Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: dr e on Jan 20, 2005, 11:26 AM

Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 20, 2005, 11:26 AM
Here's a clip from Glenn Sacks site about his upcoming show.  This is the sort of thing we are  up against.  

http://www.glennsacks.com/

Quote
January 23, 2005
Is the Men's Movement Misogynistic?

According to Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D., < [email protected] >  a member of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (http://www.nomas.org/sys-tmpl/faqaboutus/), the emerging men's rights movement is a reactionary expression of deep-seated societal misogyny and homophobia.

According to Dr. Schwyzer, talk show host/columnist Glenn Sacks is part of the problem--a "purveyor of a victim mentality for men" who "masks men's own responsibility" for their problems and who "lashes out at those, such as feminists, who call men to accountability for their actions." Schwyzer also labels Sacks a "denier of male privilege," adding "just because a group doesn't feel privileged doesn't mean that they aren't."
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: D on Jan 20, 2005, 11:37 AM
Hopefully Glen Sacks will invite the Doctor Hugo Schwyzer onto his show for a spirited debate.

And on that note, I suggest for Doctor Evil that you go onto Glen Sacks show for an interview either via phone or in studio.  

Glen should be interviewing others and it's a good way to promote this site an other message sites.

The topic could be "Why are so many of these sites popping up?"  "What types of men are hosting them and what is their real objective."

Then Glen can list a dozen or more sites like this.  Glen should make more activists famous for the sake of fame.  

My input.  I hope it was constructive.

All one has to do is email Sacks with the idea.  Up for it, Evil?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 20, 2005, 12:04 PM
Homophobic?

Interesting. This from the movement promoting rhetoric that is eroding away the very thing it is *supposedly* trying to protect.

The more the feminists shine a spotlight on the nonsense word "gay" the less actual male same-sex sexual behavior there is and the more women have a strangle-hold over the affections of men.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 20, 2005, 12:50 PM
Dan - Doctor Hugo is the scheduled guest for the next show this sunday night.  It should be a doozy!

E
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: napnip on Jan 20, 2005, 01:04 PM
Well seeing as I have all this "male privilege" and power at my fingertips, I think I'll just get in touch with Selective Service and order them to destroy my registration which I completed when I was 18.

Oh yes, and I think I'll go hunt down the doctor that butchered my penis when I was a baby and force that person to reconstruct my foreskin.  After all, I have privilege and power, so making this person correct the butchery should be no problem, right?

And lets not forget all those DV shelters which deny access to men.  I guess I will have to use some of my incredible male privilege and power and force them to open their doors to men.  I mean, they can't refuse since they're weaklings with no power and I'm Mr. Macho oozing with oppressive testosterone.

And how could I possibly overlook prostate cancer?  I think I'll get in touch with all those politicians who pass laws which fund breast cancer research and order them to put more money into prostate cancer research!  How can they possibly refuse?  I have all this male power!  Everyone must bow to me and do as I say!

And while I'm at it, maybe I should make Kim Gandy of the N.O.W. cook my supper tonight!  I mean, since I have all the power, she can't say no, right?  Right?  I'm thinking lasagna tonight.

And speaking of Gandy and all those other rich feminists, I think I'll redistribute their wealth to me.  After all, we can't have women making more than men, can we?  And hey, since I have all the power and privilege, I'm in a position to do it, right?

Right?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: daksdaddy on Jan 20, 2005, 02:01 PM
Didn't all of the historical patriarcical oppressors have wives and daughters?

Don't most current patriarcical oppressors have wives and daughters?

Most plantation slave owners had wives and daughters too. Didn't they?

HugoBoy. What books has this guy been reading?

"This is what we're up against" Indeed. It's nothing more than creative factual displacement, (LIES) supported by more lies.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 20, 2005, 02:49 PM
Haha!  Good find Doctor.  Hugo is a very feminized male, who has admitted being afraid of men, and has admitted to always preferring hanging out in groups of women as they made him feel less 'intimidated' than groups of men.  

Therefore, by his own admission, he is suffering from 'male-phobia'.  He is also a women's studies professor, and one of the most puerile specimens I have come across to date.

He is also of dubious character, as he hangs around many teenage girl's blogs, and is to be found constantly relating his many stories of love and angst.  I don't know about you, but I find something odd about a mid thirties gender professor relating his love life to impressionable teenage girls, especially as he often acts as a feminist 'mentor' to these girls in a student/teacher type of way.

However, the men's movement holds out hope that he will one day be able to recover his testicles from the feminist administration's metaphorical purse, and will learn to accept his maleness without stigma.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 20, 2005, 03:30 PM
From his own site:

"About 1998, it finally hit home to me that much of my academic interest in women's studies was rooted in my own fear and dislike of my fellow men. I liked being in classrooms (as a student or as a professor) where I was often literally the only man in the room -- I felt safe. "
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Assault on Jan 20, 2005, 03:33 PM
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
He is also of dubious character, as he hangs around many teenage girl's blogs, and is to be found constantly relating his many stories of love and angst.  I don't know about you, but I find something odd about a mid thirties gender professor relating his love life to impressionable teenage girls, especially as he often acts as a feminist 'mentor' to these girls in a student/teacher type of way.



What you describe sounds like a man about to dabble in pedophilia. This is what the predators at my work do. They befriend and hang out with teens in hopes of gaining thier trust. :shock:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 20, 2005, 03:59 PM
:evil:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: daksdaddy on Jan 20, 2005, 04:01 PM
If the man had Children, That pic would be endearing.

As is It's "FUCKIN SCARY"
Title: Invisible Unicorns
Post by: Davie_boy on Jan 20, 2005, 04:50 PM
Arguing for/against the Patriarchy seems to be similar to the idea of debating the existence of invisible unicorns or ghosts or even God for that matter. The burden of proof is upon the faithful.

Maureen Dowd may be right in this man's case - he just needs a mommy.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 20, 2005, 05:09 PM
If anyone wants to offer suggestions for Glenn about possible questions or how to handle Dr Hugo on his show this sunday just post them on this thread and I will make sure Glenn sees them.

We might dig up that female privilege checklist that was posted here a while back?

E
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 20, 2005, 05:14 PM
Oh, I am calling in.

Too good to resist.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 20, 2005, 05:33 PM
I smell a real whack-job in this Dr. Hugo character.

On his web site, he describes himself this way --

Quote
The assorted musings of Hugo Schwyzer: a progressive, consistent-life ethic Anabaptist/Episcopalian Democrat (but with a sense of humor), a community college history and gender studies professor, an avid marathoner, aspiring ultra-runner, die-hard political junkie, and proud father of a small chinchilla...


The alleged documentation about this fellow's Internet penchant for chat rooms with teenaged girls needs to be sent to Glenn Sacks ASAP!

Here are a couple excerpts from Hugo's site, which can be linked from HisSide.com. (or see link at bottom of page)

Quote
Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists.  Just as racists in the Old South divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminazis" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.)  

To say one likes individual women, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misogyny.   Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups.  To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
Misogyny is also institutionalized in our society.  

Perhaps it is my Christian faith informing my feminism, but I am convinced that pornography is the representative art form of a woman-hating culture.  In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own.  To see anyone as existing only to serve you and to fulfill you is, feminists have argued, a practical form of hatred.

  Relatively few men who use porn are conscious of hating women.  But regular use of porn inevitably desensitizes the viewer to the humanity and dignity of all of the women with whom he interacts.  It defies all we know about human psychology to say that a fellow can go from masturbating to images on his TV or computer screen into interactions with real women without objectifiying them.

Let's be clear here.  Most folks, if they are really honest about it, go through periods of their lives where they experience (with varying degrees of intensity) authentic dislike for the other sex.  Many will go through periods where they also dislike their own.  

( Self-loathing among young women is famous -- if I had a dollar for every young woman I've worked with who's said "All my good friends are guys" or "Girls are too competitive, I don't like them" I'd have enough money to pay for a sweet honeymoon!)  

Most of us take our own personal negative experiences and, at least for a while, allow them to make us fundamentally suspicious of (and perhaps openly hostile to) the other sex.  This is one form of genuine misogyny -- or, yes, misandry.

We are eager to evade personal responsibility.  An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews.  I just think that they have too much influence in our culture."  A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan.  But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that."  

Surely we'd all agree that these are examples of bigotry?  Similarly,  a man can say "I don't hate women.  I love women.  But I think that feminists are out to control and manipulate us."  
That's misogyny too...

......

While the men's rights movement sees organized feminism as its adversary, pro-feminist men see feminist women as our allies.  

Pro-feminist men don't ask women to do for us what we can do for ourselves (such as tell us how to feel, or motivate us to transform); nor are we interested in taking leadership roles in the women's movement.  Rather, we work in solidarity with each other, honoring our differences as well as our common goal.

I got involved in the men's movement out of a sense of frustration with the superficial nature of most of my relationships with men. (See my "popular posts" sidebar for earlier posts on men.)  I also came to the men's movement out of a sense of righteous pro-feminist anger.  

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't like other men when I was younger.  But doing men's work led me to love and cherish other men -- without becoming hostile towards women.



http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/defining_misogy.html
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: CaptDMO on Jan 20, 2005, 06:51 PM
Oh brother-Nikki Craft (http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/ohBROTHER/index.html)
Feminist site that  may have some insight to  the world of Prof. Schwyzer.
*sigh*In My Humble Opinion-worth a look.

A look at his links may also provide insight to where he's at. The usual suspects.

It's just as easy to consider his site another feminist site that has an unusual agenda.

That's all the free print I care to give!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: angryharry on Jan 20, 2005, 08:07 PM
Well. Looking on the bright side. This effeminate 'softie' might well have given Glenn Sacks some much needed publicity.

Indeed, the amount of publicity that he has generated will directly reflect the amount of influence that he has.

Hurrah for Hugo!

:-)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: neonsamurai on Jan 21, 2005, 02:28 AM
I'm not sure if this guy has even had a debate with an MRA. Admittedly I've only seen what's written here, but there's so many holes in his arguments:

Quote
Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists. Just as racists in the Old South divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminazis" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.)


Firstly, he's doing the very thing that he's accusing us of doing. To him there are 'good men' (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad female behaviour) and 'MRAs' (men who demand accountability from women and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.)

Quote
To say one likes individual women, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misogyny. Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups. To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
Misogyny is also institutionalized in our society.


But he's just isolated us as a group. He likes good men but hates MRAs, so he's just as blinkered to what he's doing as he claims racists and bigots are.

Quote
Perhaps it is my Christian faith informing my feminism, but I am convinced that pornography is the representative art form of a woman-hating culture. In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own. To see anyone as existing only to serve you and to fulfill you is, feminists have argued, a practical form of hatred.


So if magazines dedicated to male pornography, or aimed at gay men existed, wouldn't that indicate that our culture also hated men? If a gay man looks at gay porn, who does he hate? To try and isolate the need for pornographic images as a hetrosexual male only pursuit, he has missed half of the picture.

Quote
Relatively few men who use porn are conscious of hating women. But regular use of porn inevitably desensitizes the viewer to the humanity and dignity of all of the women with whom he interacts. It defies all we know about human psychology to say that a fellow can go from masturbating to images on his TV or computer screen into interactions with real women without objectifiying them.


Yes, but I don't hear him (or the feminists) complaining about gay porn. Again they have used an argument that hits only at the specific part of the population they dislike. Are they suggestion that after hetro porn has been abolished they will go after gay porn? Why not go for gay porn first? Oh yeah. That would discriminate.

Quote
Let's be clear here. Most folks, if they are really honest about it, go through periods of their lives where they experience (with varying degrees of intensity) authentic dislike for the other sex. Many will go through periods where they also dislike their own.


Proving what? At some time we all hate everybody? This is bearing in mind that women don't look at pornography, yet they still find it in themselves to hate men?

Quote
( Self-loathing among young women is famous -- if I had a dollar for every young woman I've worked with who's said "All my good friends are guys" or "Girls are too competitive, I don't like them" I'd have enough money to pay for a sweet honeymoon!)


I hope that Dr Hugo then pointed out to them that such statements are biggoted. But how is 'I hate x' self loathing? Isn't the ultimate form of self loathing suicide?

Quote
Most of us take our own personal negative experiences and, at least for a while, allow them to make us fundamentally suspicious of (and perhaps openly hostile to) the other sex. This is one form of genuine misogyny -- or, yes, misandry.


Thank you Dr Hugo. But feminists don't do this do they? Which is one of the main points we try to make. Like a typical feminazi stooge he believes that God could also be a woman, but the Devil, oh no he's a man. No question.

Quote
We are eager to evade personal responsibility. An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews. I just think that they have too much influence in our culture." A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan. But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that."


"Oh I don't hate Steve -- My boss hates Steve. I just think Steve has too much influence in office politics."

"Oh I don't agree with the Feminists. But if my daughter brought home an MRA, well I'd be pretty unhappy about that."

Quote
While the men's rights movement sees organized feminism as its adversary, pro-feminist men see feminist women as our allies.


And how many of us here supported feminism when it first arrived? Equality? That sounded good. Trouble is too many feminists read 'Animal Farm' and found themselves to be more equal.

Quote
Pro-feminist men don't ask women to do for us what we can do for ourselves (such as tell us how to feel, or motivate us to transform);


Yeah. None of us ask for that. It just 'happens'.

Quote
nor are we interested in taking leadership roles in the women's movement.


I wonder why they don't want a man as the head of NOW?

Quote
Rather, we work in solidarity with each other, honoring our differences as well as our common goal.


This is the usual 'we celebrate diversity BS' that I get at work. It's very one sided.

Quote
I got involved in the men's movement out of a sense of frustration with the superficial nature of most of my relationships with men. (See my "popular posts" sidebar for earlier posts on men.) I also came to the men's movement out of a sense of righteous pro-feminist anger.


"I don't hate other men -- Feminists hate other men. I just think their relationships are superficial."

Quote
I'll be the first to admit, I didn't like other men when I was younger. But doing men's work led me to love and cherish other men -- without becoming hostile towards women.


Except MRA's. I'd ask Dr Hugo, how it is he's able to call the men's movement misogynistic and love all men, but we (or maybe Glenn) is able to call feminists misandrists and is a sexist?

Ah! Whatever!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: D on Jan 21, 2005, 08:29 AM
Quote from: "angryharry"
Well. Looking on the bright side. This effeminate 'softie' might well have given Glenn Sacks some much needed publicity.

Indeed, the amount of publicity that he has generated will directly reflect the amount of influence that he has.

Hurrah for Hugo!

:-)



They kind of have no choice now.  They have to go on the attack.

I bet you a box of donuts this Hugo guy is related to the international banking cartel in someway.  ie the Rockefellers, Rothchilds or some government agency that financially benifits in someway and is threatened by the men's movement.  The cash cow of the bureaucrates are at stake here.

If not he is simply a capitalist looking to score some quick dollar points on the publicity himself.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: HarryPawedHer on Jan 21, 2005, 10:01 AM
Quote

We are eager to evade personal responsibility.  An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews.  I just think that they have too much influence in our culture."  A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan.  But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that."  


I'm half black.  I hate racists.  Some white people choose to be racist.  Therefore I must hate all white people.

How does your own logic taste, fool?  I hope you choke.

I hate golf.  Therefore, if anyone on this board likes golf, I'd just like you to know that I hate you (according to this guy).
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jan 22, 2005, 01:55 AM
It wouldnt surprise me to learn that Hugo and "Mrniceguy" are one and the same.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 22, 2005, 05:16 AM
Quote
It wouldnt surprise me to learn that Hugo and "Mrniceguy" are one and the same.


I agree, but sadly there are millions of these types.  Most with the remarkable distinction of not having separated from mommy.  If they were in the Jack and the Beanstalk story they would have yet to have their beans thrown out the window if you know what I mean.  They are still addicted to pleasing women.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Steve on Jan 22, 2005, 03:44 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I agree, but sadly there are millions of these types. ... They are still addicted to pleasing women.

Indeed, Dr. E!

Perhaps even more sad is that the addiction causes such men to hate themselves and other men.
Title: What's in that man's head?
Post by: rantmeister on Jan 22, 2005, 06:41 PM
Quote
But regular use of porn inevitably desensitizes the viewer to the humanity and dignity of all of the women with whom he interacts.


So I guess occasional use of porn is OK? And does fucking your wife on a regular basis desensitize you the humanity and dignity of all women?

Quote
It defies all we know about human psychology to say that a fellow can go from masturbating to images on his TV or computer screen into interactions with real women without objectifiying them.


I wonder what goes on in Dr. Hugo's head when he's choking the chicken? Are the hot babes that star his own fantasies more pure than those found on computer screens? What exactly pushes him over the edge? And where do those sexual images in his head come from anyway? If not porn, then he must engage in a bit of "objectifying" of the real women he interacts with. Or is he saying he doesn't engage in such degrading self exploitation at all? If that's the case, this tirade against his own gender is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: HarryPawedHer on Jan 22, 2005, 06:50 PM
We don't know anything about human psychology.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 22, 2005, 07:11 PM
Quote
Dr. E. observed -- I agree, but sadly there are millions of these types. Most with the remarkable distinction of not having separated from mommy. If they were in the Jack and the Beanstalk story they would have yet to have their beans thrown out the window if you know what I mean. They are still addicted to pleasing women.


Agreed. And, where is this addiction formed?

I know this not an original or especially insightful thought, but since the feminists always come down on the side of "nurture" in the nature (inherent biological tendencies) vs. nurture (social-construction of gender) debate, how come they conveniently forget who men's primary nurturing identity-constructors are?

I.E. - mothers, day-care providers, and elementary school teachers... all approximately 90% women! (Excepting mothers, who still somehow confound social constructivism with a 100% ratio.)

Logically, if one accepts the premise of an Evil Patriarchy that socially conditions men to believe in their inherent right of "power and control" over women (thanks, Duluth Model), then it's impossible to escape the conclusion that mothers, day-care providers, and elementary school teachers are the primary carriers and indoctrinators of male privilege!

Or maybe it's a reverse psychology phenomenon. After a typical decade plus under the thrall of a matriachal/feminist system, perhaps there's something "innate" in the male species that rebels against such an unnatural conditioning regime?

Is it possible that the feminists' hostility to motherhood is a subconcious recognition that their enemy lies within? Nah... they threw out Freud along with the baby's bathwater long ago.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 22, 2005, 07:44 PM
You are right Roy, the fems are long on rights and short on responsibiltiy.  We can't hold our breaths waiting for them to examine their side of things.  It's a one way valve, men have responsibilities and women have rights.

The origin of the "pleasing women" thing is interesting.  Surely some of it is nurture and women driven but there is another part that is physical and related to the boys having been a part of the mothers body and slowly learns that he is a separate being.  His ride is much bumpier than his sisters.  He goes through his first separation from mom at about age 3 or so when mom keeps him from touching her breasts and genitals and disallows him in the bathroom with her.  This is a blow for the little guy and he sees his sister not having to play by the same rules.  So pleasing mom starts to take on more importance as does his corresponding necessary interest in independence.  These patterns get locked in and unless the boy learns alternative modes of relating to women he is sunk in the world of pleasing and appeasing.  Usually in late adolescence the boy finds a way to break away from mom, often in an actual fist fight or a pushing match of some sort where both he and mom wake up to what is happening.  Sadly in our culture this awakening is becoming more and more rare with fathers being less available and men in general being more scarce in the family.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 22, 2005, 08:12 PM
Something else about Ms. Hugo Swartz.  He seems to think his feminism is a 'mission from God'.  Talk about your atypical messianic delusions.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 22, 2005, 08:33 PM
Quote
Dr. E. -- So pleasing mom starts to take on more importance as does his corresponding necessary interest in independence.


I'd invite you to write more on this topic of boys' maturation. Great insights!

Though you perhaps left out the part about psychologically wanting to kill the father...

Sure, I've read Oedipus too.

Quote
Webster's -- Oedipus Complex: the positive libidinal feelings of a child toward the parent of the opposite sex and hostile or jealous feelings toward the parent of the same sex that may be a source of adult personality disorder when unresolved.


I'm surprised the rad fems have overlooked this male vulnerability.

Or, maybe they haven't?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Thomas on Jan 22, 2005, 09:03 PM
Roy bespoke:
Quote
I'd invite you to write more on this topic of boys' maturation. Great insights!

I agree.

