member of the campus group Feminist Majority throws in a completely irrelevant reference to white males as a way to detract from the men's group's legitimacy.
"));
19 queries. 0.385 seconds.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Also a good coverage for the UoC student group on the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story
Glenn's blog also got some good press from numerous men in the comments.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
It goes without saying that this group will be encountering alot of interference and hostility.I hope they are prepared.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The men's group leaders - Baskerville, Sacks, Farrell, Franklin, the guys at RADAR to name a few - ought to support Steve Saltarelli, the president of Men in Power, and his team.
As a father to his sons. These guys (and maybe a few women) need protection from the feminist media and academic and women's groups, access to wisdom and knowledge, guidance, money, among other things.
We need to build into the next generation leadership for change for our sons. The U of C guys are these guys. Do not let this grass roots opportunity be stopped by the feminists, boy bad, girl good types, as it may take many years before we see a college level spark of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPVUJwB2Czo
June 1st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
As a white male, I do not find myself offended at being constantly singled out, but am disturbed that my non white fellows are being ignored. Are they thought so little of as to be ignored?
June 1st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Men in power: True equality means groups that advocate for men as well as women.
Steve Saltarelli's original article in the Chicago Maroon student newspaper
http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/3/2/men-in-power
June 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
What's the big deal about white males anyway? Feminists have recently chomped down on this racist and misandric piece of political rhetoric/tripe since it came to light that Sotomeyer used the term in one of her feminist speeches.
To all feminists and elitist minorities I say; you ought to try being a white male for a while. You might find that is isn't as easy being a man and white as you might think. Reverse discrimination in jobs, education and social services, now commonplace in our sexist and racist society, is discrimination against caucasian men, period.
Add to that the fact that the feminist political stock in trade is to make men wrong and evil for who they are and now you have incorporated misandry into the societal fabric as well.
Good luck walking in a white man's shoes.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I had heard about MiP a few weeks ago, and I've gotta say I am pretty stoked.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Looks like NPR also picked up on the MiP story, and had a piece done on it today. The corresponding discussion is still going on their comments section, with the host of the on-air show also making/replying-to comments:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104779051
She wants to know why men are so angry.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
You gotta love the guy who presented this piece, what with his kind of raised eyebrow, WTF is this about approach to it.
That's the great thing about our current PC environment. You never have to think about anything. You can simply know you are right because the culture has only been validating one point of view for so many years.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 am
Guys would like choices - stay at home or stay at home and work part-time or work full-time, but do guys want to stay home and do women's work?
His this is vision for men? Farrell seems like a metrosexual. He may be wasting his time - by the time this happens the real men in China will take over.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 am
@Pat #10
When men are being sidelined, disenfranchised, insulted, forced to be nothing more than ATM's as we turn into a matriarchal society, why would real men fight for it? No where in history do we see a matriarchal society survive, any idea's as to why?
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 am
That guy actually wasn't too bad Nick S., but I see what you mean, he is thinking this must be some kind of joke. But deep down he knows there is validity to what Farrell is saying and also in what the Men In Power group is interested in raising awarness about. Thing is, this reporter is merely a soldier, and for him to question the Lace Curtain might cost him his job, so he goes on smiling, being the Mangina he is paid to be.
If you really want to see some disgusting interviewing in regards to the Men In Power, look at the woman who interviewed Steve S. (the founder of the MIP group at University of Chicago) from CNN. Talk about someone with an agenda, an anti-male hate agenda. I know Bernard put a link up to it on mensnewsdaily a few days ago, but you can certainly find it on youtube. The Fox News interviewer wasn't nearly as bad, but again she went into thinking, this must be some kind of joke right? I commend Steve (and forgive me because I don't know his last name). He is a very soft-spoken guy, and seems to be the type many people could rally around, especially Women who truelly are for equality, unlike their fascist feminist sisters & manginas.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 am
It's probably not a good idea to use the word "ideological" when describing Farrell. Neither he nor (most ) MRA's are pursuing an ideology. That is something feminists specialize in.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
What does "white male" mean, anyway? I'm Italian and there was massive discrimination againts my dad by WHITE GUYS. So does that make us white? Or ethnic? Same goes for my Jewish friends. And some of my Irish friends' grandparents were denied jobs.