I'd also enjoy your insights into what girls go through at this age. It seems that they also have a tough row to hoe. Granted boys have to accept being cast away from the mother at a very tender age, and they, as a result, develop a strong independence, but it seems that girls (accepting, for the sake of argument, that heterosexuality is at least somewhat natural) have to evolve out of the attraction to and physical love of the mother as their attraction turns to the father and then to males outside of the family.

While boys' journey might lead to more independence, girls journey might lead to an inclination to think outside of the box. I mean, being attracted to members of the other sex? WHOA!

Damn. If we ever decided to work together with our complimentary differences...
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 22, 2005, 09:15 PM
I hate it when I "bespoke."

It's usually just too much flatulence....
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 23, 2005, 02:11 AM
Quote from: "CaptDMO"
Oh brother-Nikki Craft (http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/ohBROTHER/index.html)
Feminist site that  may have some insight to  the world of Prof. Schwyzer.
*sigh*In My Humble Opinion-worth a look.

A look at his links may also provide insight to where he's at. The usual suspects.

It's just as easy to consider his site another feminist site that has an unusual agenda.

That's all the free print I care to give!


Interesting link CaptDMO. Particularly the articles about the 'pro-feminist' mens movement's links to pedophilia:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/ohBROTHER/somuchslime1.html

You certainly have to think twice about people who claim they are on a mission from God to change boys.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jan 23, 2005, 01:09 PM
Dont forget the number;
(http://www.hisside.com/images/hs_call_in_number2.gif)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: D on Jan 23, 2005, 04:00 PM
I seriously doubt there is a "Pro-feminist men's movement"on the go.  I suspect that it is a total manufacturment in order to create the illusion that one exists to get men to join up.

The only male pro feminists I see are the scumbags who design the propaganda schemes to cash in.  Men like Dr. Ellis,  who runs probably about 30 different dv courses and is contracted  by the courts to decide if men are abusive.  

The truth is, if they were holding women accountable for their actions their whole cash-cow scheme would crash right from underneath their feet.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 23, 2005, 04:06 PM
manufacturment?

Did George Bush make that one up?  :wink:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: D on Jan 23, 2005, 05:04 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
manufacturment?

Did George Bush make that one up?  :wink:



LOL!

Hey, Shakspeare made up words too.   :wink:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 23, 2005, 06:21 PM
Glenn's show is on now.  You can hear it live here:

http://www.hisside.com/listen_live.htm
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 23, 2005, 07:03 PM
So, Dr. E.?

What is your take on the just concluded HisSide debate?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jan 23, 2005, 07:26 PM
Its too bad the topic of rape statistics couldnt have gotten into greater depth. Glenn didnt have enough time to fully refute the phony 25% myth.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 23, 2005, 07:50 PM
I only heard 40:00 of the show... will listen to the whole stream on HisSide.com later.

Basically what I came away with from Dr. Hugo is that men can find their redemption from evil masculinity by following, and surrendering to feminists...

Like all "pro-feminist" men, he implicitly hates masculine traits and characteristics, is consumed by his own low self-esteem as a man, and seeks refuge in the false solution that men should become more feminine.

He clearly believes in the feminist credo of the moral superiority of women, and he consistently ignored all evidence of female violence, manipulation, aggression, even a woman's capacity for individual choice.

This guy is women's worst enemy! Far more dangerous than any MRA!

He views women as infantile Goddesses to be worshipped.

It's a shame Dr. Hugo's mother didn't call into the show, as that would have cleared up a lot....
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 23, 2005, 07:56 PM
From what I heard Hugo is a misguided fellow who doesn't seem to like men very much.  He gives women every possible excuse and holds men accountable in every possible manner.  He is teflon coated and was very difficult to pin down.  He judges his own sex with vigor (not himself of course) and villainizes anyone claiming to be an MRA saying that they are homophobic and/or misogynists.  He says women are excused for all of their shortcomings due to their having to deal with all of these evil men.  In short, I think it is clear he is a bigot.

It was a frustrating show to listen to.  

What did you think Roy?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 23, 2005, 08:14 PM
Dr. E., see my post just above. (We're on the same page, though I see this Dr. Hugo dude as obviously dismissive of women...)

I think also that Glenn showed some "fangs," but he let Dr. Hugo off the hook too many times, usually because he had callers cued up.

At no point did Glenn "checkmate" the debate, which could have been accomplished by asking his guest --- "Tell me about your father?"
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: daksdaddy on Jan 23, 2005, 08:16 PM
Wierd.

Hugoboy, In the same response, Said something along the lines of (I believe in personal accountability for everyone including women) then he defended a womans right to blame the patriarchy for their actions.

Does anyone know of a good exhorcist?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 23, 2005, 08:59 PM
Aha,  I see your post.

Yes, I had the urge to call in and simply ask Hugo if he liked men.  The answer would have likely exposed him for what he is.  He does not like men and yet sits in judgement of men who he claims don't like women.  

I do agree with you that he is not a friend to women.  He is only a friend to feminists and sees them as his nipple.  He is basically dependent upon them and feeds off of their energy lacking an integrated stance of his own.

It was also interesting to hear the voice of ampersand.  

We desperately need to frame our issues in ways that can be heard and spoken quickly and effectively.  I think that the show tonight showed our lack of frames for what we are trying to do.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 24, 2005, 01:46 AM
He came across as a conspiracy theorist who ignores reality and could offer no proof of his conspiracy.

Its like he wasn't listening to a word any of the callers were saying (appart from his lisping sycophant who called in), and was just repeating over and over: "Look, I know you all have your experiences, but you don't understand that my job and income rely on me repeating this theoretical construct from the 1970s, and thats more important than reality."

Then another caller would phone in and shove reality in his face, and all he could reply with is:

"Look my lawyers have told me that all I can say is PATRIARCHY! OPPRESSION! MALE PRIVELDGE!"

Someone go and take his chinchillas and lead them to safey, the guy is living in la-la land.

Well done Maus! Plus a great Manpower plug. Our power increases.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FP on Jan 24, 2005, 03:17 AM
Quote from: "HarryPawedHer"
Quote

We are eager to evade personal responsibility.  An anti-Semite can comfort herself by saying, "Oh, I don't hate Jews -- Hitler hated Jews.  I just think that they have too much influence in our culture."  A racist can say: "Oh, I don't agree with the Klan.  But if my daughter brought home a black man, well, I'd be pretty unhappy about that."  


I'm half black.  I hate racists.  Some white people choose to be racist.  Therefore I must hate all white people.

How does your own logic taste, fool?  I hope you choke.

I hate golf.  Therefore, if anyone on this board likes golf, I'd just like you to know that I hate you (according to this guy).


How could you hate golf!?  :lol: (insert joke about why they named it golf..a four letter word)

I found it amusing how after using his logic, Dr. Hugo posted his on his website:

Quote
My very conservative but delightful blog-friend from New Zealand, John, has finally started his own blog, titled (appropriately enough) Home, Throne, and Altar.  We agree on nothing, but I like him immensely.




http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/quick_reaction_.html
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 24, 2005, 04:03 AM
Hugo was tediously predictable, and kept coming up with the same bullshit over and over.  Gah!  My fingers got numb from redialling all the time; I have really got to get a transcript of that show.

I wish someone had managed to pin his ears back and make him define exactly what privilege he kept claiming for men.  The boy don't think on his feet for jack.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 24, 2005, 09:31 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Yes, I had the urge to call in and simply ask Hugo if he liked men.  The answer would have likely exposed him for what he is.  He does not like men and yet sits in judgement of men who he claims don't like women.


Clearly you haven't read Hugo's site much. He's posted multiple times about how essential it is for him to make connections with men, and about how it's necessary for men to work with men and develop relationships with men, and the enourmous pleasure he gets from the men in his life.

Seriously, you could not possibly be more off target.

(If you had asked me, I would have said I like individuals of both sexes, but I don't think it makes sense to say that one "likes" men or women as a class).  

Quote
It was also interesting to hear the voice of ampersand.


Thanks!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 24, 2005, 09:36 AM
Hello Ampersand.  Welcome.

This was taken from his site:

Quote
"About 1998, it finally hit home to me that much of my academic interest in women's studies was rooted in my own fear and dislike of my fellow men. I liked being in classrooms (as a student or as a professor) where I was often literally the only man in the room -- I felt safe. "


Doesn't sound like he likes the men so much now does it?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 24, 2005, 10:00 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Hello Ampersand.  Welcome.

This was taken from his site:

Quote
"About 1998, it finally hit home to me that much of my academic interest in women's studies was rooted in my own fear and dislike of my fellow men. I liked being in classrooms (as a student or as a professor) where I was often literally the only man in the room -- I felt safe. "


Doesn't sound like he likes the men so much now does it?


Wow, talk about taking things out of context!

That quote is from a "before and after" post Hugo wrote. He's talking (in the bit you quote) about the bad old days, before he reformed his thinking about men.

Qutoing only the "before" part of a "before and after" narrative is obviously unfair. You might as well claim that George Bush is a heavy drinker, because if you quote only the "before" part of his "before and after" narrative, he says he drank a lot.

Here's some more quotes from that same post (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/06/men.html), this time talking about his current attitudes:

Quote
In the past six years, my relationships with men have been transformed. [...] I've become convinced that only other men can make men grow. Relationships with women can provide us with healthy challenges. They can inspire us to want to change, but they can't show us how to do it. Our wives, mothers, girlfriends and other women can only share with us what kind of man they would like us to be -- they cannot "role model" that for us. As Robert Bly puts it (and I know he raises some feminist hackles): Women can change the embryo to a boy, but only men can change the boy into a man.

I've made it a point in my life to surround myself today with three kinds of men: older men (my father chief among them, but others as well) to whom I can look for advice and inspiration; men my own age (whose experiences are similar to mine); younger men (teens and early twenties), for whom I can serve -- with luck and by grace -- as a role model. It's a good week if I spend time with all three groups of men.

[...]I am convinced of this: living life surrounded by other men, men who offer encouragement, accountability, and male energy, is an essential part of that healthy life.


I should mention that I don't agree with Hugo; I think that people can learn and role model themselves on people, regardless of sex. Boys become men automatically, with or without male contact (ditto for girls and female contact).

Nonetheless, to describe Hugo as disliking men is ridiculous.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 24, 2005, 10:06 AM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Its like he wasn't listening to a word any of the callers were saying (appart from his lisping sycophant who called in)...


And my lisp is relevant because...?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: jaketk on Jan 24, 2005, 10:26 AM
Well, Hugo contradicted himself on the show. At one point he said women were responsible for their actions, and then turned around (I believe within two sentences) and stated that women abuse children essentially because of the stress caused by the patriarchy. He even went so far as to state that fathers who are absent because they work long hours are part of the blame.

People are either responsible for their actions, of they aren't. There is no, "I'm partially to blame because of X, Y, and Z."
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 24, 2005, 10:31 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
(If you had asked me, I would have said I like individuals of both sexes, but I don't think it makes sense to say that one "likes" men or women as a class).  


It's curious to me how those of us in the Men's Movement are by definition "Misognistic homophobic sexist woman-haters" for our oppositon to feminism, and yet Hugo can hold MRA's in such obvious contempt without being a man-hater.

Sounds to me like a case of having it both ways as it is convenient to his politics - but, what the heck - it's his cognitive dissonance for him to deal with.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 24, 2005, 10:32 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
Its like he wasn't listening to a word any of the callers were saying (appart from his lisping sycophant who called in)...


And my lisp is relevant because...?


Because it identifies who I was talking about. No offence intended. I respect you for at least calling in and agreeing with some of our points. Nevertheless, you are not disagreeing that your a sychophant? LOL

The point is not whether one particular feminist man likes males or not, the point is whether they respect truth and justice. The tsunami of hateful lies and distortions that has been unleashed by the feminist movement over the last 30 years is undeniable, and sickening. Equally, the feminist movement has blocked justice for men, promoting women's **Feelings** above justice. Look at the nasty attacks that Hugo's teenage paramour Ms Buckland posts on her site against Fathers 4 Justice. Don't try and pretend that feminism is the cure. Its the bloody problem.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 24, 2005, 10:37 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "ampersand"
(If you had asked me, I would have said I like individuals of both sexes, but I don't think it makes sense to say that one "likes" men or women as a class).  


It's curious to me how those of us in the Men's Movement are by definition "Misognistic homophobic sexist woman-haters" for our oppositon to feminism, and yet Hugo can hold MRA's in such obvious contempt without being a man-hater.

Sounds to me like a case of having it both ways as it is convenient to his politics - but, what the heck - it's his cognitive dissonance for him to deal with.


Gonzo,
I, like you, have traveled a lot around the MRA movement online, and I don't find homophobia to be widespread at all.

In contrast, feminist women **LOVE** to accuse MRAs of being gay, as an attempt to try and shame us and shut us up.

Therefore there is actually a more valid case for calling the online feminists homophobic than the MRA movement. However, we don't bother using such a petty attack, as we have far better points to attack them on.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 24, 2005, 10:40 AM
Quote from: "jaketk"
Well, Hugo contradicted himself on the show.


He contradicted himself continuously. He judged men and women on different standards. When I get some time I'm going to go through the whole show and write an article on all his contradictions.

The guy has the same relationship with truth as a dog has with a lamp-post!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 24, 2005, 10:52 AM
You are correct that I took that quote out of context.  I only read that slice of things that had been posted on this thread and was unaware of what might have come before or after.  My bad.  I checked it out just a moment ago and here is the entire paragraph:

Quote
Oddly, it was my work teaching women's studies that forced me to work on my relationships with men. About 1998, it finally hit home to me that much of my academic interest in women's studies was rooted in my own fear and dislike of my fellow men. I liked being in classrooms (as a student or as a professor) where I was often literally the only man in the room -- I felt safe. As I did the work of questioning why I felt so safe when men weren't around, I realized to my shock that the judgment of women did not carry as much weight in my life as the judgment of men. In nearly all-female environments, I was at least temporarily free from the fear of being evaluated -- and found wanting -- by other males. It was a hard realization to come to at 31! The great mytho-poetic men's studies guru, Robert Bly, describes the type of guy I was:


He goes on to claim the importance of male friendship, but I can only guess that these male friends of whom he speaks are "special" and therefore are not represented in his globalizations about men being controlling etc.  I don't see anything that negates his statement that he generally dislikes men.  Listening to him last night seemed to verify this.  

What I heard him saying on Glenns show was that men are the root of today's problems and that women and their similar pathologies are resulting from mistreatment from the men.  Making such global statements show a deep prejudice against a birth group.  This is bs in the worst sort of way.  Yes indeed we do have problems in this day and age but no indeed it is not only the fault of men.

Now Amp, a question for you.  Do you like men?  Do you like women?  Do you like one more than the other?  Just curious.

BTW Amp, have you read Warren Farrells new book on the wage gap?   :wink:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 24, 2005, 11:05 AM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"
In contrast, feminist women **LOVE** to accuse MRAs of being gay, as an attempt to try and shame us and shut us up.


Oh, lord, I'm roaring with laughter!  Ain't *THAT* da troot!  And you should see they faces when I look at them smile sweetly, and say, "Hey, asshole - if there isn't anything wrong with being "gay" why are you using it as an insult?"

Then as they stammer, I usually leave with some comment about "projection" and their own sexual identity.

It's a load of fun.  God, I love being the enemy!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 24, 2005, 03:14 PM
Quote from: "Mr Benn"


Gonzo,
I, like you, have traveled a lot around the MRA movement online, and I don't find homophobia to be widespread at all.

In contrast, feminist women **LOVE** to accuse MRAs of being gay, as an attempt to try and shame us and shut us up.

Therefore there is actually a more valid case for calling the online feminists homophobic than the MRA movement. However, we don't bother using such a petty attack, as we have far better points to attack them on.



Indeed Mr. Benn.  I too have noticed that when entering into verbal fisticuffs with feminists, those arguing for truth and justice (i.e. against feminist lies and distortion) are OFTEN accused of being gay.  It is one of the primary shaming weapons feminist women use against straight men.  

How they do not recognize their cognitive dissonance is beyond me.  They use the word gay as an insult to straight men, and equate being gay with hating women (i.e. that is the implication) -- yet they have the audacity to claim they are 'gay-inclusive' and 'pro-gay rights'.

It's quite disturbing, but any perusal of feminist forums where you are actually allowed to state your case will show this to be true.  The argument that feminists are homophobic certainly has more credence than the reverse in my opinion because of this.

Also, as Typhonblue states so eloquently, feminism's support of gay rights for men only goes so far.  The true aim is to pigeon hole gay men into a 'supportive' camp while pitting them against the heterosexual (mostly white) male.

On contrast, I have never seen an MRA group decline membership to a gay man.  I also have not seen MRA's run them out of town on a rail.   The reason I believe their are fewer gay men in the MRA camp is due to the fact that they are more typically of left leanings (i.e. due in large part to feminist ideological 'support' of their issues), and I believe the more conservative elements in the men's movement is what actually puts many a gay man off.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr Benn on Jan 24, 2005, 04:03 PM
Women also call us gay because:

1. Women confuse any criticism of their behaviour with misogyny.

2. Women know that some of the most ruthlessly misogynistic people around are gay men. No-one can cut a woman's ego in half with a bitchy comment so easily as a bitter old queen.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 24, 2005, 07:13 PM
These are verbatim excerpts from Dr. Hugo's appearance on HisSide.

(Typed with two fingers with much anger while listening to the audio stream ...)

Quote
The Esteemed Dr.Hugo spake---

"Those who are in positions of power, use their power to dominate those beneath them..."

"Those who are disempowered are forced to manipulate, in order to get something back for themselves.... Do women manipulate men, you bet they do. But, they manipulate in response to men's power."

"Well, I don't think that any of us in the pro-feminist men's movement are saying that women have everything and men have nothing... we in the pro-feminist movement totally understand that male pain is real ... that men are hurting... but, men have misdiagnosed the cause of that hurt, and you have misprescribed the cure for that pain."

"I think there's no question that women can be competitive, that women can be violent, that women can be self-centered... no one in the pro-feminist movement disputes that."

"Pro-feminist men are men who have learned to distinguish between a culture that has raised them to feel inadequate as men... and the women with whom they are in relationship, and the women in society at large. Pro-feminist men don't blame women as individuals or as a group, for their own pain."


I have transcribed more... part two to follow... but perhaps this is enough to incite some comments?

Assuming you have not yet had an attack of the "vapors," like the esteemed feminist scientist who nearly passed out when the Harvard President suggested that women and men might have interesting differential abilities.

What a shitty culture we enjoy....
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 24, 2005, 07:27 PM
I think it basically speaks for itself.  Hugo lives in a world in which anything men do is an expression of institutionalized power, and anything women do is an affirmation of their victim status in response to male misuse of power.

He is most certainly condecending towards women.  Not an ally I would like, that is, if I truly believed women are rational beings capable of making and being responsible for decisions (which, incidentally, I do).

The idea of female power and responsibility seems like it is simply beyond
the pale to him, an illusive concept with no basis in reality.  However, we can easily show feminine power with a basis in reality.  We can also ask and debate the ways in which he feels an average man as a member of the patriarchy, has ultimate power as contrasted to an average woman.  However, as he has yet to define that, I don't think the answer will be forthcoming.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 24, 2005, 07:44 PM
Quote
S.J. - We can also ask and debate the ways in which he feels an average man as a member of the patriarchy, has ultimate power as contrasted to an average woman.


You have hit upon a very, very critical point.

Which is, the feminists stupid concept of power-as-gender.

They have been dining off this ridiculous notion for forty years.

"ALL MEN ARE BORN INTO POWER?"

Is there anything more transparently idiotic?

It's old, tired, and foolish. (Feminism.)

It's illogic is obvious.

Now, if MRA's can make it "unpopular," it will go away, very quickly.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Steve on Jan 24, 2005, 09:16 PM
I didn't find any surprises in Mr. Schwyzer's comments on Glenn Sacks' radio show.  Instead, he merely repeatedly absolved women from blame for anything.  Schwyzer's claims of "male privilege" are beyond ridiculous; they are absurd.

In his post-show message on his blog, Mr. Schwyzer attributes all kinds of friendly, socially polite behavior to so-called "male privilege."  That's nonsense.  Slapping another man on the back for a job well done is no more than ordinary, friendly behavior that guys engage in.

Women do the same kinds of things with female friends and no one calls that behavior "female privilege."
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 24, 2005, 09:20 PM
After Amp pointed out that I had lifted the Hugo quote out of context I thought I should go and have a look at his blog.  At first I was thinking of leaving a few messages to help bring some alternative viewpoints but then I came to a thread where Typhoneblue had posted:

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/12/wednesday_links.html

What a nice job she did.  She painstakingly offered a reasonable explanation about how men's pain is often overlooked among many other things.  She was immediatetly attacked!  LOL  Called names.  Rather than respond to the content they attack her personhood.  After Typhon said that her post carried a message one said:

Quote
Of *course* there's a message! And the message is, "I'm a very, very confused person! Lookit meeeeee!"


Trying to make her into a narcissistic type and keep those blinders on about the content. :roll:

Then another says:

Quote
Really, how old are you? High school? College freshman studying for your first Sociology final? Fresh from a stint in the Young Republicans? You certainly can't be in B-school.


Notice that none of this is challangeing her statments just going after her person.

Yet another one deflects off things with the men have all the power nonsense.  

Quote
"Typhonblu, even if what you assert is true--and I don't think it is--men are the ones who have the lions' share of the power. The overwhelming majority of our senators and representatives are men. The overwhelming majority of our lawmakers are men. All of our Presidents have been men. The majority of the SC justices are men. The majority of CEO's, Fortune 500 company executives, and F500 company board members are men. The "disposeable sex?" The "uncared for sex?" Please."


Everyone was right on cue!  Rather than have a discussion they preferred to insult and obfuscate.  Typical feminist crap.

Importantly, while all of this is going on Hugo is nowhere to be seen.  How could any loving person read what Typhon wrote and not respond?  He did say something about of course men have pain but they are responsible for it.  LOL!  I guess Hugo is not the Samaritan type.  Forget turning the other cheek, he just turns the other way.   I wonder if there are emergency dv shelters for men where Hugo lives?  Maybe so.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: kal147 on Jan 24, 2005, 09:34 PM
Quote
Importantly, while all of this is going on Hugo is nowhere to be seen. How could any loving person read what Typhon wrote and not respond?


There's your answer Doc.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Steve on Jan 24, 2005, 11:45 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Everyone was right on cue!  Rather than have a discussion they preferred to insult and obfuscate.  Typical feminist crap.

Importantly, while all of this is going on Hugo is nowhere to be seen.


Dr. Evil,

It's for those reasons that I don't comment at Hugo's blog and don't even visit it much.  Hugo doesn't care much for his fellow men.  He's clearly all about kissing up to women and shaming men.

That's his right and his choice, but I don't want to live my life that way.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Jan 25, 2005, 04:16 AM
Hi Ampersand, this is Aegis from ifeminists.com. We meet again!

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Yes, I had the urge to call in and simply ask Hugo if he liked men.  The answer would have likely exposed him for what he is.  He does not like men and yet sits in judgement of men who he claims don't like women.


Clearly you haven't read Hugo's site much. He's posted multiple times about how essential it is for him to make connections with men, and about how it's necessary for men to work with men and develop relationships with men, and the enourmous pleasure he gets from the men in his life.

Seriously, you could not possibly be more off target.


You are correct; many of the criticisms of Hugo in this thread are unfair. Nevertheless, it was unfortunate for him that many of Sack's "straw man" attacks on his position actually weren't far off.

Sacks nailed him on his hypocrisy about issues facing men. Hugo claims to see unfairness towards men in family courts, yet he doesn't protest that unfairness on his site (at least not that I have seen). If he really supports men as much as he claims, then why isn't he protesting injustice against them? I am sure that Hugo believes that he supports men and has empathy for them, but his ideological blinders only allow his support for men to come through a very narrow channel.

Actually, Hugo came dangerously close to blaming men for virtually all marital problems and breakups. Furthermore, he claimed that the male quest for success was due to some kind of "patriarchal homosociality." I'm sure it is true that some males virtually ignore their families in search of success for its own sake. Nevertheless, he ignores the fact that a large amount of work-aholics do it to provide for their families, send their kids to decent schools, and satisfy the criteria for success that many females have. Furthermore, he is ignoring the effects of economic class: I challenge him to go tell minimum wage male workers who struggle to feed their families that the reason they are working so hard is to win the approval of other males.

Most of his analysis of socialization and gender roles is one dimensional at best. For instance, he never gives a satisfying explanation of why homosociality isn't as big an issue for women as it is for men. On a page (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/04/heathers_compro.html) of his blog he claims "young men learn their sexual and romantic behavior from other men, not from women." This is a naive exaggeration. I think it is common for men to ask women for advice on women, and to learn sexual/romantic behavior from friends and mothers. His suggestion that men are more focused on pleasing other men than on pleasing women is absurd. It's been my impression that a lot of men, especially one who identify as "nice guys," will go to unhealthy extremes to please women, yet Hugo ignores this trend.

I don't deny that there is a large culture where guys try to score or get trophy girlfriends to impress their friends. Yet I think he greatly exaggerates the existence of those ideas to fit his theory. I don't object to seeing reality through a theory on principle, because it is something we all do. Nevertheless, the particular theory he has chosen is so one-dimensional that it requires ignoring or contorting a lot of the evidence.

The "game" of "picking up chicks" doesn't just exist because some males like to brag to each other about conquests, but because of very real pressures that men face. First, men are still expected to be mainly the initiators in our culture. It would be a stretch to call this "power"; in fact, as Warren Farrell has pointed out out, it is "shit work." Making the initiatives creates a lot of stress and insecurity. Second, females on average tend to have more extensive criteria for mates than males do (though I am not necessarily judging either sex's criteria). Third, men are usually the ones to be actively rejected in initiating dating/relationships. Fourth, some young men will often get rejected (or get the classic "you are so sweet, but I only see you as a friend) for being too nice and sensitive, and therefore believe that women aren't attracted to guys who are nice and sensitive (though the extent to which their understanding is correct is another question of course).

I argue that the combined pressure from these very real factors are what make men want to find solace in attitudes such as seeing women as a "game." That attitude towards women can be a problem, but it isn't just a product of the "patriarchy," it exists because of various hardships that males face that aren't being accurately examined in the current discourse on gender roles. Female struggles in gender roles such as body image (a legitimate concern) get a lot of attention, yet male difficulties such as getting rejected and having to make all the moves get mainly ignored (or mistakenly painted as examples of male advantage). I believe that if some of these pressures where alleviated or at least recognized, there would be a lot less negative attitudes towards women in society.

Hugo's talk about believing in personal responsibility seemed inconsistent with the actual arguments he was making. He holds males responsible for their negative behavior, but shifts responsibility away from females who behave negatively. The ONLY way Hugo's position makes any kind of sense is if you assume that women have some kind of moral superiority over men.

Please tell me that you are aware of the naivete and double standards in some of Hugo's positions. I'm curious to know whether you are defending him because he is also a pro-feminist man, or because you actually agree with him. If you don't agree with him in some areas, then perhaps you could briefly outline them? I want to avoid the common problem in gender debate where people sacrifice intellectual honesty so they can better ally themselves with some group or another (in fact, the reason I left this board for ifeminists was that after I had done a bit of venting, I realized that I wasn't comfortable with some of the rhetoric here, even though I support many of its causes).

Thoughts?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 05:15 AM
Good to see you Odysseus.  Good post.

The world is not as simple as Hugo would like us to believe.  Thank you for taking the time to point this out in detail.  Things are often complicated with both men and women being responsible for problems.  This reminds me of another beef I have with Hugo, his ideas about men not wanting women to have services!  Where did that come from?  I know many of the men involved in men's rights issues, myself included, were involved in helping women protest and lobby in the 60's and 70's.  I don't see anyone here wanting to take away any dv shelters from women, just want men to have fair treatment and a similar opportunity.  At this point they don't since Hugo's sort of mindset is also running the DV industry and excluding men.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 25, 2005, 06:50 AM
When one says that many of the criticisms leveled at hugo are unfair, I'm reminded of the student who went to his teacher and complained bitterly about the "F" he recieved, and said he thought the grade unfair.  The teacher agreed with him, but apologized, saying it was the lowest he was allowed to hand out.

Glenn really wasn't guilty of straw man type of attacks.  Straw man attacks are mischaracterizations of a position, and attacks against that - Sacks was utilizing the principle of reductio ad absurdium, and making at worst tangerine to oranges comparisons.

Hugo, in many respects, is extremely condescending towards women in his insistance that they aren't responsible for their problems and men must change to rescue them.  Feminists, though, being ideological whores will cheerfully accept such condescension because it results in special privilege enshrined in law.  Witness their muteness on serial philanderer, admitted sexual harasser and adulterer, and accused rapist William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

If there is any value at all in Hugo's vapid posturings, I can't find it; when all is said and done he's just another sad man saying what women want to hear to gain superficial approval from them.  And the feminists who pat him on the head I doubt have any real respect for him beyond their immediate use of him as their token male.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 11:01 AM
I have a theory.

I believe humans evolved visual sex appeal in order to promote a cooperative society while maintaining individuality.

In other animals secondary sex characteristics appear only during fertile times (antlers, genital swellings, phermones, etc.) Among all the species on our planet, humans are the "sexiest". Our earlobes, pointed noses, full lips, female breasts, buttocks, even overlarge penises, are all sexual signals with apparently no purpose since they do not signal fertile periods.

I think their purpose is to generate continual sexual desire within the human tribe, in order to use that desire as a motivator and unifier. In other words, we are ruled by sex appeal.

If that's the case, then desiring someone sexually is the ultimate confirmation of their power and social status. Thus sexual objectification-- supposedly one of the main ways men "oppress" women-- actually maintains women's rulership in our society.*

This would also explain why, when one gender is in power, it seperates the other gender into two main castes-- the sexy and the useful. In the case of Ancient rome, that would be, prostitutes and mothers. In our society, bad boys and nice guys. I believe the effect of this is to create a pleasure caste of the opposite gender whose only bargining chip *is* their sex appeal, thus rendering it useless to effect social change.

This is just one example of how feminists have managed to cast instances of women's power over men, as men oppressing women. The logic is thus:

Obviously slaves *must* be oppressing slave owners, because if slaves didn't exist slave owners wouldn't need whips, chains, slave housing... Thus the slaves are forcing the *slave owners* to do things for them, create things for them and restructure society for them! Slaves should maintain their own slavery, anything else is oppression of slave owners!

Hugo is simply a man who thinks slaves should maintain their own oppression, no input required from the "superior" sex. This is an evolution(devolution) from the traditional man who thinks women *should* do the things that maintain men's slavery.

Same impulse, different degree.

*To me the whole idea is absurd. Sex is the most powerful way to affirm another person's social worth and desirability. Casting sexual desire as "oppression" is possibly the most diabolical and ingenious double blind created by the feminist movement to preserve their traditionalist sister's stranglehold on power. And they would never have been able to accomplish it, if their traditionalist sisters hadn't already set the stage for demonizing men's sexuality.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 11:38 AM
The other thing I wanted to comment upon is homosociality.

When a society marginalizes a gender's homosexual behaviors, that gender's *homosocial* behaviors also become collateral damage. Simply, men's friendships are being destroyed by society's desire to lable men gay or straight.

Because women's homosexual behaviors are not marginalized--in fact they are main-stream and framed as desirable--their homosocial relationships continue to be robust and healthy.

For instance, there is a new drive among marketers -- something I'm sure you all have noticed -- to use women's friendships to market products. I've seen a plethora of ads with that theme over the last few years. The only ads I've seen that do the same for men's friendships tend to mock and belittle them.

I've also done an informal survey of men's and women's magazines. I judged homosocial/sexual content by the visual implication that a same-sex model was within the viewer's personal space(the viewer was presumably female for women's magazines, male for mens), the presence or absence of a smile or other come hither gesture, and the model's general demenor. The homosocial and homosexual content of women's magazines so far surpasses men's, it's not even funny. Every time a same-sex model was within the personal space of a male viewer, he was screaming, brandishing a weapon, grimacing or looking threatening. The only, *only* time, this wasn't the case was a young, well built man, pictured from the lips down and presented as, well, a powerless peice of meat. In contrast almost all of the homosocial pictures in women's magazines, had the female model smiling, or seductively glancing at the woman viewer. The female model appeared pleasant, friendly and approachable, and was never presented as a peice of meat, rather as a person one would have a relationship of equals with.

This survey suggests to me that female same sex relationships are far more encouraged and promoted in society then male. Thus any talk about homosocial relationships generating social realities should revolve around women's homosocial relationships. Rather then men's homosocial relationships, which are obviously under attack by society, both indirectly through homophobia and directly through social mores, and are barely surviving, much less influencing society on a large scale.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 25, 2005, 11:53 AM
Hugo is simply brainwashed from theory.  Pound a square peg into a round hole and don't worry about the little corners.  The theory says "round hole", so it's going to be a round hole.  He doesn't even have his schtick down good, because he's always coming back with "You bet" or the like (but his caveat) without even really hearing what was said.  Easy marketing tactics - smooth as a snake-oil salesman, but you have to wonder why he is so motivated to sell the snake oil of feminism.

Typhonblue sounds observant - and smart - as always.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 06:09 PM
Hey, Aegis/Odysseus. Nice to see you again.

Quote from: "Odysseus"
Sacks nailed him on his hypocrisy about issues facing men. Hugo claims to see unfairness towards men in family courts, yet he doesn't protest that unfairness on his site (at least not that I have seen). If he really supports men as much as he claims, then why isn't he protesting injustice against them?


If you really support men as much as you claim, then why aren't you out there doing volunteer work with adolescent boys, as Hugo does?

Now, whether or not you do volunteer work with boys (I have no idea if you do), I'm sure you'll agree that my question - and the implicit argument - was illogical. There are a thousand potential ways of supporting men aside from doing volunteer work with boys - and, for that matter, aside from writing about an issue on the internet.

So that's your first logical error: assuming that you can reasonably judge Hugo's belief, or lack of belief, in an issue by looking about what he writes about on the internet. It may be that Hugo expresses his caring about men in other ways than writing about court discrimination on the internet; that doesn't make Hugo a liar or hypocrite, because the criteria you bring up is not the only possible way for Hugo to express caring about men.

Secondly, there are approximately a billion jillion worthwhile causes in the world, and no one has time to be interested in all of them. If it turns out that a particular men's rights activist never writes about, say, international sex trafficking, does that mean that I'm justified in calling him a liar if he says he's against international sex trafficking? I don't think so; it's unrealistic to expect that people will write about every issue they have an opinion about, or that if they choose to write about issues other than "X" we can conclude that they don't care at all about "X."

Quote
For instance, he never gives a satisfying explanation of why homosociality isn't as big an issue for women as it is for men.


Where, exactly, has Hugo explicitly said it's a bigger issue for men? You might choose to infer that from some things he's said, but that's your inference, not Hugo's. As far as I can tell.

Nothing in Hugo's views requires homosociality to be a bigger issue for men than for women. However, in a discussion of men (Glenn's show was explicitly about men, and on the whole Hugo's intellectual interests seem to me more focused on men than women), I think it's reasonable for Hugo to focus on homosociality among men in particular.

You go on about how Hugo doesn't support his idea that boys and men look to other boys and men for role models of how men should behave (hardly a controversial view, by the way!), and then you state that men in fact look to women to know how to behave - but you don't provide a speck of evidence to support your view. Okay, you've established that you and Hugo have different opinions about that matter - but you certainly haven't given me any evidence or logical argumentation to suggest that your view has any more validity than Hugo's.

Anecdotally (and, in the end, anecdotes are all we have when discussing this particular issue), I think both you and Hugo are correct, because there's such a wide range of personalities among boys and men that both of you could correctly point to individual people who seem to prove your point. There are, indeed, some "nice guys" who look to women to validate their self-perception of "nice guyness," as you say. (I don't think Hugo would deny this, by the way.) There are also boys and men who look to other boys and men to validate their sense of masculinity, as Hugo says.

(We could make this a lot more complex by pointing out that what many people really measure themselves against is not what women or men actually say, but what they imagine women or men would actually say were they to give an opinion. For example, some men judge their actions by imagining what their father would say about it - even when their father is absent or long dead. Actually, I think most of us operate this way, to some extent.)

For myself, my concern is that, in environments where men feel the most pressure to prove to other men that they are masculine - frat houses, prisons, sports teams - a higher proportion of men seem to commit rape. So, although I might not agree entirely with Hugo's analysis, I strongly approve of the work he does to try and find and model other kinds of masculinity, in which men don't have to have new sexual conquests in order to validate their masculinity. And I see the work Hugo does as more useful than the "men don't have to change, it's just society and women who need to change" approach of most MRAs.

I'm not going to respond to everything in your post, since I have limited time, and Hugo is more than capable of defending his views himself.

Quote
I'm curious to know whether you are defending him because he is also a pro-feminist man, or because you actually agree with him. If you don't agree with him in some areas, then perhaps you could briefly outline them?


I'm defending Hugo because the assaults on his character here seem unfair, and because I know him in an internet-y sort of way and think of him as a nice guy. (In contrast, you've been mainly assaulting his views rather than his character, which - even when I think you're mistaken - strikes me as much less objectionable).

Since you asked: My biggest disagreement with Hugo is over abortion - Hugo's pro-life (in the sense of wanting abortion banned), I'm pro-choice.

I also strongly disagree with some of Hugo's views on masculinity. Hugo believes that (to paraphrase a Robert Bly quote Hugo agrees with) "only men can turn a boy into a man." I think that's wrongheaded; boys become men automatically, by virtue of living long enough. It is, I think, this conception of "manhood" as something that has to be attained - and that might not be attained if one is wrongly gender-socialized - that leads some men to try and prove their masculinity in destructive ways.

Put another way, Hugo wants to see cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity reformed, whereas I want to see them eliminated.

There are other areas of disagreement, but those are the two major ones, in my opinion. Of course, Hugo might disagree. :-P
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 25, 2005, 06:31 PM
I don't mean to intrude, but I wanted to bring up the point that two people (or a person) with feminist viewpoints could easily bring up a topic on an "anti-feminist" board without a problem.  You don't seem to see that as an issue, but it's pretty much standard on the Internet, Ampersand.  And why is that?

I'm really curious as to why most feminists just kind of fade away (in the face of arguments?), whereas anti-feminists have to be banned - on the MS Boards, for example.

Anyway - answer at your leisure and carry on with the conversation.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 06:59 PM
Ampersand said:

Quote
And I see the work Hugo does as more useful than the "men don't have to change, it's just society and women who need to change" approach of most MRAs.


Is this your idea of what MRA's are?  I'd be curious to hear some reasons for thinking such a thing.  It doesn't apply in the least to the men and women I know who are working for men's rights.  Seems like another way to try and shame the men who are pointing out that there is discrimination against them.   Pointing out discrimination is a separate issue from whether one needs to change.  We all need to change and transform but we don't all live under laws that discriminate against us.  Imagine your saying to blacks in the 60's who were pointing out discriminatory practices against them that you didn't really think much of them since they didn't really want to change, they only wanted others to change.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Nickle on Jan 25, 2005, 07:01 PM
Claiming men seek attractive women as mates or work like a maniac to succeed in their career simply to get a reaction from other men is just fucking stupid.

If I have to choose between woman A, who is not playboy material but I am attracted to her so I don't really care what she looks like, and woman B who's super hot but I'm not attracted to her I'm not going to pick woman B simply to see the look on Joe's face.

Or, am I wrong? Are you guys happy with my post? If not, I'll change it because I need your approval and validation. Thanks.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 07:23 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
I don't mean to intrude, but I wanted to bring up the point that two people (or a person) with feminist viewpoints could easily bring up a topic on an "anti-feminist" board without a problem.  You don't seem to see that as an issue, but it's pretty much standard on the Internet, Ampersand.  And why is that?


Because I'm not abusive to anti-feminists - on the contrary, I'm very polite - and I don't come here with a dozen or two of my friends and try to dominate every single thread with rude attacks.

You mentioned Ms. Did you read the NOW boards? It was virtually impossible for feminists to discuss feminism with each other there, because every thread included anti-feminists who would reply to every feminist post by arguing thatl feminists are "feminazis" and "man-haters" and "morons." Heck, on the first page of this thread a couple of your tolorant, open-minded members here speculate about Hugo being a pedophile, which is possibly the most disgusting thing I've seen anyone say all year. Did anyone here object?