This is what people should bring up when they start with the "white male" stuff.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
One thing I found entertaining about the article is the first woman quoted:
"sure [the campus] really need[s] another student organization that focuses on pre-professional development for men"
She said "another student organization." I thought this was the only one? How could this be another one when it is the only one? Is it that this woman thinks the university itself is pushing professional development for men? If that is the case, and universities are so hostile to women, why do they attend at such disproportionate numbers? The only answer is that they are masochistic.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 am
"We need to build into the next generation leadership for change for our sons"
I strongly agree with Terri we have to collectively as a mens group support Steve in his effort to organize this support group for the benefit of the male students. Could it be possible we at "Glenn Sack" and "Fathers& Family" make a joint effort to support publicly by sending email to Steve and to write to journalist asking them to write a story this would encouraged other institutions to organize other groups
Any of the bloggers have any suggestions how we could get more publicity ?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
The plain and simple truth is...women don't want men to organize. Most women know that there is no glass ceiling, no crises of rape, no sudden outbreaks in man on woman violence, etc etc, but the way that things are now is comfortable for them. It's like having a loaded gun, just in case those pesky men get out of line we have the full support of the Government, media, and law behind us to squash any rebellion. To see men fight back scares them because they know nothing last forever.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
Did anyone notice how hostile the reporter was to that guy while she interviewed him? You could see it in her body language and how she spoke to him. Just shameful reporting. The more experience this guy get with hostile women, hostile government agencies, and media he will toughen up. The more men that see how he is treated will actually cause them to gravitate toward this movement.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 am
The thing that made me chuckle was the sheer hypocracy of some of the girls .... the title Feminist Majority yet they found the title for the mens advocacy group to be wrong ....... what is the difference?
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Hi Edward,
I did notice notice how hostile the reporter was but at the same time I was impress by the composure from Steve he stated clearly the issues concerning men I had the impression this reporter wanted to minimize the validity of the group I personally wish all of us on this blog could find ways to publicize this initiative from the U of Chicago what can we do to maximize this event ? The reason why this site was create was to organize a group of men
for the purpose of promoting the issues facing men in society here we have an opportunity
to encourage this student by sending him an email write to the newspapers covering the story each of us in our way have to do something many of you are very intelligent this is the time we need you specially to come up with ideas
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
The existence of this group is good news.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
Dr Warren Farrel's bestseller "The Myth Of Male Power", is one of the most powerful arguments for mens rights i have ever read. He approaches the topic with a calm and refined academic perspective.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 am
Glenn Sacks should also do a piece on this college group, and time is of the essence. Doing a piece on this could gain alot more readers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
Good for them! As the saying goes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The two young ladies interviewed are clueless. Hopefully this group will enlighten some people who really need it.
What really burns me up is the term “reverse sexism”. I know what they THINK they mean when they say it, but they are wrong, wrong, wrong. They think they are saying that since men have discriminated against women for so long (sexism) that now men are suffering reverse sexism. WRONG! Reverse sexism would mean there is NO sexism. And when whites are discriminated against because of the color of their skin, it is still discrimination! Reverse discrimination would mean there is NO discrimination. Jiminy Christmas, that drives me crazy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 am
Women - choices, rights, longer life spans, victimhood.
Men - no choice, lots of responsibilities, shorter life spans, suicides, blame.
Why can't you people see how good men have it?