Is every anti-feminist and MRA like that? No, of course not. But enough were to make genuine conversation between feminists impossible on the NOW boards. It is because they banned anti-feminists that the Ms boards were (before they fell apart due to feminist infighting) a place where I could go and have productive, interesting discussions - and strong disagreements - with other feminists. Quite often about issues that anti-feminists aren't interested in. (How many people here genuinely care about Catherine MacKinnon's essays on race and feminism? None of you, I'd bet. But I care, and I'd like to be able to discuss it without having people who haven't even read the essays in question respond to my posts by saying I'm a stupid feminazi who hates men and can't think for himself.)

Many decades ago, the Supreme Court said that newspapers had a first amendment right not only to publish, but to choose what NOT to publish. They were right - the ability to choose a newspaper's (or website's) focus is an essential ingredient of free speech. (I'm not assuming you disagree with that). And it's not an abuse of free speech for Ms to take advantage of that.

Look, let's imagine, for a moment, that there are only two feminist discussion boards on the internet: NOW and Ms. Let's examine two possible worlds:

WORLD 1: Both Ms and NOW have identical policies of allowing anti-feminists to post as much as they want. The result: The two boards are very much the same, and feature pretty much the same arguments. On neither board is it possible for feminists to have a respectful discussion among themselves without being called morons, feminazis, etc..

WORLD 2: Ms. bans anti-feminists, whereas NOW allows anti-feminists. The result: If I want to go to Ms and discuss Katha Pollitt's essay about difference feminists versus other feminists and what feminists think about that, without being yelled at for being a feminazi, I can. At the same time, anti-feminists and feminists who WANT to argue with each other have the NOW boards available.

In which world is there more substantive freedom for people to have the kind of discussion they want to? I'd say, World 2.

Most anti-feminists and MRAs are keenly aware of feminism (albeit in a haven't-bothered-to-read-most-of-the-major-writers sort of way), and have a relatively high interest in trying to argue with feminists. That's fine, but it means that when a men's rights group or internet site discovers that a feminist board is open to discussion from men's righters, that feminist board quickly becomes dominated by feminist/anti-feminist debate.

In contrast, most feminists have never heard of MRAs, have no idea who Warren Farrell or even Christina Hoff Sommers is, and are no more interested in debating MRAs than they are in debating - oh, I dunno - farmers' advocacy associations. Feminists like me, who pay attention to MRAs even though they don't have to, are a tiny minority. As a result, MRA sites can safely open their doors to feminists, because doing so won't mean that they'll lose the ability to discuss the things they want to discuss.

* * *

An anecdotal point: Over on ifeminists, they've just created a new, private area of the BBoard, which I've been banned from (or, rather, refused admittance to). I haven't been banned from it because I'm not a civil poster; I've been banned (I assume) because they'd rather not allow a feminist who critiques Wendy's views into their private area.

That's their right, of course, and I think they should exclude me, if it means they'll enjoy their site more. But it rather puts a damper on the idea that anti-feminists don't ever ban opposing views. (I was also banned from the Yahoo antifeminist discussion group, but that was years ago - I don't even know if that discussion board still exists).

* * *

More relevant to this website, I know from long, long experience that if I stick around on "stand your ground," I'll have to deal with people calling me a moron, brainwashed, a feminazi, etc. In general, most posters here will treat me with no respect. There will be exceptions - such as your post - but they will be just that, exceptions. After a while, I won't want to deal with it, so I'll fade away.

Make of that what you will. But frankly - speaking a a former co-captain of his college debate team, and as someone who was a frequent poster on usenet's alt.feminism for years - I think it's manifestly untrue to claim that I run away from debate. On the contrary; over the years, I've become more and more eager for real debate - debate full of passion and logical rigor, but not invective or personal attacks - and less and less eager for the sort of faux-"debate" offered me by websites like this one.

I'm just not eager to be treated like shit. If you want to interpret that as being unable to withstand debate, then that's your problem, not mine.

* * *

Finally, as a feminist, my primary interest is not debating with anti-feminists. My primary interest is increasing gender justice (as I see it, which I realize is different from how most of the other posters here see it). When I think that debating with anti-feminists is entertaining to me or useful for my cause, I'll do that. But when I think it's more effective to criticize your views without engaging you directly, then I'll do that.

* * *

One final point. I acknowlege that feminists are often rude to anti-feminists, too (although I personally try not to be). Nothing I've written here is meant to imply that I think otherwise.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 07:30 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Nickle"

If I have to choose between woman A, who is not playboy material but I am attracted to her so I don't really care what she looks like, and woman B who's super hot but I'm not attracted to her I'm not going to pick woman B simply to see the look on Joe's face.



Hugo's theory... postulating there is a male homosocial root to the women men find attractive is even more absurd once you realize that our society's beauty ideal is solely a construct of female culture.

Women decide what's beautiful among women and men follow their lead. Beauty ideals first change in *women-focused* media -- in other words, women stop buying those magzines that don't reflect what they see as beautiful. *Then*, years later, they change in men's magazines.

Here's an article on the thin beauty ideal. What I find interesting about it is, when you look at the graph, women want to be *thinner* then they think men want them to be. If they want to be thinner then what they think pleases men, who are they being thinner for? Aliens?

http://www3.azwestern.edu/psy/dgershaw/lol/Female.fat.htm

So if men are choosing wives to please anyone but themselves, they're probably choosing them to appeal to their *mothers*.

As in, "she is/isn't a girl you bring home to mother."

As far as I can see, that's a very common sentiment.

(edit: just thought of a bit more to point out)

The female beauty ideal is a construct of female culture.* There may be a homosocial aspect to men's choice in a female mate-- choosing a woman that Joe Blow will be impressed by -- but the fact that female culture created the hiearchy that determines an attractive high status woman(beautiful) suggests this is another avenue of women's control over men.

In most male homosocial-dominated cultures, the female beauty ideal is robust, sturdy and mature. The type of woman that creates healthy sons. *That's* a true homosocial reason to choose a woman. After all, in a society where son's are prized, you choose a woman based on the *sons* you want. Also in those cultures the kind of woman we prize in ours would be considered detrimental for creating sons. However, they are perfect for creating the delicate, sylph-like daughters that rule society through their facade of uselessness.

So our current beauty ideal shows two things:

1. Men have adopted women's standard of beauty.
2. Because of this, men *may* choose women that hieghtens their status among men, but only because a man's status is determined by women. In a truly homosocial culture, men's status would *not* be determined by the woman he chooses.
3. Men no longer are interested in creating strong sons but creating svelte daughters with high status.

*Interesting question: Is the male beauty ideal a construct of male culture? I don't think so, personally.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 07:36 PM
Ampersand,

I agree that the "pedophile" thread was not appropriate, at least in my opinion. I prefer to use innovative reasoning rather then ad hominem to break apart feminist theories. I'd appreciate your responce to my previous three posts refuting Hugo's theories.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 07:44 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Imagine your saying to blacks in the 60's who were pointing out discriminatory practices against them that you didn't really think much of them since they didn't really want to change, they only wanted others to change.


That would be ridiculous of me, since obviously the laws they were fighting against were, by and large, written by white people, not black people. Who were most of the people with major political positions? White people, not black people.

So who wrote the allegedly discriminatory laws that MRAs object to? Mostly men, as far as I can tell. Who are most of the powerful politicians and kingmakers? Again, men. For that reason, I don't think your analogy holds water.

* * *

That aside, I think your overall point is fair enough. MRAs do call for changes in men, and it was an error for me to say otherwise. They simply don't call for the changes I'd like to see.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 07:53 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"

So who wrote the allegedly discriminatory laws that MRAs object to? Mostly men, as far as I can tell. Who are most of the powerful politicians and kingmakers? Again, men. For that reason, I don't think your analogy holds water.


In many of the cultures in which female genital mutilation is practiced, the mother of the daughter arranges the multilation, and women carry it out.

Does that mean it's not an example of women's oppression? After all, it's women who are perpetuating the social institution.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 08:04 PM
Quote
So who wrote the allegedly discriminatory laws that MRAs object to? Mostly men, as far as I can tell. Who are most of the powerful politicians and kingmakers? Again, men. For that reason, I don't think your analogy holds water.


So tell me, would you dismiss the discriminatory laws against blacks if the offending legislation had been written by blacks?  Of course not.  The origin of the law is not nearly as important as the fact that it discriminates unjustly.  

I think you are shifting the ground here.  

And please tell us whether you know of the legal discrimination that is taking place against men.

Oooops, I missed this:

Quote
That aside, I think your overall point is fair enough. MRAs do call for changes in men, and it was an error for me to say otherwise. They simply don't call for the changes I'd like to see.


Thanks for seeing that point.

Now please do tell us if you see the legislative discrimination against men.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 08:05 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Ampersand,

I agree that the "pedophile" thread was not appropriate, at least in my opinion. I prefer to use innovative reasoning rather then ad hominem to break apart feminist theories. I'd appreciate your responce to my previous three posts refuting Hugo's theories.


I appreciate your saying that calling someone you disagree with a "pedophile" is "not appropriate." (I'd appreciate it even more if you called it disgusting and scummy, but hey, I'll take what I can get!)

As for your posts on Hugo's views, they were interesting, and I realize that it must be disappointing for you to put that much work in and not get an argument in response. But my views aren't Hugo's (although we are allies), and I'd rather spend my limited internet time defending my own views. Sorry.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 08:09 PM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
Quote from: "ampersand"

So who wrote the allegedly discriminatory laws that MRAs object to? Mostly men, as far as I can tell. Who are most of the powerful politicians and kingmakers? Again, men. For that reason, I don't think your analogy holds water.


In many of the cultures in which female genital mutilation is practiced, the mother of the daughter arranges the multilation, and women carry it out.

Does that mean it's not an example of women's oppression? After all, it's women who are perpetuating the social institution.


No. Nor did I claim that laws written by men cannot also oppress men, so if you thought I said or implied any such thing, you didn't read my post correctly.

I was saying that, in a situation where group Y writes laws which oppress group C, it's inappropriate to say that group C needs to change itself. On the other hand, if group C writes laws that oppress group C, then it's appropriate to talk about the need for group C to change. (Or for the entire society, including but not limited to group C, to change.)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 08:16 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
So tell me, would you dismiss the discriminatory laws against blacks if the offending legislation had been written by blacks?  Of course not.


See the response I just wrote to Typhonblue. I didn't claim or imply that because discriminatory anti-male laws are written by men, that makes them acceptable; you're misreading my post if you think I said or implied any such thing.

(EDIT: Since I hit "reply," Dr. Evil changed his post - thanks, Dr. Evil! - and a point he made I objected to no longer exists. I've edited this post to remove my response to the point he changed.)

I think the draft is an example of a law that discriminates against men. I don't think most laws, as written, discriminate against men, but I do think some courts and judges do legally discriminate against men - for instance, in sentencing and in some custody battles. (I also think that some courts and judges discriminate against women; it's not a zero-sum game.) Is that the sort of thing you mean?

The discrimination against men I'm most concerned about is more a matter of generalized social sexism than unfair laws, however. It bothers me a lot that boys are bullied and beaten for not being "masculine" enough; it bothers me a lot that men are expected to be "breadwinners." These things matter to me more than the draft, because I think it's unlikely the draft will happen again, ever. (As a matter of principal, though, I think that selective service ought to be either made sex-neutral or done away with.)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 08:35 PM
Quote
Dr, Evil, please read my entire post before responding to it.

As I wrote in the post you are responding to, "That aside, I think your overall point is fair enough. MRAs do call for changes in men, and it was an error for me to say otherwise." To respond to a post in which I wrote that by asking me why I believe MRAs only want women to change shows that you're not bothering to read what I wrote before responding.


Sorry.  You are right.  I missed it and edited it a bit later.  I saw the three asterisks and assumed that what followed was a sig.  My apologies.

Sounds like we agree on a number of issues including the bullying example, mobbing as some are now calling it, the draft and the rigid sex roles that restrict a man's choices.  I would add more including the VAWA, sentencing disparity, gender specific health care funding, paternity fraud, circumcision, family courts bias's (which you rightly point out is not as much legislative as it is "attitudinal"), false accusations, reproductive rights and gulp, more.  If you have any interest we have put together a small booklet going over some of the major issues.  It can be found here:

http://www.trueequality.com/booklet/
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 08:41 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"

No. Nor did I claim that laws written by men cannot also oppress men, so if you thought I said or implied any such thing, you didn't read my post correctly.

I was saying that, in a situation where group Y writes laws which oppress group C, it's inappropriate to say that group C needs to change itself. On the other hand, if group C writes laws that oppress group C, then it's appropriate to talk about the need for group C to change. (Or for the entire society, including but not limited to group C, to change.)


Hmm... seems like we're at an impasse then.

What to argue about?  :roll:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 08:45 PM
At the risk of getting slammed... Dr. Evil, why don't you add homophobia to that list? Men have been and continue to be disproportionately the victims of homophobic attacks, laws and attitudes. Further homophobia has done untold damage to men's self-identity and same-sex friendships, even men who do not have sex with men are affected by it.

Might be worth considering as a MRA issue.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 25, 2005, 08:47 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I saw the three asterisks and assumed that what followed was a sig.  My apologies.


Quite all right - it was a perfectly natural error to make, when you explain it like that.

Quote
Sounds like we agree on a number of issues including the bullying example, mobbing as some are now calling it, the draft and the rigid sex roles that restrict a man's choices.  I would add more including the VAWA, sentencing disparity, gender specific health care funding, paternity fraud, circumcision, family courts bias's (which you rightly point out is not as much legislative as it is "attitudinal"), false accusations, reproductive rights and gulp, more.


Thank you for the link to the booklet. It's interesting stuff; some I agree with, some I don't.

Now, I've given you some examples of what I see as ways that sexism, in law and in society, harms men. Can you return the favor, and give me examples of ways you believe sexism or discrimination harms women?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 25, 2005, 09:04 PM
I think I can step in and help you out there.

In South-east asia, for instance, the apparent disposability of women leads to several sexist phenomena.

1. According to some sources South-east Asian women are more likely to commit suicide then South-east Asian men.

2. In some areas of South-east Asia, women are likely to live considerably shorter lives then men.

3. Women recieve less health care funding.

4. Girls are more likely to end up as child laborers and not recieve the same schooling opportunities as boys. They are far less likely to finish primary school and move on to secondary.

5. According to some sources female homoeroticism is condemned more strongly then male. Possibly leading to a lessening of female homosocial cultural strutures and the attendant reduction in women's status.

6. In some areas women are subjected to genital mutilation.

7. Female children are more often the victims of infanticide.

8. The requirment that a wife provide resources to her future spouce has caused a malignant neglect of female children, and a greater requirement that they make themselves more useful to justify a family's expense in raising them then male children.

9. In many ways the dominant religions of the region, though having considerable male homoerotic elements, is oppressive of female sexuality, females being considered inferior material incarnations of the human spirit.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 09:09 PM
Quote
Can you return the favor, and give me examples of ways you believe sexism or discrimination harms women?


Bathrooms.  There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand.   That's about all I can see but I am open to hearing what you might see.  I have both a son and a daughter and have watched very closely how they are treated and the hoops through which they must jump.  At this point my daughter has a clear road paved for her while my son struggles. While my daughter is vulnerable at night when walking on her college campus, my son is more vulnerable while in the city walking the streets.  Probability tells us that he is much more likely to end up a victim of violent crime.  Of course all of the money is for girls and women.  My daughter is vulnerable to breast cancer and has umpteen groups raising money and teaching the mechanics of breast exams.  My son is vulnerable to testicular cancer but no one is raising money for that nor are they teaching him to do self exams.   My daughter can raise her fist in the air and proclaim that she is a woman of power and all those nearby would applaud.  If my son tried that he would be snickered and sneered.    

Do you have children Amp?  It has been very helpful to see the profound differences in the ways they are treated to have both a boy and a girl.  It's been an eye opener.  I hope you have had such an astounding and loving experience as I have.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: angryharry on Jan 25, 2005, 09:34 PM
Ampersand

The fact that for many years now, men have been laughed at - even in the mainstream - by both men and women - when their penises have been cut off by vengeful women, SAYS IT ALL.

It is PROOF ENOUGH of what has been happening out there.

That FACT ...

***ALONE***

... describes the real situation that western men have to dwell in.

AH
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 25, 2005, 09:44 PM
Well said Harry, very well said.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jan 26, 2005, 01:03 AM
Ampersand-
Quote
You go on about how Hugo doesn't support his idea that boys and men look to other boys and men for role models of how men should behave (hardly a controversial view, by the way!), and then you state that men in fact look to women to know how to behave - but you don't provide a speck of evidence to support your view. Okay, you've established that you and Hugo have different opinions about that matter - but you certainly haven't given me any evidence or logical argumentation to suggest that your view has any more validity than Hugo's.


Are you hugo's spokesman?? Why doesnt he come here and defend himself? Have you read every post here or on the other MRA sites? Doing so might help you understand the outrageous experiences weve had with feminism.

Quote
So that's your first logical error: assuming that you can reasonably judge Hugo's belief, or lack of belief, in an issue by looking about what he writes about on the internet. It may be that Hugo expresses his caring about men in other ways than writing about court discrimination on the internet; that doesn't make Hugo a liar or hypocrite, because the criteria you bring up is not the only possible way for Hugo to express caring about men.


Huh?? Hugo and his forum regulars blather out derogatory, stereotypical judgements all day long about everyone. Even his myers-briggs Personality profile is an ENFJ! Theyre like a broken record that repeats the radical feminist stereotyping of heterosexual males all day long. Its the only function they have in life and they seem to experience glee by doing so. Most absurdly Hugo expects heterosexual men to live up to his "one size fits all" expectation without even taking into consideration that maybe we reject the marxist-feminazi ideology altogether.  

Quote
(How many people here genuinely care about Catherine MacKinnon's essays on race and feminism? None of you, I'd bet. But I care, and I'd like to be able to discuss it without having people who haven't even read the essays in question respond to my posts by saying I'm a stupid feminazi who hates men and can't think for himself.)


We consider Catherine Mackinnon and the host of her so many other feminazi allies to be traitors. Someday I hope to gain the power to expell criminals such as her to North Korea.

Quote
Now, I've given you some examples of what I see as ways that sexism, in law and in society, harms men. Can you return the favor, and give me examples of ways you believe sexism or discrimination harms women?


Feminism is sexism at its most egregious. Feminsim is lesbian hubris to its most virulent extreme. Feminism injures heterosexual women most of all because it factionalizes them in varying degrees to make war upon the same men who might actually love them. Feminism is fraud.

Quote
I also think that some courts and judges discriminate against women; it's not a zero-sum game.)


This depends upon which courts you go to. The overwhelming majority of family courts discriminate against men in the most blatant ways.

Quote
Look, let's imagine, for a moment, that there are only two feminist discussion boards on the internet: NOW and Ms. Let's examine two possible worlds:

WORLD 1: Both Ms and NOW have identical policies of allowing anti-feminists to post as much as they want. The result: The two boards are very much the same, and feature pretty much the same arguments. On neither board is it possible for feminists to have a respectful discussion among themselves without being called morons, feminazis, etc..

WORLD 2: Ms. bans anti-feminists, whereas NOW allows anti-feminists. The result: If I want to go to Ms and discuss Katha Pollitt's essay about difference feminists versus other feminists and what feminists think about that, without being yelled at for being a feminazi, I can. At the same time, anti-feminists and feminists who WANT to argue with each other have the NOW boards available


You could emmigrate to North Korea where the ideology du jour is the only topic allowed if thats the kind of system you and feminists crave. Censorship is tyranny. Feminism is tyranny.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 26, 2005, 03:47 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
So who wrote the allegedly discriminatory laws that MRAs object to? Mostly men, as far as I can tell. Who are most of the powerful politicians and kingmakers? Again, men. For that reason, I don't think your analogy holds water.


Which shows they write them to please women, who call for them.  Which makes them the servants of women.  Which make women hardly an oppressed and powerless class.

More like Mafiosos sitting comfotably while people go around doing their bidding.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 26, 2005, 03:49 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
As for your posts on Hugo's views, they were interesting, and I realize that it must be disappointing for you to put that much work in and not get an argument in response. But my views aren't Hugo's (although we are allies), and I'd rather spend my limited internet time defending my own views. Sorry.


Disingenuous.  Either defend Hugo, or not.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 26, 2005, 03:56 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Bathrooms.  There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand.


I don't even agree there.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/j/jensen/03/jensen121003.htm
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Jan 26, 2005, 04:43 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Hey, Aegis/Odysseus. Nice to see you again.


Likewise. Btw, I think it is unfair and a shame that you are banned from the private area on ifeminists (which I got into).

Quote

If you really support men as much as you claim, then why aren't you out there doing volunteer work with adolescent boys, as Hugo does?

Now, whether or not you do volunteer work with boys (I have no idea if you do), I'm sure you'll agree that my question - and the implicit argument - was illogical. There are a thousand potential ways of supporting men aside from doing volunteer work with boys - and, for that matter, aside from writing about an issue on the internet.

So that's your first logical error: assuming that you can reasonably judge Hugo's belief, or lack of belief, in an issue by looking about what he writes about on the internet.


Hugo's belief, or lack thereof, is not the issue; actually, I am sure that he believes in supporting men. I am taking issue with his honesty. Yet I see why you thought I was making the "if you believe in this cause so much, why aren't you doing anything about it" type of argument, so I will clarify.

What worries me about Hugo's lack of explicit support for men in family courts is not the idea that he doesn't support men. The problem is that he is toeing his party line. Imagine a debate on rape in which an MRA believed in the Koss study, but kept his agreement silent so he could ally himself with people who dismissed the Koss study. Does that strike you as intellectual honesty? Because it seems analogous to the way Hugo is evading the issue of injustice towards men in family courts. I totally agree that people shouldn't be required to write or fight for every single cause they believe in, but the particular issues of family courts are so pivotally related to the subjects he talks about that I think it is dishonest for him to ignore them (also because they contradict the picture he paints of male privilege).

When people try to brush over important subjects to toe their party line, the honesty of debate suffers.

Quote
Where, exactly, has Hugo explicitly said it's a bigger issue for men? You might choose to infer that from some things he's said, but that's your inference, not Hugo's. As far as I can tell.


True, he never mentions female homosociality explicitly (because, as you said, men were the focus of the debate). Nevertheless, one of his main arguments is that men are influenced by a culture that promotes negative attitudes towards women. If male homosociality is part of "patriarchal" conditioning, then it is reasonable to infer that it effects men more (of course, you don't have to follow me in that inference).

The biggest objection I have to the homosociality concept is that he exaggerates the phenomenon, not just in relation to the homosociality of women, but in general. From Hugo's (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/still_sicknbsp_.html) site:

Quote from: "Hugo"
Homosociality (as explained so well in Michael Kimmel's Manhood in America) is the principle that all men, including heterosexual ones, are raised in our culture to be more eager to please other men than women.


This is obviously not Hugo's definition of homosociality (because it defines it as a male-only phenomenon); perhaps he really means that men being more eager to please other men than women is a specific example of homosociality. Unfortunately, there are phenomena that cannot be explained by this theory:

- Chivalry. Even if the motive for chivalry is some kind of paternalism, it is an example of an area where men work harder to please women than other men.

- Prostitution. Hugo seems to claim that men seek access to women to prove to other men that they have control over women (this is based on something he said on the show). If a guy visits a prostitute, is he doing it to get high fives from his male friends (let alone to prove that he could control a woman)? I think not: it is far more likely that he was horny or lonely.

- Nice guys. I don't know how many guys are "nice guys," whether women want them or not, or if "nice guys" finish last or not. It really depends on how you define "nice guy." Yet there are still many men who call themselves nice guys, and there are women who claim to reject "nice guys" because they are "too nice" (this trend is mentioned in the IWF "Hooking up" study that Hugo actually cites).

In general, I would say that the effects of homosociality are limited because of sex. Perhaps society does condition men to want more sex with more hot women than they can reasonably achieve; actually, Warren Farrell makes a similar argument in Why Men Are The Way They Are. Nevertheless, the existence of the male sex drive is undeniable (even if the manifestations of it depend on culture). Even if it is true that a large factor in male desire for sex is for approval from other males, finding sex still requires that men work to please women to a high degree, and this principle greatly limits the effects of homosociality.

Quote
You go on about how Hugo doesn't support his idea that boys and men look to other boys and men for role models of how men should behave (hardly a controversial view, by the way!), and then you state that men in fact look to women to know how to behave - but you don't provide a speck of evidence to support your view.


That's not quite what I said. I am simply saying that men don't look to men for how to behave to the extent that Hugo describes. Also, we must ask: when men model their behavior on other men, which men are we talking about? Men are hardly a homogenous group. If some men will laugh at you for behaving a certain way, there will often be other guys who support you (although unforunately this is not always the case). Also, men using other men as role models is not the same thing as copying them (there is such a thing as a negative role model), and neither is it the same thing as wanting to please men more than pleasing women. If a guy thinks his father is an asshole to women and vows to be different, is that homosociality? Furthermore, pleasing men and pleasing women are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, men look to other men for chivalrous behavior, but that doesn't mean that the main goal of chivalry is to please men. The fact that men cue their behavior off of each other doesn't necessarily prove Hugo's claim that they are doing it to please men rather than to please women, so I think he is creating a massive oversimplification.

Quote
Okay, you've established that you and Hugo have different opinions about that matter - but you certainly haven't given me any evidence or logical argumentation to suggest that your view has any more validity than Hugo's.


I hope that what I am providing in this post will come closer to satisfying you. Ultimately, the main view I am trying to get across is that Hugo's theory is hopelessly limited because it leaves out a lot of highly relevant and contradictory factors (such as chivalry, prostitution, and nice guys). Hugo's view is simply the inverse of the theory that all, or at least most men are duped into serving unappreciative and manipulative women through institutions such as chivalry and pressure to be "nice guys." Both of those theories have some truth in them, but they are exaggerations that only apply to a limited subset of people. I like to think that my theory encompasses both of those theories and places the phenomena they observe in proper context.

Quote
For myself, my concern is that, in environments where men feel the most pressure to prove to other men that they are masculine - frat houses, prisons, sports teams - a higher proportion of men seem to commit rape. So, although I might not agree entirely with Hugo's analysis, I strongly approve of the work he does to try and find and model other kinds of masculinity, in which men don't have to have new sexual conquests in order to validate their masculinity. And I see the work Hugo does as more useful than the "men don't have to change, it's just society and women who need to change" approach of most MRAs.


I agree that you are talking about legitimate problems. My concern is that in the environments where ideas like Hugo's have the most hold, the relations between the sexes are highly dysfuctional. I am talking, of course, about college campuses. I am worried about situations where guys try to walk on eggshells and end up so tame and passive that they can't even ask girls out, or the girls see them as little more than platonic friends and reject them sexually. We can probably agree until we are blue in the face that the male gender role is confining, but that doesn't change the reality that men who don't play by certain aspects of that role (such as being the initiator) will usually not get anywhere because they are still expected to do the initiating.

Of course, I haven't defined what I mean by "walking on eggshells," or being "tame" or "passive," nor how Hugo may be fostering such attitudes. Nor have I explained the link between men being "tame" and men being rejected by women. Neither have I defined what I mean by "not getting anywhere" with women. If you are so inclined, we can discuss (either here or elsewhere) different aspects of masculinity and male gender roles, such as their desirability or practicality. But if we do so, I would first have to ask you what you would consider to be acceptable evidence for such a discussion ;)

Quote
I'm defending Hugo because the assaults on his character here seem unfair, and because I know him in an internet-y sort of way and think of him as a nice guy.


That seems reasonable.

Quote
I also strongly disagree with some of Hugo's views on masculinity. Hugo believes that (to paraphrase a Robert Bly quote Hugo agrees with) "only men can turn a boy into a man." I think that's wrongheaded; boys become men automatically, by virtue of living long enough. It is, I think, this conception of "manhood" as something that has to be attained - and that might not be attained if one is wrongly gender-socialized - that leads some men to try and prove their masculinity in destructive ways.


That makes sense: in fact, some men claim that they found their masculinity from having sex with a woman, and this contradicts the idea that men can only get their masculinity from other men.

Quote
Put another way, Hugo wants to see cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity reformed, whereas I want to see them eliminated.


That is quite a claim, so I am curious to hear your reasoning behind it. Like you, I am very interested in getting to the bottom of these issues.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: neonsamurai on Jan 26, 2005, 04:43 AM
Ampersand,

I don't think that anyone on this board believes that women don't have a bad time of it in life either, it's just that if men don't speak up for ourselves who else is going to do it? In the UK, the government has just announced that new laws are going to be considered to allow separated fathers to see more of their children. Although the powers that be refuse to accept this, the Fathers 4 Justice campaign paid a big part of bringing this to the publics' attention.

The feminist groups who have been talking about equality for years didn't seem interested in the plight of these fathers, or the fact that the court system seemed so biased. Had they tried to help or shown an interest or even made the appropriate rumblings to the press (or god forbid the Guardian newspaper), people would have listened to them, and their thoughts on the matter would have carried a lot of weight. Instead they kept quiet, or spoke up about abusive fathers, leaving us to write to the press and make it clear that the laws were unfair.

As for MRA's being 'anti-feminist', when the editor of Ms Magazine says things like this:

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."


How do you think it makes us feel when we read this sort of thing? This is the person who runs a women's magazine that claims to write for feminists, expressing her hatred for us. To compound this, men like Hugo and yourself support these people and then he calls us misogynists (incidentally see if you can find misandrists in your spell checker). Can you imagine if the editor of Esquire said the same things about women? Do you think he'd still have a job at the end of it?

The thing that really gets under my skin is when we speak out against this hatemongering our voices get silenced because people like Hugo insist that 'men have all the power'. Sure, a few rich guys own most of the world's money and have the most political power, but does that mean that by definition I am powerful? Hell no! But should I be ignored with my protests overlooked because of it? Apparently yes.

Does that mean I have power or not? Can you please give us examples of 'the power' that we here possess that women do not?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Jan 26, 2005, 04:48 AM
Quote from: "FHM"
Hugo and his forum regulars blather out derogatory, stereotypical judgements all day long about everyone. Even his myers-briggs Personality profile is an ENFJ!


Darn those ENFJs! (I'm quite an INTP, though I shouldn't indulge my guilty obsession with Myers-Briggs Personality Type)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 26, 2005, 06:03 AM
Ampersand said:

Quote
More relevant to this website, I know from long, long experience that if I stick around on "stand your ground," I'll have to deal with people calling me a moron, brainwashed, a feminazi, etc. In general, most posters here will treat me with no respect


I meant to respond to you on this and it slipped by.

We have rules here which disallow personal attack.  I think you should feel comfortable in posting here knowing that the mods here will not tolerate someone attacking your person (like calling you a moron) but will always tolerate someone attacking your ideas.  People are sometimes banned from this site but it has never been due to their ideology and always been because they have broken the rules as outlined in a sticky at the top of this forum.

btw there have been far more non-feminists banned than feminists.

I created this site hoping that the very sort of discussion that is happening on this thread could take place.  The purpose I had was to foster discussion around issues that have polarized us for years.  My hope is that by debate and discussion both sides will benifit.  Thanks for standing your ground.  I hope we can continue to discuss things.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 26, 2005, 07:58 AM
Actually, Ampersand, I'll surprise you by calling you names - but in the opposite direction.  You sound very intelligent, you're certainly not a moron, but I just don't understand why you believe what you believe with regard to feminism.

Do you personally feel all-powerful as a man?  That's really a relevant question.  I think sometimes people get hypnotized by theory to the extent that they can't see factual things right in front of them.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 26, 2005, 08:12 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
btw there have been far more non-feminists banned than feminists.


I can't even think of a single feminist who was banned here.  Maybe there was one.  My memory is that "over-enthusiastic" mens' rights activists were the majority of people banned (i.e. advocating violence against women, or people engaging in hard-core personal attacks).
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: kal147 on Jan 26, 2005, 08:18 AM
Nice Thread Guys, some interesting debate. Hi Odysseus, you really express yourself superbly.

I have a few questions for Ampersand or others who tend to support Hugo. Hugo and others like him repeatedly harp upon male privilege and womens' oppression, but without detailing either. Please list and fully explain what male privilege is, and what womens' oppression is. Please don't be disingenuous and state things like men are far more likely to be a fortune 500 CEO. men are also far more likely to be the Quarterback of the San Francisco 49'ers. But, that's not any benefit to 99.9999% of men anyhow. Really -- what is this male privilege?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 26, 2005, 08:48 AM
Quote
More relevant to this website, I know from long, long experience that if I stick around on "stand your ground," I'll have to deal with people calling me a moron, brainwashed, a feminazi, etc. In general, most posters here will treat me with no respect. There will be exceptions - such as your post - but they will be just that, exceptions. After a while, I won't want to deal with it, so I'll fade away.


Nossir.  What you will have to deal with is people and things outside of your comfort zone.

I'm quite familiar with the thing you call "debate" having participated in it myself; it is however a highly structured and formalized arena.  Like Olympic style fencing, it has certain rules to it that often cause points to be lost for breaking rules.

What you have here is a style of debate that to continue the fencing analogy would be called "in the round."  The form of your argument will take a back seat to the truth value of your statements, for one example.

We've had several people who have complained about similar things, and without exception, have approached this forum as arrogant pedants, intent upon enlightening the poor barbaric rubes who populate it with their flowery discourse, and then become frustrated when their assumptions and premises are rejected - likewise the people here swiftly become annoyed with the repetitive pedagogy set forth by those people.

As far as Hugo goes, I find his whole notion that there is something that needs to be changed about traditional masculinity to be utter nonsense, the notion of male privilege to be laughable if it weren't so sad, and homosociality to an equivocation at best, and even then far overemphasized and overexaggerated, and neglected on the female side of the equation.  And those are just starters.  To proceed in any line of discourse based on these assertions is as useless to me as arguing over the Theology of the Church of the Tooth Fairy - as I deny the tooth fairy exists, it becomes merely mental masturbation.

As far as your collection of Feminist authors goes, you as well make an improper assumption that those authors have not been read - in my case I have read them cover to cover and own copies of them, under the principle of "Know Thy Enemy."  Like the theology above, though, I have no interest in discussing them as they have been weighed, measured, and found wanting to say the least, and have only reinforced my idea that "Women's Studies" is yet another example of pompous academia's tendancy to give degrees based on dubious material, let alone dignify it with the term scholarship.  As I asked the last person who came in for an interview boasting on their "Womyn's Studies" degree, "Fine, but do you have any useful skills?"

Now if such subjects are your interest as you profess, then I can only say that this is the wrong place to discuss them if you wish to engage like minded individuals who find value in such rubbish; and to proceed thusly would be exceedingly foolish on your part.  It would no doubt provoke much frustration on both ends.  But, in such a case it would as well your own fault for attempting to pound that square peg into that round hole.

In any BBS system, the regular posters establish a gestalt of accepted and rejected assumptions and premises; and when one wishes to come in and argue in challenge them, they must argue those premises first, the onus is on them.  To do less, to proceed from assumptions that are not held in common is itself a highly disrespectful act, and to claim being shown no respect when no respect is offered is cause only for a droll raising of the eyebrow.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jan 26, 2005, 12:21 PM
Greetings All,

It's been quite a while since I've visited and posted here, but I'm glad to see that things are still going.  After the meltdown of the MND v.1 BB I became disillusioned with such things so I took some time off.  However, with the recent exchange between Glenn Sacks and Hugo Schwyzer and the buzz it created, I rediscovered SYG.   I have a few things to say about Glenn's show.

After listening to the show I was wholly unimpressed and at the same time not at all surprised by "Dr." Hugo.  He is an archtypical Women's Studies professor, which is to say, a person endowed with an academic title that for most part seems completely undeserved.  I work at a major research university so I have contact with all kinds of professionals, and I'm here to tell you that among faculty who are honest about the subject, women's studies departments and the people who work in them are not considered legitimate from an academic perspective.  Women's studies wonks may do a lot of things, but legitimate scholarship ain't one of them.

One sees this in Hugo's missives at his website and comments on Glenn's show.  He plays the same tired-old riffs from the feminist songbook of "male privilege," "misogyny," etc., yet fails to define the terms and back up the definitions adequately, instead relying on untested (let alone proven) theory to back up his claims.  I've never once encountered a WS 'professor' who could adequately define, defend the defintion, and provide good examples of "male privilege."  Further, these same people not only systematically and deliberately fail to explore any possible alternative explanations for their observations, but avoid at all costs allowing anyone else to do so.  There truly is no room in Women's Studies and feminism for 'non-believers.'  Like a typical feminist, when confronted with arguments that challeneged his worldview, Hugo ignored and/or dismissed the existence of, e.g., identical or similar discrimination and/or disadvantage against men (which might have offered inconvenient evidence that would break down his "male privilege" and/or "patriarchy" theories).  IMO feminists do this because if they acknowleged that men experience the same or similar difficulties, their theories about female victimhood and male privilege would come crashing down.  Thus, because feminism's members and supporters rely on dogmatic adherence to untested theories and rigid belief systems, for me feminism is simply more of a dopey New Age religion than anything even remotely resembling scholarship, and WS departments are the temples they worship in and train the next generation of proseletyzers (sp?).

I also found Hugo's thesis that men and masculinity need changing to be ridiculous.  IMO his issues with men stem from the fact that we're not women.  Ok, that's fine, but that's his problem, not ours.  And in this aspect he shares a very similar trait with other male feminists.  For example, Michael Kimmel (who apparently Hugo greatly admires) also is uncomfortable around normal, healthy men, instead preferring the company of women.  In fact, Kimmel was so uncomfortable around regular guys that after his first semester he had to flee the men's college where he began his undergrad career and find shelter and comfort at a women's college that had just gone co-ed.  You can read about this at Kimmel's website at SUNY-Stony Brook (no, I don't have the URL handy, but it's not hard to find).  Again, this is fine but it sure isn't what most ordinary guys experience in college.  Hugo and his ilk just don't "get it" that normal, healthy masculinity isn't pastel shades, Chai, and pet chinchillas named "Mathilda," it's primary colors, Budweiser and Labradors named "Boomer."  

As for male privilege, I say "bullshit," prove it Hugoboy.  The examples he and other feminists offer are lame:  Male Congresspersons?  How come they cater to women when they write laws, distribute funds, etc.?  Male CEOs?  I don't know a single male CEO; all my friends are working stiffs who have no power in society and less power than women do.  Pay gap?  Bullshit, it's an *earnings* gap, not a pay gap.  Men work harder and for longer hours than women do.  Stop sniveling and get to work.  Violence?  The vast majority of violence is perped against men, not women.  Hugo even denied what over 100 good, solid peer-reviewed studies have proven:  That women instigate DV as often (or more) than men.  Hugo offered no evidence of his own to defend his position, he simply categorically dismissed the preponderence of good, solid evidence refuting it.  He and other feminists (I'm thinking amp here) dismiss the draft because it isn't around anymore, so what about using the vote as an argument for (historical) discrimination against women?  You don't hear a peep of objection from feminists when their sisters lay that one on us.  Men aren't privileged in American society, women are, and for the last century or better it's been that way.  But it's only by employing shameless double-standards and hypocrasy in their arguments that they can even make the case for "male privilege," no matter how weak.  

And finally, his claims of "misogyny" are equally lame, disingenuous and hypocritical.  What he mistakenly calls "misogyny" is simply men standing up for themselves and not allowing women to exercise their privilege, i.e., the right granted by chivlarly to enjoy special treatment and consideration in the public arena where gender issues are discussed and debated.  To them, disagreeing with them in "misogyny."  In the real world that's equality baby, so get used to it.  In fact, I think feminists are cowards: They don't *really* want equality because they know that it would mean that they'd have to give up all the privileges that they currently enjoy and suck it up and be as responsible for their actions and outcomes as men are.  And that scares the bejeesus' out of them.  

I could go on, but I'm late for a meeting.  

I'm back - see you guys around.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 26, 2005, 12:57 PM
<<He is an archtypical Women's Studies professor, which is to say, a person endowed with an academic title that for most part seems completely undeserved.>>

I don't want to get started on that - and it's probably a topic for a different thread - but the amount of work that you have to do for a doctoral degree in molecular biology, or physics, or any of a number of other "real" degrees absolutely dwarfs "writing about your feelings" and the like in some areas.

I guess if you get a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, you earn a salary at a company and really produce something computer-wise for society.

But if you get a "doctoral degree" in interdisciplinary studies with a major in sex and gay relations, you go on Oprah, write a book that nitwits read, and earn far more.