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Edward:
Good post on #16. Right on the money.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
menscollegeactivist.org Says:
"Glenn Sacks should also do a piece on this college group"
Glenn could get a story to a newspaper pointing out the importance of this group same as Warren did in is interview on ABC also need to respond to the comments express by the female students who claim this was " typical male chauvinism" if those comments are left with no response they will continue with more momentum this group need support for what they want to accomplish
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
This was on NPR yesterday as well: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104779051
It's getting attention -- good. It's about time.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
First off like JeanB says "reverse sexism" in regards to female against male sexism is a load of bull. The term implies that the norm/default of sexism is male against female and that female against male sexism is some deviation. Its not.
Second this:
“It’s like starting ‘white men in business,’” Feenstra said. “There’s not really any purpose.”
Is a dodge tactic and crying of foul at the same time. The group is just forming and some feminists are already trying to attack it by crying racism in an effort to bury the efforts of what may be a legitimate organization with legitimate concerns. Even if all 125 of the starting members are white males this is a cheap shot.
Third:
If there is one thing I've noticed from feminists its that they love to tell men to do things themselves and dont expect feminsm to do them for them. Well guess what these folks have decided to put up and not shut up. And if you think about it for a feminist organization to whine about 1 male organization (vs 9 for women) is the exact same thing feminists like to point out when "white males" point out that there is something for women and not for men.
Fourth:
How come no feminists are coming out of the woodwork to call out the racism and sexism of that quote from Feenstra? If anything this shows that it is safe to pick on white males without fear of retaliation.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
It's fine to write your opinions on this blog but make this more valid by sending your letters to the U fo Chicago let them know you support this initiative by the students let them know this is not about male privileges but male fundamental rights i have already sent letters to local journalist and ask them if they could write a story to report this event it is important your voice be heard beyond this blog the choice is ours we let it go unnoticed or we do what we can to let the people know men issues are also important
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
"Women - choices, rights, longer life spans, victimhood.
Men - no choice, lots of responsibilities, shorter life spans, suicides, blame.
Why can't you people see how good men have it?"
pjk -
The problem with this is that feminists will generally say, in response: "Aha! Patriarchy oppresses men, too! You should be a feminist!".
In other words, we need to take care how we state the issue. The issue is not that men are oppressed by masculinity, as a feminist analysis would suggest -- as if American men are millions of reverse Betty Friedans, pining to be released from oppressive masculinity. It's not so much that men feel cramped by masculinity as that the male role in society has been virtually eliminated due to the relative decline of marriage, which of course has resulted in the relative decline of fatherhood, because fatherhood is largely dependent on marriage in order to be effective. This has created a lot of ennui among men, feelings of alienation, lack of purpose and so on. That is the source of many of the problems men face -- not oppressive masculinity, but the rapid decline and near elimination of the social role of men as fathers.
Women have not experienced this at all. For all of the instability of marriage and family life, women's central social role as mothers has not abated, of but has instead been enhanced and strengthened, often at the expense of fathers and men. Women of course are not exclusively mothers, but also pursuing other aspects of life, which is of course fine. But the instability of marriage, and the rise of divorce, has not done much to undermine the role of women as mothers, but has severely undermined the role of men as fathers. That is the key issue men face -- not some ghost of a patriarchy constraining men in narrow masculine roles. Men have been breaking out of those roles for some time, and most importantly are investing more parental time with their children than ever. The issue not that men are constrained in role, the issue is that the legal system has cut off fatherhood at the knees. That undermines the main social role of men, and leaves men alienated and adrift.
This is why we need something separate from feminism. Feminism mis-diagnoses the problems facing men, because when it comes to men feminism has a conflict of interest.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
I'm still trying to understand how the fact that white men controlled the world for the last 2000 years or more, the fact that most people running Fortune 500 companies are men, and the fact that most people in government are men benefits me.
The men running the companies are pretty much enriching themselves, and they're also making sure a business thrives. How that negatively affects women, I don't know, other than that there must be other women out there who feel they are "unfairly denied" the opportunity to enrich themselves. My heart bleeds for them, oh yes it does. I mean, c'mon, I'm never gonna be CEO either, but it has more to do with my character and work ethic than anything else.
And as far as government goes, show me ONE male congressman/president/etc. who takes care of MEN FIRST, because he's a man, and women second. I'll eat my hat. What I'm sure I'll see instead is a congressman who takes care of himself and his friends and lobbyists first, provides lip service to women, and gives nothing to men.
Anyway, how does any of this benefit any boys of today? We always hear about how women were put down and oppressed all throughout history, and it's all men's fault. But that's all behind us now! Women have the vote, they have equal pay legislation, etc.
Any boy born during the span from 20 years ago through today has NO responsibility for any past "wrongs" done to women. So why can't we focus on that, and consider if what the world is presenting to these boys is fair or not? Why must they continue to bear this burden?
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
@novaseeker: "The problem with this is that feminists will generally say, in response: "Aha! Patriarchy oppresses men, too! You should be a feminist!".
Grrrrrr. I hate that line. It's just more of feminists looking for ways to NOT accept ANY responsibility for anything. It's as if they believe they are totally a non-factor and have no influence at all in the world system they are so against. Dream on.
@Danny: "If there is one thing I've noticed from feminists its that they love to tell men to do things themselves and dont expect feminsm to do them for them."
Buncha ingrates. Conveniently ignore how they got MEN to bend over backwards to help them, out of guilt and misplaced sense of chivalry. And then conveniently forget all that and insist they did it "all themselves!", so men have to do it themselves.
Well, first of all, I think men should be able to do anything they want without needing to ask for women's permission or help in the first place. So, our bad for presenting them with our problem. Just ask them politely to step aside so we can take care of our own business, thank you very much. If they'd like to help, they're certainly welcome, but we're not going to beg for it or sit around waiting for it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 am
I would expect men that are between ages 18-24 to be interested in work related issues. When they get to be my age they might be more interested in custody issues, alimony, etc. like I am. That is only natural.
I noticed that the women that were interviewed offered basically a knee jerk reaction. They were not interested or sympathetic and seemed only to wish it would go away. They seemed more annoyed than anything. Most women understand at their core that men organizing is not good for them, no matter what it is they are asking for.
My suggestion to Men in Power would be to demand a Men's Studies Department. This is something that if successful, would rock the world. One reason it is so hard to forge ahead is that we must do so in a fog. As Archimedes said, "what gets measured, gets done" What is the ratio of who is filing for divorce?, Who is using the health care dollars? Who is paying the taxes?, Who is getting battered? Who is being falsely accused? It is questions like these that keeps the debate regarding MR so retarded.
Furthermore, so much of feminism has been founded on idology and junk science that it is particularly ripe for getting debunked.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
My suggestion to Men in Power would be to demand a Men's Studies Department.
Interesting suggestion. This would do good on two fronts. First it would shut the women's advocates up that respond to every man's complaints with "Go do it yourself. Don't expect feminsm to do it for you." Second and most importantly if used correctly a Men's Department would be a nice step in destroying two of the biggest feminist smokescreens of all, the assumption that men in power look out for men first and that being male is the key to the kingdom. Neither is true and the sooner we get past such myths the better off we all will be.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Men's studies can certainly focus on family law, gender disparities in criminal prosecution, presumption of guilt in domestic violence and sexual offenses, and other criminalization of trivial male behavior, along with the general vilification of men at home and in the workplace that occurs in media and politics.
I find it 'funny' that a group labeled "Feminist Majority" is protesting / denigrating a men's organization, as if men are in the majority.
From the feminist majority foundation's own website indicates they are concerned about anyone who's NOT a straight white male, at the expense of straight white males. Their "Equality, but women first", outlook indicates that they're really unaware of what "equality" actually means. In other words, "Feminist Majority" is actually seeking *preferential* treatment for anyone who's not straight, white and male, and is by definition, sexist, racist and bigoted, disqualifying themselves for many of the handouts and protected programs they demand for themselves.