Who knows - Dr. Phil, the lard-ass, wrote a best-seller book about dieting, and people eat it up.  I guess when the world seems to be against what I think, I have to go with the world.  I fucked up by majoring in something tangible.  I should have just skated.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 26, 2005, 03:51 PM
I would just like to point something out.  All this talk of homosociality got me thinking.  Hugo claims, "That travel leads to learning to live not merely as a male, but as a man. Many writers in the field of men's studies talk about the concept of "homosociality". It's a simple principle: in American culture, young men are raised to value the approval of other males far more than the approval of women."

However, this study completely contradicts that!

Women Like Women More than Men Like Men

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/508824/

And, this study shows women are also more biased (read sexist) towards women than men.  Hugo being somewhat of an intellectual half-wit, will no doubt just ignore this information and start shouting "Misogyny! Homophobia!  lalalalalala I can't hear you!  Misogynist!".

*edit to add:  "Patriarchy!!"
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FP on Jan 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
Sigh. So I'm listening to the show and the Dr.'s first bit is, to paraphrase, "men are upset at losing their power and priviledge over the past 40 years to women". What priviledge have I lost? I'm 27 Doc. I've grown up in the feminist era my whole life. I'm upset that all the ballywho I was taught about equality doesn't exist. I'm upset that I'm being blamed for the sins of my father and my father's father. That ol bastard, my great great great granpappy Shamus was a mean drunk and I've got to pay for it 200 years later apparently despite the fact that I don't share his views.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Graboid on Jan 27, 2005, 04:18 AM
Come to think of it, I remember reading a feminist article a while back declaring that as a man, I should hate my grandfather (for the record, I never had the chance to meet him as he worked down a hellhole coal mine his entire life and died of a heart attck in his armchair after work one day before I was even born).

He had no male privelidge; he was a beast of burden who worked his ass off for a pittance to provide for my grandmother (who sadly died a couple of weeks ago aged 96 - i.e. 44 years after he died).

The logic of feminism's revisionist history implies that we should round up 20 something Germans and put them all in concentration camps.

I would have loved to have asked Hugo about 'male guilt' in this context.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 06:45 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "ampersand"
As for your posts on Hugo's views, they were interesting, and I realize that it must be disappointing for you to put that much work in and not get an argument in response. But my views aren't Hugo's (although we are allies), and I'd rather spend my limited internet time defending my own views. Sorry.


Disingenuous.  Either defend Hugo, or not.


That's silly. If someone called you a woman-hater, and I said "well, Gonzokid isn't a woman-hater, he posted about how much he likes women here and here," would that mean that I was forever obligated to defend your views? Even though your views are not identical to mine?

If we followed your logic to its fullest, we'd conclude that one should never defend the character of anyone unless one is willing to defend all of that person's views, forever.

Nonsense. I posted here about Hugo to reply to an unfair attack on his character. That doesn't mean I'm required to defend Hugo's views. Although Hugo and I are allies and agree on many things, our views are not identical, and I'm not even certain that I fully understand all of Hugo's philosophy (Hugo is more philosophical than I; I'm more of a policy person). Given that I have very little time available to post, it's just sensible for me to concentrate on defending my own views, which I can speak about much more authoritatively.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 06:50 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Ampersand said:

Quote
And I see the work Hugo does as more useful than the "men don't have to change, it's just society and women who need to change" approach of most MRAs.


Is this your idea of what MRA's are?  I'd be curious to hear some reasons for thinking such a thing.


While I've admitted that not all MRAs are like that, I think some are - at least as regarding changing traditional ideas of masculinity. And the reason I think that is they say so. On this thread, Gonzokid wrote "As far as Hugo goes, I find his whole notion that there is something that needs to be changed about traditional masculinity to be utter nonsense...." And over on Men's News Daily, Pete Jenson wrote (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/j/jensen/2005/jensen012705.htm) :

Quote from: "Pete Jenson"
Hugo's whole philosophy rests almost solely on the premise that there is something wrong with masculinity, or more narrowly, traditional masculinity. It is unfounded, unsupported, and utterly untrue. ... Hugo has throughout his work a theme that "Men must change." This begs the question, "Why? Is there something wrong with Men?"


So although I have to admit that some MRAs (such as you, Dr. Evil) are agreeable to the idea that men and traditional masculinity ought change, some other MRAs are clearly opposed to that idea.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 06:54 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I think I can step in and help you out there.

In South-east asia, for instance, the apparent disposability of women leads to several sexist phenomena.


While I certainly agree those are all urgent problems - much more urgent, in my estimation, than most sexist problems faced by men or women here in the USA - I have to admit that I intended my question to be about problems faced by women in the USA, not worldwide.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Beste on Jan 27, 2005, 07:19 AM
It's interesting what Amp said on the show.

http://amptoons.theennead.com/blog/

Quote
GLENN: How you doing Barry?

AMP: Hi, Glenn.

GLENN: Barry agrees with Hugo. So what's up, Barry?

AMP: (laughs)

GLENN: Hi, Barry.

AMP: Hi, Nice to finally talk to you in person after all those emails. And hello to Hugo as well - you know me as Ampersand.

GLENN: Oh, Ampersand! Alright, okay.

HUGO: I sure do.

GLENN: Alright, what's up? Feminist blogger - Male feminist blogger Ampersand.

AMP: Okay. Well I just wanted to say that there is an extent to which I do agree with the men's rights movement. I do think that sexism harms men a lot. When you look at schoolyard bullying, when you look at the disproportionate male deaths in the workplace, when you look at the alienation from families for men who are working fifty or sixty hour weeks, the pressure to always be masculine and sexism in courtrooms that works against men sometimes. All of those are places where I think the men's rights movement is really on to something.

GLENN: However...

AMP: However... The mistake made by the men's rights movement is that you folks tend to think it's a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don't have genuine complaints. Which is why men's righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn't as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-

GLENN: I don't say it's not as serious for the women who's been raped, I say it's not as common as feminists say.

AMP: Right-

GLENN: Let's be clear, I don't say that, for those women who actually are raped, I don't say it's not serious-

AMP: Indeed. I wasn't-

GLENN: I was saying it's not as common as feminists make it seem. Alright-

AMP: If I may continue?

GLENN: Well, I wanted to talk about your point here, Barry.

AMP: Okay, well, the final point I'm making.

GLENN: Alright, Barry, go ahead.

AMP: That's why I think the pro-feminist men's movement has a better understanding of the situation. Because they understand that it's not a zero-sum game. Or, I should say, "we." We don't say, "well, nothing bad ever happens to men, and no men suffer." And we don't have to spend our time talking about how - saying that deaths in the workplace is not a serious problem for men. Instead, we can understand that sexism is actually harming both women and men.

GLENN: Okay. Barry, I can go with you there. [Hangs up on Amp.] The thing is this: feminists have portrayed - and thank you for the call. Feminists have portrayed gender relations in the United States as a thing where all the advantages work in men's favor, all the disadvantages work in women's favor. They've exaggerated the advantages men have, they've exaggerated greatly the disadvantages women have. So that is why a lot of people like myself, in my writing and on my radio show, I do feel compelled to point out that women don't have it anywhere near as bad as feminists say they do. And I do point out that men don't have it anywhere near as good as feminists say, simply because that's what I feel we have to do in order to have a real debate on these issues. We can't have a real debate on these issues if we're going to pretend that men have everything and women have nothing. Hugo, what do you think?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 27, 2005, 07:31 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Nonsense. I posted here about Hugo to reply to an unfair attack on his character. That doesn't mean I'm required to defend Hugo's views. Although Hugo and I are allies and agree on many things, our views are not identical, and I'm not even certain that I fully understand all of Hugo's philosophy (Hugo is more philosophical than I; I'm more of a policy person). Given that I have very little time available to post, it's just sensible for me to concentrate on defending my own views, which I can speak about much more authoritatively.


It would help, then, to paint a broad brush of where you and Hugo's views on issues coincide and differ; as it stands now you come across as dodging the issue.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 07:33 AM
Quote from: "Odysseus"
Btw, I think it is unfair and a shame that you are banned from the private area on ifeminists (which I got into).


Thank you for being so nice! I'm sorry not to be able to participate in the private area, but I have to disagree with you: It's not unfair in the slightest. "Their forum, their rules" is a perfectly fair approach to a bboard, in my opinion.

Quote
What worries me about Hugo's lack of explicit support for men in family courts is not the idea that he doesn't support men. The problem is that he is toeing his party line. Imagine a debate on rape in which an MRA believed in the Koss study, but kept his agreement silent so he could ally himself with people who dismissed the Koss study. Does that strike you as intellectual honesty? Because it seems analogous to the way Hugo is evading the issue of injustice towards men in family courts. I totally agree that people shouldn't be required to write or fight for every single cause they believe in, but the particular issues of family courts are so pivotally related to the subjects he talks about that I think it is dishonest for him to ignore them (also because they contradict the picture he paints of male privilege).


There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, Hugo is not a party-line person. To accuse any pro-life feminist of modifying his views to toe the feminist party line is ridiculous; obviously Hugo is willing to hold beliefs that go against feminist consensus.

Second, your example of the MRA who (sensibly) realizes that Koss' work is good work in his secret mind doesn't apply, because you have no way of knowing what goes on in Hugo's secret mind.

Finally, your assumption that custody decisions are so central that no one can sincerely care about men and not discuss them is an assumption on your part, nothing more. I don't believe that's true, and there's no reason to assume that Hugo believes that's true.

Quote
True, he never mentions female homosociality explicitly (because, as you said, men were the focus of the debate). Nevertheless, one of his main arguments is that men are influenced by a culture that promotes negative attitudes towards women. If male homosociality is part of "patriarchal" conditioning, then it is reasonable to infer that it effects men more (of course, you don't have to follow me in that inference).


I don't understand this at all. Are you suggesting that women are somehow immune from "patriarchal conditioning"? I don't think that many feminists would agree with that - and I certainly don't. It's not as if women are raised in some other culture, immune from the sexist influences of our society.

Quote
Prostitution. Hugo seems to claim that men seek access to women to prove to other men that they have control over women (this is based on something he said on the show).


A lot of your arguments against what Hugo says about homosociality seem based on the assumption that Hugo ever said, "men do what they do ONLY to please men, 100% of the time, with no gray areas or exceptions. It never, ever happens that men act to please themselves, or women." But Hugo never said that, of course; and none of your arguments with that implicit assumption hold water.

I'd also repeat what I said before; often what men (and women, but that's outside the scope of this discussion) are reacting to isn't actual reactions of men, but imagined reactions in their head. It's quite possible for someone to feel pressured (in his head) to appear masculine in the eyes of his peers or his father-figures, when in fact the peers or father-figures in question don't doubt his masculinity at all.

Quote
(this trend is mentioned in the IWF "Hooking up" study that Hugo actually cites).


Say, is that the study paid for by the IWF, using an IWF-selected scholar, and never given any independent or peer review? Funny, I thought the IWF objected to that sort of thing; they have criticized the Koss study (which, unlike the hook-up study, was reviewed by independent scholars) again and again on the grounds that it was sponsored by Ms.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :-P

Anyhow, I do agree with you that the reality is more complex than any simply blog post (or, god help us, radio program) discussion of homosociality can accommodate. Nonetheless, I think homosociality is an important thing in many men's behavior, and in particular in the men whose behavior I find the most objectionable. (I think people are better off being influenced by a social group or role model group including both sexes).

Quote
I am worried about situations where guys try to walk on eggshells and end up so tame and passive that they can't even ask girls out, or the girls see them as little more than platonic friends and reject them sexually. We can probably agree until we are blue in the face that the male gender role is confining, but that doesn't change the reality that men who don't play by certain aspects of that role (such as being the initiator) will usually not get anywhere because they are still expected to do the initiating.


I realize that's the stereotype, but I haven't observed it to be true in reality. Anecdotally, I'm as "tame and passive" a man as you'll ever meet, sexually, but I had girlfriends and hook-ups in college. And I'm unattractive, physically. Maybe it helps that the women I know are virtually all feminists, and don't hesitate to initiate. If anything, feminism has made things easier for unaggressive guys, by encouraging women to take the lead more often. (If you think that unaggressive guys didn't exist before the 1960s feminist movement, then I think you're kidding yourself.)

Now, did I have as many romances or hook-ups as more aggressive and good-looking men? No, but c'mon - don't I have to take responsibility for my own life at some point? Of course the men (and, for that matter, the women) who put themselves out there and try again and again will end up dating more. That's true in any human endevour; those who try more aggressively succeed more often.

Quote
Quote
Put another way, Hugo wants to see cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity reformed, whereas I want to see them eliminated.


That is quite a claim, so I am curious to hear your reasoning behind it. Like you, I am very interested in getting to the bottom of these issues.


I think that, ideally, for most interactions in life, sex should be no more relevant than eye color. I'm an extremist that way. Men should feel free to wear skirts and dresses, if they want. Whether your male or female shouldn't determine how likely it is that you hold a certain job (yes, including dangerous jobs and the job of stay-at-home parent). Boys should feel no pressure to "become men"; boys and men should not be given the idea that masculinity is fragile and must be maintained through manly acts and attitudes. Etc..

(I've concentrated on the male side of the equation here because our discussion so far has been mostly about men.)

Thanks for your post - I enjoyed reading it, even the bits I didn't respond to.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 27, 2005, 07:56 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
So although I have to admit that some MRAs (such as you, Dr. Evil) are agreeable to the idea that men and traditional masculinity ought change, some other MRAs are clearly opposed to that idea.


I think you'd be suprised as just what a defender of traditional masculinity Doc Evil is!

The problem is that Traditional masculinity has been - intentionally and maliciously, IMO - portrayed as a one sided caricature by feminists, feminism, and "Womyn's Studies."  the bad in men is focused on and blown way out of proportion, while the bad in women is dismissed, rationalized, and excused.  Scumbags exist on both sides of the aisle, and in equal numbers, though the mode of their scumminess varies.

And - Pete Jensen, The Gonzman, and Gonzokid are one and the same, FYI.

Anyway, back to what I was saying, the whole idea of men as a group needing to change is predicated on and begging the question of what is wrong that needs to change.  It's not been established that Traditional Masculinity is a bad thing, it's facts not in evidence.  There are certainly some points which need addressed in the socialization of men, (for instance, the knee jerk chivalry which compels men to shut up and take just about all the verbal and emotional abuse a female cares to inflict) this doesn't affect the basic male nature.

I can only conclude from the writings of "male feminists" that it is their belief that males must be reprogrammed socially (Which I don't mince words and just call "brainwashing") to suppress their male instincts, and try to replace them with feminine ones.

I disagree profoundly and categorically, and in fact I find such a notion to be both dangerous and poisonous.  The male nature, the inner wolf, is one which has great power.  If embraced and mastered it is a source of great good.  Ignore it, suppress it, fail to deal with it and it will master you and be a force of destruction. (A similar thing is true with the female nature, but not the point of this discussion)

We've neglected to teach our children, but most especially boys, to do this; and efforts to reprogram them have dulled them.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 08:24 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
I don't think that anyone on this board believes that women don't have a bad time of it in life either...


Earlier this thread, when I asked Dr. Evil for ways he thought sexism or discrimination harms women, he responded "Bathrooms. There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand. That's about all I can see..." And then Gonzokid responded "I don't even agree there."

So clearly, SOME people on this board believe that sexism is something that only harms men, and virtually never harms women.

And I have absolutely nothing against men speaking up against sexist harms to men. However, that doesn't mean I agree with the particulars of every MRA analysis.

Quote
The feminist groups who have been talking about equality for years didn't seem interested in the plight of these fathers, or the fact that the court system seemed so biased.


Many feminists have published papers talking about court bias against women. Have MRA groups been interested in that?

I don't think feminists are obliged to solve all of MRA's problems, any more than MRAs are obliged to solve all of feminists' problems.

Regarding the three Robin Morgan quotes you provided, do you have a citation to the whole article (not just the out-of-context quote), or at least the dates they were written?

Quote
How do you think it makes us feel when we read this sort of thing?


Truthfully? I think it makes you feel legitimized.

That's why quotes from a feminist most feminists my age have barely heard of and even less often read are so incredibly popular on MRA and anti-feminist websites; they legitimize your views. That's fine, I guess, but it hardly constitutes a fair or representative sample of feminist writing. Why not quote bell hooks or Naomi Wolf or Susan Faludi on men, who are both more recent and far more widely read nowadays? Because quoting feminists who have a generally positive view of men, or who write about how sexism harms men, doesn't legitimize your views.

Quote
To compound this, men like Hugo and yourself support these people and then he calls us misogynists (incidentally see if you can find misandrists in your spell checker).


Nope, I can't. Does that mean that misandry is unfairly left out because of anti-male bias at the spell-check company; or does that mean the spell-checker includes common words more often than uncommon words?

I don't support Robin Morgan; I think she's pretty much an asshole, at least regarding her views of men. But I also realize that she's a long, long way from representing all feminists.

Question: Why do you think saying that traditional marriage should be done away with is a man-hating statement?

Quote
The thing that really gets under my skin is when we speak out against this hatemongering our voices get silenced because people like Hugo insist that 'men have all the power'.


I'm reading your words right now; you haven't been silenced. On Glenn's show, every caller but one (me) disagreed with Hugo's views, as did Glenn himself. Apparently you feel silenced if people who disagree with you are allowed to speak at all.

On my website, a MRA left a comment this week that he felt that his Free Speech (capitalization his) is violated when someone calls him a misogynist.  Say what? Free speech doesn't mean that MRAs have a right to not be criticized.

There's a big difference between being disagreed with and being silenced.

Quote
Sure, a few rich guys own most of the world's money and have the most political power, but does that mean that by definition I am powerful? Hell no! But should I be ignored with my protests overlooked because of it? Apparently yes.


:shrug: It's not feminism's job to make sure that you are heard to whatever degree it requires to satisfy you. If you're not heard enough, try harder. If you think that feminists feel like we're being heard, then you're deeply misjudging how we feel.

I'd say that male power overlaps with other things - such as race power and class power. And it's not that wealthy, white men have everything easy - it's just that they have things easier than otherwise similar poor, non-white women.  And even then, I'm only talking about broad trends - there are always individual exceptions.

No one gets through life easily all the time. No one. My father is a wealthy white man, but that doesn't mean that his life doesn't suck a lot of the time (he's seeking a new kidney now, for instance). But as bad off as he is, he's a lot better off than a poor black lesbian with a failing kidney would be.

Do men automatically get everything good in life handed to them on a silver platter? No, of course not. Do men, on average, tend to be better off in many ways than similarly-situated women? I'd say yes.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 27, 2005, 08:28 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I think I can step in and help you out there.

In South-east asia, for instance, the apparent disposability of women leads to several sexist phenomena.


While I certainly agree those are all urgent problems - much more urgent, in my estimation, than most sexist problems faced by men or women here in the USA - I have to admit that I intended my question to be about problems faced by women in the USA, not worldwide.


Funny. A lot of those problems are identical to those that men face in the west. (With the caveat that men in the west are living in a richer nation.)

I'm not sure I can cite an example of the problems women face in the west, because I've never experienced it nor have I seen it. I've seen a lot of women complaining about what appears to me to be non-existant issues, or issues that directly or indirectly relate to other *women's* opinions of them, but not anything that could be catagorized as "inflicted by the culture of men".
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 27, 2005, 08:29 AM
Suffering is an aspect of human life. Perhaps that's what neonsamuria was getting at.

But as I said on Hugo's board, there is a great deal of difference between suffering induced by self or induced by others and suffering induced by *society*.

Our society bends over backwards to reduce women's suffering, and because it's a zero sum game, that *increases* mens.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 08:30 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Nonsense. I posted here about Hugo to reply to an unfair attack on his character. That doesn't mean I'm required to defend Hugo's views. Although Hugo and I are allies and agree on many things, our views are not identical, and I'm not even certain that I fully understand all of Hugo's philosophy (Hugo is more philosophical than I; I'm more of a policy person). Given that I have very little time available to post, it's just sensible for me to concentrate on defending my own views, which I can speak about much more authoritatively.


It would help, then, to paint a broad brush of where you and Hugo's views on issues coincide and differ; as it stands now you come across as dodging the issue.


As I said in the very bit you quote, Hugo's approach is more broad and philosophical, whereas I'm happier discussing particular policies and issues. In other words, I'm happy to discuss the details of rape prevalence studies until the cows come home; but I see broader questions, like "is feminism evil?", as too subjective and wide-ranging to be productively debated.

And, to quote from one of the earlier posts this thread, which you apparently missed:

Since you asked: My biggest disagreement with Hugo is over abortion - Hugo's pro-life (in the sense of wanting abortion banned), I'm pro-choice.

I also strongly disagree with some of Hugo's views on masculinity. Hugo believes that (to paraphrase a Robert Bly quote Hugo agrees with) "only men can turn a boy into a man." I think that's wrongheaded; boys become men automatically, by virtue of living long enough. It is, I think, this conception of "manhood" as something that has to be attained - and that might not be attained if one is wrongly gender-socialized - that leads some men to try and prove their masculinity in destructive ways.

Put another way, Hugo wants to see cultural concepts of masculinity and femininity reformed, whereas I want to see them eliminated.

There are other areas of disagreement, but those are the two major ones, in my opinion. Of course, Hugo might disagree. :)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 08:34 AM
Quote from: "Galt"
Actually, Ampersand, I'll surprise you by calling you names - but in the opposite direction.  You sound very intelligent, you're certainly not a moron, but I just don't understand why you believe what you believe with regard to feminism.

Do you personally feel all-powerful as a man?  That's really a relevant question.  I think sometimes people get hypnotized by theory to the extent that they can't see factual things right in front of them.


Thanks for the kind words - I appreciate them, and also your intelligence and civility.

Of course I don't personally feel all-powerful. However, feminist theory as I understand it doesn't suggest that I as a man am all-powerful, nor does it suggest that I feel all-powerful.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Jan 27, 2005, 08:52 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Nossir.  What you will have to deal with is people and things outside of your comfort zone.


So far the only post addressed to me that's been outside my "comfort zone" is FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR's, because of his evident contempt for me. I'm not comfortable being hated. Beyond that, though, nothing so far has been anything new to me, or anything I'm uncomfortable with.

Quote
I'm quite familiar with the thing you call "debate" having participated in it myself; it is however a highly structured and formalized arena.  Like Olympic style fencing, it has certain rules to it that often cause points to be lost for breaking rules.


Yup. And some of those rules are arbitrary and silly. But others - such as requiring that all arguments have a warrant - make sense, and force participants to be more logical and consistent in their approach.

Quote
We've had several people who have complained about similar things, and without exception, have approached this forum as arrogant pedants, intent upon enlightening the poor barbaric rubes who populate it with their flowery discourse, and then become frustrated when their assumptions and premises are rejected - likewise the people here swiftly become annoyed with the repetitive pedagogy set forth by those people.


"Swiftly become annoyed with the repetitive pedagogy"? Sheesh, do you love ten-dollar words! That's cool, whatever floats your boat. I tend to write like that myself, I have to admit.

For the record, I don't think of you as poor barbaric rubes, nor do I expect to change your minds.

Quote
As far as your collection of Feminist authors goes, you as well make an improper assumption that those authors have not been read...


No, I was saying what my past experience was, not assuming anything about you. In particular, I related a true anecdote about an anti-feminist barging his way into a conversation about a particular essay by Catherine MacKinnon ("From Center To Margin") and essays by other feminist authors rebutting MacKinnon's, when in fact he hadn't read the essays at all.

Quote
Now if such subjects are your interest as you profess, then I can only say that this is the wrong place to discuss them if you wish to engage like minded individuals who find value in such rubbish; and to proceed thusly would be exceedingly foolish on your part.  It would no doubt provoke much frustration on both ends.  But, in such a case it would as well your own fault for attempting to pound that square peg into that round hole.


But that wasn't the question I was addressing in my post. Someone asked why the Ms boards needed to ban MRAs and anti-feminists. I explained that it was because if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to discuss or debate things that feminists are interested in but MRAs are not.

I didn't in any way suggest or imply that I think I should be able to discuss such matters here on your boards. That would be silly.

[Edited by Amp to remove a bit of needless snarkiness.]
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 27, 2005, 09:41 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
I don't think that anyone on this board believes that women don't have a bad time of it in life either...


Earlier this thread, when I asked Dr. Evil for ways he thought sexism or discrimination harms women, he responded "Bathrooms. There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand. That's about all I can see..." And then Gonzokid responded "I don't even agree there."


Heh.  As part of my research for my article on the "Potty Police" I did some very scientific testing.

When I first read the news piece that inspired that article, it was my daughter who said, and supplied me with the quote "Women fuck around in the bathroom."  I had her time me.  I timed her.  We wore pants, and I even put on my kilt and wore a set of her pantyhose.  (Her pantyhose will stretch to fit me.  Her skirts, though, don't.)

The difference was negligible, and sometimes she beat me. (makes sense.  Smaller bladder, less urine, less time peeing)  And when I asked her why it took women so much longer, she went through the litany of putting toilet paper on the seat, talking with girlfriends, adjusting makeup, peeking outside to see if the date was "chatting up" any other women, her friend Jenna who bought these outrageous clubbing outfits that she actually had to almost completely disrobe to take a whizz.

I'm assuming you speak of systematic bias and discrimination, in any event.  Other than the military not assigning women to forward echelon combat units, I know of no law or policy which specifically targets against women; and in the years I've asked for people to present active, on the books and enforced laws that is the only one which has been cited (Besides the bazillion of "Well, women don't get a special exemption or special treatment here so it's discrimination" ones.)

I will be happy to look up examples of "gender norming" and "Affirmative Action" and such for you - right off the top of my head, the Army requires very disparate PT standards for men and women as just one example, as do many fire and police departments  I don't know of any "Men's" scholarships, or business growth intitiatives, or government set asides in contracts.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: daksdaddy on Jan 27, 2005, 09:42 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
feminist theory as I understand it doesn't suggest that I as a man am all-powerful, nor does it suggest that I feel all-powerful.


Pardon Me!?? :shock:

What is this about then?:   "The Male Privilege Checklist".

We as males not even knowing of our priviledge?

What exactly is it that the feminist doctrine is fighting against?


I'm not going to call you a hypocrate, but I will suggest that your quote certainly allows one to draw that conclusion.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR on Jan 27, 2005, 10:10 AM
Quote
So far the only post addressed to me that's been outside my "comfort zone" is FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR's, because of his evident contempt for me. I'm not comfortable being hated. Beyond that, though, nothing so far has been anything new to me, or anything I'm uncomfortable with.


No need to feel singled out. I have contempt for all "feminists" (feminism....the most insideous fraud of the past 100 years). If you are truly egalitarian like it seems then dont ally yourself with a thugish gang of fanatical, heterophobic quasi-Stalinists. Drop the title "pro-feminist" and you'll lose my contempt. I hold "feminism" in the same regard that a Jew holds fascism and consider it to be nothing less than radical lesbian hubris.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 27, 2005, 12:08 PM
Ampersand said:

Quote
So although I have to admit that some MRAs (such as you, Dr. Evil) are agreeable to the idea that men and traditional masculinity ought change, some other MRAs are clearly opposed to that idea.


I don't remember making any such statment.  While I believe that both men and women are evolving and both are in need of transformation I shudder to think of expecting only one half to take responsibility and to try and force change on half the population!  (This sounds like the Duluth model  :wink: )

This is one of the places where you and I seem to diverge.  I see the evolution of sex roles over the thousands of years to be a result of necessity and survival and not some heinous plot to rob women of their humanity and individuality.  

Things are starting to split wide open for the feminists.  They have to contend with an increasing number of intelligent people other than mra's who see the shallow and hurtful projections of feminism as a big pile of bunk.   An example is the brilliant theorist Ken Wilbur who has written mostly on the evolution of consciousness but takes the time to mention that feminism's view of evolution is terribly flawed and in fact hurtful to women since it pictures them as sheeplike victims of these horrible men and their "patriarchy".  He goes on to say that the women he knows are much too competant and able to be seen as sheep.   He knows that evolution happens due to survival and if you listen to one of his workshops you hear him actually laugh at feminists.  It is very heartening to hear a brilliant and respected scholar stand his ground and call a spade a spade.

Quote
AMP: However... The mistake made by the men's rights movement is that you folks tend to think it's a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don't have genuine complaints. Which is why men's righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn't as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-


Is this what you think?  Where did you get this idea?  It seems very clear to me that the focus is fighting the discrimination against men.  The primary focus is not on women it is on the lack of fairness for men and boys.  We all have valid and genuine complaints, both men and women. I don't see anyone on this forum spending a great deal of time in saying women don't have problems.  That's not it at all.  What we are trying to say is that men DO have problems that are not being addressed.  At this point the women's complaints are heard and the men's are not.  Just try writing your congressman about a woman's issue and then write them about a men's issue and notice the different reception you get.  I've done this and it is very, very educational.  Every congressional office has a legislative assistant who is paid to focus on women's issues.  Please show me one that has an LA that focuses on men's issues.  You can't.  You and I agree at least in part on the list of issues impacting men and boys today.  I would be very interested to see a list of issues impacting women today and compare the two.  I would guess that those issues that cropped up for women would already have solutions in place, affirmative action, newspaper articles, volunteer groups, congressional support etc.  The men's list would not have this.   I'd bet a large sum that the men's list would be longer and more damaging.  If the men's list is longer and more damaging why are there only LA's for women's issues?  Why is that?

You didn't say anything about whether you have children Amp.  Are you a father?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: bluegrass on Jan 27, 2005, 01:39 PM
Hugo:

"I didn't feel like being a sturdy oak yesterday. It needed to be okay that I was hurt, even if the provocation seemed slight to some."

This from a guy who so quickly and easily dismisses the pain of men who lose their children to divorce and who suffer at the hands of abusive women.

Oh Hugo, I don't want to be a strong oak.  I really need it to be OK that I don't get to see my kids anymore.  I mean, imagine what you'd do if your ex-wife took your little chinchilla, matilda!
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Jan 27, 2005, 05:03 PM
Fantastic post Doctor.  I'd be interested in hearing a reply that didn't involve the concepts of male or female oppression, subjugation and/or victimism, and the need to eradicate or change innate male or female behavior from AMP.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Jan 30, 2005, 09:42 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"

First of all, Hugo is not a party-line person. To accuse any pro-life feminist of modifying his views to toe the feminist party line is ridiculous; obviously Hugo is willing to hold beliefs that go against feminist consensus.


I'm not necessarily accusing of modifying all his beliefs. I am talking about his specific beliefs on issues such as injustice in family courts (and also disproportionate male workplace deaths, as you mentioned). He claims to support them, yet he doesn't speak up about them even though they are integrally related to the subjects he discusses and provide counter-examples to some of his claims about male privilege.  

Quote
Second, your example of the MRA who (sensibly) realizes that Koss' work is good work in his secret mind doesn't apply, because you have no way of knowing what goes on in Hugo's secret mind.

Finally, your assumption that custody decisions are so central that no one can sincerely care about men and not discuss them is an assumption on your part, nothing more. I don't believe that's true, and there's no reason to assume that Hugo believes that's true.


Actually, I do know to some extent what is going on in Hugo's secret mind, because he agreed that family courts were unjust on the show (if my memory serves me).

I'm not assuming that "custody decisions are so central that no one can sincerely care about men and not discuss them." If someone cares about men but is ignorant of injustices in custody decisions and child support, then that is no reason to doubt their caring. The issue is that family court is a big, glaring, counter-example to a lot of claims Hugo has made about male privilege. So is male workplace death (which he also doesn't mention, though he must be aware of it). Of course, it isn't necessarily Hugo's job to argue against his own position, but I still think the one-sidedness of his rhetoric is dishonest. One-sided rhetoric is not necessarily wrong because it is one-sided of course, but it makes discussion very polarized.

I don't trust loaded and nebulous terms like "male privilege" any more than I trust terms like "female manipulativeness." Obviously, both males and females have certain privileges in various areas, and both men and women manipulate in certain contexts. But men having some privileges in some areas doesn't mean they have some kind of general, over-arching privilege, and the manipulativeness of some women in some contexts does not justify referring to some kind of general female manipulativeness.

Quote
Quote
True, he never mentions female homosociality explicitly (because, as you said, men were the focus of the debate). Nevertheless, one of his main arguments is that men are influenced by a culture that promotes negative attitudes towards women. If male homosociality is part of "patriarchal" conditioning, then it is reasonable to infer that it effects men more (of course, you don't have to follow me in that inference).


I don't understand this at all. Are you suggesting that women are somehow immune from "patriarchal conditioning"? I don't think that many feminists would agree with that - and I certainly don't. It's not as if women are raised in some other culture, immune from the sexist influences of our society.


I am not implying that women are immune to "patriarchal conditioning." I am simply claiming that such conditioning would effect males differently from how it would effect females. If that conditioning caused male approval to be seen as more valuable that female approval, then there would be higher homosociality among males (because they would care about each other's approval more).

Quote
A lot of your arguments against what Hugo says about homosociality seem based on the assumption that Hugo ever said, "men do what they do ONLY to please men, 100% of the time, with no gray areas or exceptions. It never, ever happens that men act to please themselves, or women." But Hugo never said that, of course; and none of your arguments with that implicit assumption hold water.


Let's look at Hugo's rhetoric (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/still_sicknbsp_.html): "all men, including heterosexual ones, are raised in our culture to be more eager to please other men than women." I don't see many grey areas or exceptions here. What else am I supposed to think?

Quote
I'd also repeat what I said before; often what men (and women, but that's outside the scope of this discussion) are reacting to isn't actual reactions of men, but imagined reactions in their head. It's quite possible for someone to feel pressured (in his head) to appear masculine in the eyes of his peers or his father-figures, when in fact the peers or father-figures in question don't doubt his masculinity at all.


Yes, I didn't address this point originally because I agreed with it, but I couldn't see how it made any difference. It's also quite possible for a man to feel pressured to be extra nice to females, when they actually don't doubt his niceness at all.

I might be willing to agree that men subconsciously guide their behavior based by the expectations of males to a greater extent that than by the expectations of females (though I'm not sure there is necessarily anything wrong with this - it might make more sense to look to members of one's own gender for guidance, because they may be more likely to understand what you are facing). Nevertheless, this does not mean that those men will necessarily be seeking to please other men more than women, as Hugo claims. It's possible to behave in a way that pleases members of both sexes.  For instance, say your father tells you that being a man depends on being chivalrous and respectful to women (this isn't my experience, but I have heard it from other guys). Yes, you will be guiding your behavior greatly off your father's expectations, but you will still be working to please women more than you work to please men. Hugo's argument doesn't take any of these shades of grey into consideration.

Quote
Say, is that the study paid for by the IWF, using an IWF-selected scholar, and never given any independent or peer review? Funny, I thought the IWF objected to that sort of thing; they have criticized the Koss study (which, unlike the hook-up study, was reviewed by independent scholars) again and again on the grounds that it was sponsored by Ms.


Here is the study:  "Hooking Up, Hanging Out and
Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today" (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-hooking_up.html) by Norval and Maquardt for the Institute for American Values. If you read the bio of Maquadt at the bottom, it mentions that the study has appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I don't know whether this is a proper journal or not.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that for some reason, some women are rejecting "nice guys" specifically because those guys are "nice." I don't know how big this trend is; I simply want to establish that it is a trend.

While I was on that page, I ran into this article (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/a-a_guy_s_perspective.html) which was pretty interesting. I highly suspect that experiences like that young man's are very common in college. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any young feminist women who are rushing in to sweep him off his feet.

Quote
I realize that's the stereotype, but I haven't observed it to be true in reality. Anecdotally, I'm as "tame and passive" a man as you'll ever meet, sexually, but I had girlfriends and hook-ups in college. And I'm unattractive, physically. Maybe it helps that the women I know are virtually all feminists, and don't hesitate to initiate. If anything, feminism has made things easier for unaggressive guys, by encouraging women to take the lead more often. (If you think that unaggressive guys didn't exist before the 1960s feminist movement, then I think you're kidding yourself.)


Speaking anecdotally, I used to be very tame and passive in general, and it didn't work for me at all. And I'm decently attractive, physically. I got nowhere until I became a lot more confident, assertive and proactive. (Just a random idea, but some of our differences in experience could be due to a generation gap. Your college years must have been closer to the Sexual Revolution, so college women might have been more proactive then than they are now.)

Unfortunately, I don't think that a lot of women have gotten the memo that they are supposed to take the lead more often. I am glad that feminism has tried to make gender roles more flexible, but I don't think it has succeeded in reaching the tipping point for breaking the status quo. If a woman is interested in initiating things, she quickly realizes that it takes a lot of stress and requires putting her ego on the line. If she is attractive enough to have guys chasing after her, then she can just be passive and wait for one of them to ask her out or make a move. If a guy doesn't want to initiate things, he is going to have his options limited to the small pool of women who will initiate things (assuming he can even find one). Under the current system, the incentives are for the man to be proactive, and the woman to be passive.

Training men to be tame and passive might make sense in some utopia, but it doesn't work in the real world right now.

Quote
Now, did I have as many romances or hook-ups as more aggressive and good-looking men? No, but c'mon - don't I have to take responsibility for my own life at some point? Of course the men (and, for that matter, the women) who put themselves out there and try again and again will end up dating more. That's true in any human endevour; those who try more aggressively succeed more often.


What if women were encouraged to passive about say... pursuing careers in science? Should we say that they should just take responsibility for their own lives? Actually, of course we should: everyone should take responsibility for their own lives. Yet that shouldn't stop us from pointing out areas where the deck is unfairly stacked against people.

You seem to agree with me that tame and passive men will experience less success with women. The implications of this are very important. If a guy fails with women because he is socialized to be tame and passive, then he is likely to blame either himself, or to blame women. If he calls his tameness and passivity "niceness," then he may believe that women don't like nice guys. If he believes women don't like niceness, then he is less likely to treat them with empathy.

I suspect a lot of negative attitudes towards women develop through a process like this: males getting set up for failure by their socialization, and then blaming women for that failure. I don't have any empirical evidence for this, but I can show you many examples of negative attitudes towards women developing through the process I've described (though I will have to save it for a future post).

Males being more tame and passive could contribute to the decline in dating that is visible on college campuses. Males who are normally too shy around women might be attracted to hook-up culture because the alcohol can provide "liquid confidence." Many people have claimed that hook-up culture in its current form is detrimental to women (though I'm not sure to what extent I agree).

Quote
I think that, ideally, for most interactions in life, sex should be no more relevant than eye color. I'm an extremist that way. Men should feel free to wear skirts and dresses, if they want. Whether your male or female shouldn't determine how likely it is that you hold a certain job (yes, including dangerous jobs and the job of stay-at-home parent).


Ok, I can agree with this.

Quote
Boys should feel no pressure to "become men"; boys and men should not be given the idea that masculinity is fragile and must be maintained through manly acts and attitudes. Etc..


Unfortunately, part of the reason that this attitude exists may be that a critical amount of women are rewarding it.

P.S. This thread is getting a bit cumbersome, so if you want to focus on the areas that interest you the most, then that is fine with me.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FP on Jan 31, 2005, 12:32 PM
Quote from: "Galt"
<<He is an archtypical Women's Studies professor, which is to say, a person endowed with an academic title that for most part seems completely undeserved.>>

I don't want to get started on that - and it's probably a topic for a different thread - but the amount of work that you have to do for a doctoral degree in molecular biology, or physics, or any of a number of other "real" degrees absolutely dwarfs "writing about your feelings" and the like in some areas.

I guess if you get a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, you earn a salary at a company and really produce something computer-wise for society.

But if you get a "doctoral degree" in interdisciplinary studies with a major in sex and gay relations, you go on Oprah, write a book that nitwits read, and earn far more.

Who knows - Dr. Phil, the lard-ass, wrote a best-seller book about dieting, and people eat it up.  I guess when the world seems to be against what I think, I have to go with the world.  I fucked up by majoring in something tangible.  I should have just skated.



http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/i_confess_i_did.html
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Jan 31, 2005, 01:14 PM
I like how hugo and ampersand ignore me almost completely. So much for being respectful of the opinions of women. I guess it's only the women who march in lock step with their views. Perhaps they're threatened by an woman who is an independant thinker? And why not? When you hold women to be helpless victims of men's every twitch and grumble. After all, if they *weren't* how could you play the white knight, swooping in to save them by "not being like all the other men."

I'm sorry, I'm not going to play a fragile princess to Hugo and Ampersand's desire to be corageous saviors, defeating the horible dragon of masculinity.

I must say, at least you mra guys *listen* to me and *respond* even(perhaps particularly) when you disagree with me. I like that, even if it comes with some understandable anger and resentment.