Feminism n. the policy, practice, and advocacy of political, economic, and social equality for women.
Feminist adj. or n. a person who advocates feminism.
Mission
The Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) was created to develop bold, new strategies and programs to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development, and, most importantly, empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society. All programs of the FMF endeavor to include a global perspective and activities to promote leadership development, especially among young women. Along with reproductive rights and access to reproductive technology, the FMF's programs have focused on the empowerment of women in law, business, medicine, academia, sports, and the Internet.
Its sister organization, the Feminist Majority (formerly Fund for the Feminist Majority), has focused on empowering women in public policy-making as well as gender balance in elective and appointive offices.
Principles
The principles of the Feminist Majority and Feminist Majority Foundation are the following:
FMF promotes equality between women and men and girls and boys, and supports constitutional and statutory measures to gain full equality locally, statewide, nationally, and globally.
FMF supports safe, legal and accessible abortion, contraception, and family planning, including Medicaid funding and access for minors.
FMF is dedicated to achieving civil rights for all people, including affirmative action programs for women and people of color.
The FMF supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.
FMF does not permit discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, national origin, or disability.
FMF promotes non-violence and works to eliminate violence against women.
The FMF encourages programs directed at the preservation of the environment, clean air and water, the elimination of smog, toxic and hazardous waste, chemical and nuclear weaponry.
The FMF supports workers' collective bargaining, pay equity, and the end of sweatshops.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
If I was a betting man, I would bet my milk money that Feminist Majority and NOW leadership is getting the word out that another men's group not get started onthe other 4,100 college campuses in the USA.
If there is an open debate about today's gender issues (read leaving out time before the 1960's) with the youth, the guys will win. Without emotional or sexual appeal the women's issues today are non issues. The girls know this. That is why they name call, instead of have an open debate.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I am going to let my nephew who attends a New England College know about this new org and I would recommend everyone on this list who has contact with any college age men know about it. Maybe one of them will start it at their schools.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
That is an interesting idea, to start a Men's Studies Dept. @ the school. However, one issue I could see that may arrise is that the school would essentially hijack it. That it is that, it would still be the "Men's Studies Dept" but the school would only teach it from the Feminist prospective. This is one thing Dr. Farrell had touched up on in his book "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say". If I recall, he was saying that any courses offered in colleges/universities right now that are "Men's Studies" courses, are essentially a pseudo men's studies course because it is not coming from the true Male perspective, but that of the Feminists. Thus, we are again only stuck with one side of the story.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Matt says, "The men running the companies are pretty much enriching themselves, and they're also making sure a business thrives."
You may also add men who are naturally gifted - leadership, sports, entertainment. And this is who women's groups point to for "it's a man's word."
Yet when you take a look at ordinary men and less than ordinary leaving out the rich and famous or the children of the same, ordinary men in the USA is getting crushed - in academics, government services, health, law - family and criminal, to name a few.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I also noticed the hostility in the reporters voice, it was like she thought that everything that was being said was BS to her! My opinion, they didn't say enough, I could tell they were being very careful what they were saying. It just pisses me off that these people can't really tell it like it is. They were walking on eggshells so not to be attacked. Farrel was dead on but, they barely touched on the subjects that needed to talked about. And to have that reporter talk that way to them like they were nothing and incorrect like they were dumb asses. I was stoked after I heard it. I'm so sick of this sh*t!!!! I pay $1500 a month and my ex won't let me see my children or even talk to them on the phone. I know I'm not alone here. And only people in my situation can understand the horror of this. This is not right and it shouldn't be allowed to continue under any circumstances. I live in poverty, she is living high on the hog and she doesn't let me have contact of any kind with my children. How in the hell can anybody think this is fair and just?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
cdub,
No question. The feminists would try to co-opt it right away. If it were co-opted it would be worse than if it never happened.
I would suggest that the best chance of a men's studies department would be at a college where there is already a women's study program. I am not sure if the University of Chicago has one or not. At any rate, why reinvent the wheel? Everybody got the story line immediately, 9 women's groups to 1 men's group. It is not difficult to do the math.
Science is on our side. This is not my area of expertise but, any encroachments on the acedemic freedom of the men's studies would automatically do the same to the women's studies. It would probably be pretty easy to use a "blackmail" or "poison pill" stratgey to get what we want. With 133 women graduating for every 100 men that whole system is ripe for change. In other words, if we don't get what we want we might get uppity and ask for more. Saul Alinsky would be spinning in his grave.
Personally, I think it would be fascinating to have the two departments side by side and see which one's develop a reputation for academic excellence. There would be no need to produce junk science. Rather the opposite. It also might force the women's studies departments into doing more discliplined science rather than using women's studies as a political organizing tool and a jobs program for women to be on the Government payroll.
Areas such as men's health (including MBCP), social statistics (who pays and who gets) evolutionary phychology, and other subjects could be studied with a new vigor.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Damn, I was hoping that the U doesn't have a women's studies program (technically, they don't; but the Center for Gender Studies is basically a women's studies department), but they more or less do; however, they don't offer any kind of degree.
I hope to hell they don't get a Men's Studies program. The U is a place for serious scholarship; and I can't imagine that a Men's Studies program would be any more legit than a Women's Studies program. Or, to put it another way, Women's Studies is junk-academia, and so would a Men's Studies Department. Let the Harvard's, the Michigans, et al have that crap; keep a serious institution pure.
Later,
B
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
"The U" Universe, Unicorn, Unix, etc. What is the U, I hope all the universities and colleges in this country are inundated with request for this. If there is going to be change it will come from our young men and women.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The University of Chicago
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I watched all but the last couple of minutes of the video. I got to the part where the reporter is asking "Isn't it hard-wired for men to be providers?"
I would have responded: When's the last time you threw a spear to catch your dinner?
This is the 21st century. People don't hunt for dinner anymore.
If men can be made to adapt when it helps women and children, is it so outlandish to expect men to adapt to help themselves?
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
"""I think that men have a core need to be needed"""
WTF is that woman talking about? ALL humans have a core need to be needed. Not just men. Is she serious???
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
lets get to the point....men only groups...if they exist anymore...are sexist....women only...is not only ok its promoted....liberal democrats love political correctness....thye don't care as much about facts, fairness, or the truth....they love affirmative action....women are too over protected in this country....from the govt, criminal and divorce courts,education, health care.....why should women have 30 women only colleges and men have 3....
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Danny says "If there is one thing I've noticed from feminists its that they love to tell men to do things themselves and dont expect feminsm to do them for them. Well guess what these folks have decided to put up and not shut up."
Good point. Often whenever someone points something out such as men being less served in some area compared to women, the stock response is 'well, women have put the effort into organising to do these things for themselves, men will just have to do the same'.
No surprises. When men finally do begin to organise, much the same folks shriek 'evil, misogynistic, how dare you!'.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Danny says
"The [men's] group is just forming and some feminists are already trying to attack it by crying racism "
Yes, and it's interesting in light of the fact that the suffragists were elite white women racists.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Matt's post (32) brings up a good point. Much of what feminists construe as male patriarchy is really nothing more than classism which they deceitfully confabulate into sexism. The white male offers a convenient scapegoat.
Only the upper classes are really free to do what they want to do when they want to do it because they control the wealth of the country. Those upper classes have always included men of color and women.
For ALL the rest of us, we must work for our living at the pleasure of the (corporate) upper class. In other words we are employed when our work will enrich the upper class by engaging our labor. Yes, many of us are paid well for our work and enjoy comforts from our labor, but many are not, irrespective of race or gender.
We are not free to do what we may want to do at any time we want because of the demands of our jobs. Many men and women are the sole providers for their families so the burden of providing falls on them. How can feminists can construe this to be male privilege let alone patriarchy is beyond reason and should be blatantly exposed.