Feminist men have overlooked the immense respect accorded to women by some mras. By recognizing the negative powers of feminity, mras are actually acknowleging the strength of female culture. Men like Hugo and Ampersand can't concieve of a powerful woman or group of women, they refuse to, even when the evidence is impossible to deny.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 31, 2005, 03:52 PM
Oh, that's real good, Hugo, you quote a statement from me without attributing it to me (the second statement):

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/i_confess_i_did.html


Get some academic training in something (besides women's studies).

You're lucky it falls under "fair use" in the copyright laws.  The link is also above in FloorPie's post.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 31, 2005, 04:24 PM
You know I 'm real dissappointed that ampersand never gave us any idea of why he thought this:

Quote
AMP: However... The mistake made by the men's rights movement is that you folks tend to think it's a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don't have genuine complaints. Which is why men's righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn't as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-


I must say that I am truly insulted.  I sure would like to know how you can make such sweeping generalizations about us?  Accusing Glenn of writing column after column about how rape isn't serious? Are you kidding? You obviously don't know Glenn.   I wonder how many of Glenn's columns you have read?  Maybe the above was said in haste or without thought?  Maybe you should apologize for hurting all our feelings?

The real question is why would you need to get so defensive that you lash out at an entire group and accuse them of things that are obviously untrue?  I think the cow is teetering.  Folks like you and Hugo have quite an investment in feminism being on top.  When  it drops like a stone you will have some serious worldview adjusting to do.  I guess I would be defensive/offensive too.  I guess I can understand why you would act like this.
Title: Hugo Schwyzer's past
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Jan 31, 2005, 05:35 PM
I found my way here from Hugo's blog.  I have mixed feelings about doing this, but did you know that Hugo Schwyzer recently admitted to the PCC newspaper that he had had "consensual relationships" with his students in the past?  Check out this article, scroll down:

http://www.pcc-courieronline.com/120204/news/check.html

I took a couple of classes from him in 1997-98.  During that time, he went out with one of my friends, I'll call her K.  He really fucked her over.  He was so sweet to her, and then he got what he anted and dumped her.

I know he has changed -- religious conversion and all.  And he was a great teacher, actually.  But I've been following this whole stuff recently on his blog and here, and it seems he is so honest and open about everythign except for this aspect of his past.

If he hadn't said  it in the newspaper himself, I wouldn't say anything. BUt I just wanted to know if you guys knew about it.

Annemarie S.
Arcadia, California
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 31, 2005, 06:03 PM
Quote
Typhonblue-- Feminist men have overlooked the immense respect accorded to women by some mras. By recognizing the negative powers of feminity, mras are actually acknowleging the strength of female culture.


I always appreciate your insights and learn something from your posts.

I am starting to believe that feminism is ultimately far more damaging to women than to men. (Can you relate to that idea?)

While men certainly suffer under our current misandrist legal system, and from increasingly acknowledged anti-male media bias, and from a feminized educational system... and et. al.

It's inevitable that these social injustices will be slowly corrected, through advocacy and politics.

But feminism's deep dark secret is that it cannot abide the prospect of strong, liberated, intellectual, non-conformist, non-PC, non-victim women who make informed choices that fall outside the acceptable NOW doctrine.

This insistence on a herd mentality does not affirm female empowerment; rather, it seeks to conform it within narrow PC boundaries.

Feminism Inc. cannot avoid its complicity with the "Victim Industry," which is a franchise of an ideological cartel that infantilizes women.

You can't truly respect a person that you have labeled as a "victim." It is dehumanizing, and denies that individual's unique identity, ignores their power of choice, making them into an object, even an abstraction.

When MRA's rant and rage about the evils of feminism, it's usually about anti-male injustices.

But as you've suggested, there's another "darkside" to feminism that needs to be interrogated.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Jan 31, 2005, 06:11 PM
Thank you Annemarie and welcome.  Interesting that Hugo would have exploited his students with his position of power.   Thanks for the link.

I'd be curious to hear more from you about your take on the interchanges between Hugo and the MRA's.  Are you strongly on one side or the other?  

Roy and Typhon - Great stuff.
Title: Not really sure
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Jan 31, 2005, 06:17 PM
On the whole Hugo-men's rights thing, I don't know where I stand.  On the one hand, I believe in taking care of myself.  I'm 25, I take care of myself, I am putting myself through grad school in accounting.  On the other hand, I like it when guys open doors for me, you know?

But I can see that guys have it hard too, harder than sometimes we girls like to admit.  I've known some guys who were real dicks, and some guys who were princes, and some who wer inbtween.  I mean, I think the point is we are all just human, riight?

And like I said, Hugo Schwyzer was a great teacher.  You should hear him lecture!  And I do believe he has changed. I saw him at PCC last year and he acts totally different.  But it also seems like he isn't being fully honest when he postes about all of these issues.

Anyhow, I've got a lot to learrn here.  I'll be back.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 31, 2005, 06:23 PM
Quote
He (Dr. Hugo) admitted that when he was first hired, he had several consensual relationships with students in his classes. He realized later on that what he'd been doing was unethical, and chose to take a leadership role in the development of the new policy as a way of making amends for the mistake. "I think sometimes those who made a mistake are in the best position to understand the consequences ," said Schwyzer. "There's a real problem determining what constitutes consent in a relationship with different power levels."

http://www.pcc-courieronline.com/120204/news/check.html


I am far from objective on this topic, as I permanently parted ways with my best male friend and colleague when he revealed that he was sleeping with some of his female students.

He is a photography professor, and used his vocation to entrap young women into doing "exotic modeling" shoots.

I'll be blunt.

There is no lower creature on the face of the earth that a teacher who betrays the trust and respect of a student for easy sexual predation.

Any teacher of either gender who is caught in this predatory practice should be legally prohibited from ever teaching again.

And yeah, there are lots of opportunistic young women in the academic game who might take the low road and perhaps sell their charms for a higher GPA. Maybe even deceive themselves that its a "mentor" relationship with privileges.

Doesn't matter.

Teachers don't prey upon their students. Period.

It's equivalent to a surgeon who decides to harvest a spare kidney when you've placed your trust in her/him that it's a simple appendectomy.

A teacher who sexually exploits the contract of learning is a predator.

Ah well, Kant is my favorite philosopher.

"One strike and you're out!"
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Jan 31, 2005, 06:27 PM
<<I'm 25, I take care of myself, I am putting myself through grad school in accounting.>>

<<And like I said, Hugo Schwyzer was a great teacher.>>

You took gender studies courses while you took accounting in undergrad?  That's a broad bachelor's degree!  (usually accounting people are pretty much narrowed down to certain classes).
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Jan 31, 2005, 06:33 PM
Quote from: "Roy"

There is no lower creature on the face of the earth that a teacher who betrays the trust and respect of a student for easy sexual predation.

Any teacher of either gender who is caught in this predatory practice should be legally prohibited from ever teaching again.

And yeah, there are lots of opportunistic young women in the academic game who might take the low road and perhaps sell their charms for a higher GPA. Maybe even deceive themselves that its a "mentor" relationship with privileges.

Teachers don't prey upon their students. Period.

A teacher who sexually exploits the contract of learning is a predator.


I taught college for a few years, and while I had to rebuff many an advance of the "Can't we go somehwre, get a drink, and `talk' about my grade?" variety, I never gave in.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Jan 31, 2005, 07:02 PM
Quote
Gonz-- I taught college for a few years, and while I had to rebuff many an advance of the "Can't we go somehwre, get a drink, and `talk' about my grade?" variety, I never gave in.


It's truly amazing to consider the social, personal, (and I must say existential) corruption that feminism has visited upon this culture.

All those female students you rebuffed thought they were just "playing by the new rules..." of gender equality... in a marketplace of deceits.

You have your integrity.

And that's all any of us ever have left to "sell."
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: neonsamurai on Feb 01, 2005, 03:37 AM
It's late, but here's my response to Ampersand:

Quote

Earlier this thread, when I asked Dr. Evil for ways he thought sexism or discrimination harms women, he responded "Bathrooms. There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand. That's about all I can see..." And then Gonzokid responded "I don't even agree there."

So clearly, SOME people on this board believe that sexism is something that only harms men, and virtually never harms women.


I think that might be taken out of context. Just because Dr Evil mentions one thing and Gonzokid disagrees with it doesn't cancel out their arguments.

Quote

Many feminists have published papers talking about court bias against women. Have MRA groups been interested in that?


I was unaware of that. If you could stick some links up then I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who'd like to go and take a look at those.

Quote
I don't think feminists are obliged to solve all of MRA's problems, any more than MRAs are obliged to solve all of feminists' problems.


Very true, but what irks me is that feminism was supposed to be about equality. If we weren't speaking up for ourselves nothing would get done about it. When we have feminists like Dr Hugo putting down the mens' movement it's like somebody from Breast Cancer UK saying that the Prostate Cancer Trust isn't worth supporting.

Quote
Regarding the three Robin Morgan quotes you provided, do you have a citation to the whole article (not just the out-of-context quote), or at least the dates they were written?


Alas, I was unable to find any times or dates relating to when Robin Morgan said such things, although her quotes are all over the Internet. As you've explained though, these quotes were taken out of context, so maybe I've misunderstood what she meant by the following, because I got the impression that she was being misandric. What exactly did she mena by these statements?

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do."


Quote

How do you think it makes us feel when we read this sort of thing?

Quote
Truthfully? I think it makes you feel legitimized.

That's why quotes from a feminist most feminists my age have barely heard of and even less often read are so incredibly popular on MRA and anti-feminist websites; they legitimize your views. That's fine, I guess, but it hardly constitutes a fair or representative sample of feminist writing. Why not quote bell hooks or Naomi Wolf or Susan Faludi on men, who are both more recent and far more widely read nowadays? Because quoting feminists who have a generally positive view of men, or who write about how sexism harms men, doesn't legitimize your views.


But that's kind of a circular argument. I read a quote from a well-known feminist outwardly slagging off men and it makes me become an MRA, is that what feminists want? Or if I'm an MRA and I read something like that, and it shifts my opinion of feminists from neutral to 'unpleasant' is that what feminists want? Robin Morgan works in the media, so it's not exactly as if she didn't expect what she said to be published. Ask many of the guys here why they're MRA's and I doubt many of them will say it's simply because they hate women. We've got guys here who've been falsely accused of rape or battery, guys who got smacked around by their partners and fathers who haven't seen their kids in years.

Quote

I don't support Robin Morgan; I think she's pretty much an asshole, at least regarding her views of men. But I also realize that she's a long, long way from representing all feminists.

Question: Why do you think saying that traditional marriage should be done away with is a man-hating statement?


I'm glad that you're not a Robin Morgan fan, there's something we have in common! The trouble is though that as you've said she doesn't represent all women, because I assume her views are too extreme. With all these '1 in 4' women are raped stats though isn't that doing the same, it's using extremes to promote the feminist cause.

This valentine's day I've got to think up something special to do with my girlfriend. Why would I do something like that, after all it's just an idea thought up by card companies to sell cards? Well I'd like to make her feel special because I think she's a fine woman. But wait! It's also V-day! Violence against women day! Maybe I should take her to the Vagina Monologues instead? Why are feminists promoting violence against women on Valentines day? Why not have it on August the 17th when nothing else is happening? Could it be that they're using it as an excuse to remind women how evil we men are? Just say we stop having Valentines day and replace it with Violence Against women's day, do you think that it would be another obstacle between men and women? The same as destroying marriage, it is another attempt to push men and women further apart.

Quote

The thing that really gets under my skin is when we speak out against this hatemongering our voices get silenced because people like Hugo insist that 'men have all the power'.
Quote

I'm reading your words right now; you haven't been silenced. On Glenn's show, every caller but one (me) disagreed with Hugo's views, as did Glenn himself. Apparently you feel silenced if people who disagree with you are allowed to speak at all.

On my website, a MRA left a comment this week that he felt that his Free Speech (capitalization his) is violated when someone calls him a misogynist. Say what? Free speech doesn't mean that MRAs have a right to not be criticized.

There's a big difference between being disagreed with and being silenced.


You are reading my words, but are you dismissing them? Dr Hugo (he's got a doctorate!) has said that our movement is a bunch of misogynists, so why should you want to listen to what we have to say? I'm not big on listening to what the Klu Klux Klan have to say for themselves because they're a bunch of hate mongers.

For example, Dr Lawrence Summers gives a talk on theories behind why women might not do so well at mathematics and science. This guy is the head of Harvard University but he almost immediately has to apologise and start looking into schemes to help promote women in the lacking areas, because his remarks caused offence. He was called a misogynist for postulating a theory. Thank god for him that he didn't live in France, where such behaviour is a crime. It's a catch 22 situation: If you love women you can't criticize them

Quote

Sure, a few rich guys own most of the world's money and have the most political power, but does that mean that by definition I am powerful? Hell no! But should I be ignored with my protests overlooked because of it? Apparently yes.

Quote
:shrug: It's not feminism's job to make sure that you are heard to whatever degree it requires to satisfy you. If you're not heard enough, try harder. If you think that feminists feel like we're being heard, then you're deeply misjudging how we feel.

I'd say that male power overlaps with other things - such as race power and class power. And it's not that wealthy, white men have everything easy - it's just that they have things easier than otherwise similar poor, non-white women. And even then, I'm only talking about broad trends - there are always individual exceptions.

No one gets through life easily all the time. No one. My father is a wealthy white man, but that doesn't mean that his life doesn't suck a lot of the time (he's seeking a new kidney now, for instance). But as bad off as he is, he's a lot better off than a poor black lesbian with a failing kidney would be.

Do men automatically get everything good in life handed to them on a silver platter? No, of course not. Do men, on average, tend to be better off in many ways than similarly-situated women? I'd say yes.


Surely feminists are meant to stop misogynists from speaking out against women? I'm and MRA therefore I must be a misogynist right? Hugo has already mentioned that most men hate women without even knowing it, for various reasons including the use of pornography, and judging by my hard drive I must be the ultimate anti-female. As the guy on your Website stated, being branded as a hatemonger is a very easy way to dismiss a persons views. For example:

"Much of the misogyny of the men's rights movement is directed towards feminists. Just as racists in the Old South divided blacks into "good negroes" and "uppity troublemakers", so misogynists create a dichotomy of "good women" (submissive, eager to please, able to "take a joke", uncritical of bad male behavior) and "feminazis" (women who demand accountability from men and who ask to be taken seriously as human beings.)

To say one likes individual women, therefore, is no defense against the charge of misogyny. Plenty of racists like individual members of other ethnic groups. To be hostile to the movement that seeks to liberate women is enough, in my book, to merit the charge of misogyny.
Misogyny is also institutionalized in our society.

Perhaps it is my Christian faith informing my feminism, but I am convinced that pornography is the representative art form of a woman-hating culture. In porn, women exist to fulfill men's desires -- they have no real agency of their own. To see anyone as existing only to serve you and to fulfill you is, feminists have argued, a practical form of hatred."


I'm one of these MRA's AND I read pornography (well mostly I just look at the pictures). I'd better delete all my porn and start loving all women, even the ones that hate me or I'm like a racist in the Old South? Is that what you think of me Ampersand? Either I'm somebody who is saying what I think because of the injustices that men have to suffer or I'm here plain and simple because I hate women. If you think it's the later then by all means ignore me, but if you're using that as an excuse to undermine my views then hopefully you'll see why the guy or your site said what he said.

Again I agree with you that wealthy white men have it easier than poor black women, but I'll also bet that rich black women have it easier than poor white men. I'm not sure where you're located, but in the UK the majority of our homeless people are men.

Quote
Compared to the regular counts of rough sleepers in England, there have been few attempts in the last three decades to count the number of single homeless people in hostels on any given night. In 1965, the National Assistance Board collated information about 25,512 men and 1,963 women living in hostels, shelters, and lodging houses in England, Scotland and Wales. In 1972, a similar survey conducted by the Department of Health and Social Security found 24,535 men and 2,288 women.


http://www.crisis.org.uk/research/fact_files/statistics.php

Admittedly those statistics are over thirty years old but it would seem to me that although some a small percentage men have a lot of power, it would also seem to me that probably about the same number have no power at all. Why do you suppose that there are more homeless men than homeless women? Surely if men are better off in any given situation than a similarly disposed women there should be more women living on the streets than men?
Title: Hugo's Credentials
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 01, 2005, 12:03 PM
This just in:

Quote from: "FloorPie"
Quote from: "Galt"
<<He is an archtypical Women's Studies professor, which is to say, a person endowed with an academic title that for most part seems completely undeserved.>>

I don't want to get started on that - and it's probably a topic for a different thread - but the amount of work that you have to do for a doctoral degree in molecular biology, or physics, or any of a number of other "real" degrees absolutely dwarfs "writing about your feelings" and the like in some areas.

I guess if you get a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, you earn a salary at a company and really produce something computer-wise for society.

But if you get a "doctoral degree" in interdisciplinary studies with a major in sex and gay relations, you go on Oprah, write a book that nitwits read, and earn far more.

Who knows - Dr. Phil, the lard-ass, wrote a best-seller book about dieting, and people eat it up.  I guess when the world seems to be against what I think, I have to go with the world.  I fucked up by majoring in something tangible.  I should have just skated.



http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/01/i_confess_i_did.html


I went over to Hugo's webpage to read his remarks and was dismayed but not surprised with what I found:

Quote from: "Hugoboy"

The quoted remarks are typical of the tired old canards that have benn thrown for decades at those who work in Gender Studies.  I'm not interested in refuting all of the groundless charges in these comments -- it would take too long.  


At which point he provides the evidence we need to refute his own claim that Women's Studies is a legitimate academic discipline:

Quote
First quick point:  at most colleges and universities in the USA, professors who teach gender studies also teach in other disciplines, like history, psychology, sociology,and literature.  (Here's a list of many of the programs.)   Relatively few universities have "free-standing" departments of Women's Studies staffed by faculty who do not teach outside that department.


In other words, WS "professors" don't have to have expertise in the field.  Apparently as long as they tow the party line and/or are feminist shills with a bit of knowledge  of and reading from the equally unscholarly feminist "literature" they're considered qualified to teach and conduct research.  Imagine a physics department faculty comprised of historians, anthropologists, linguistics and poly sci experts, none of whom wrote their doctoral thesis on a topic related to physics but who just happen to have an interest in physics and have read some books by Hawking, Feynman(sp?) and Newton.  Do you think that the department would be considered scholarly and legitimate?  Of course not - it wouldn't even be able to get accredited.  That's the main reason why no serious academic takes Women's Studies seriously and why such observations are "tired old canards that have benn(sic) thrown for decades at those who work in Gender Studies".  We wouldn't say such things if there wasn't a lot of evidence to support them.

Quote
Second quick point:  dissertations in gender studies are never about how one "feels".  If you want to find out what most dissertations in the field are written about, I suggest you go here and type in women's studies or gender studies.  Not a lot of fluff will come up -- but a lot of world-class scholarship will!


I've read the intro chapters to a few WS dissertations (that's all I could stand) and all I can say is that the inmates are minding the asylum there.  Because Women's Studies "professors" sit on these committees and sign off on the pubs, this is another case of "junk in, junk out."

Quote
Of course, I don't have a doctoral degree in gender studies.  Indeed, my Ph.D. is in English Medieval History, with an emphasis on ecclesiastical and political affairs.  Here's the link to the abstract of my doctoral dissertation at UCLA: Arms and the Bishop: the Anglo-Scottish War and the Northeastern Episcopate, 1296-1357.  Hint, folks: it's not a page turner.  But if you like lengthy footnotes in Latin and Norman French, you're in luck.  (I'm not sure I can read Norman French anymore, but in the early to mid-90s, I sure had to learn how.  Anyhow, the first 24 pages are online -- read away!)


After which he goes on to describe how he studied a lot of things other than women's studies, but he was 'really interested' in the topic so he made it his hobby.  And so after he finished his English degree he got a job teaching courses in what he's really interested in, queer and women's studies.  

See what I mean?  Case closed.
Title: Well, he's admitted it.
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Feb 01, 2005, 04:06 PM
Hugo must read this blog pretty often!  Have you seen his post today?

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/02/clearing_the_ai.html

He's got more balls than I thought!
Title: Re: Well, he's admitted it.
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 01, 2005, 04:35 PM
Quote from: "Annemarie1979"
Hugo must read this blog pretty often!  Have you seen his post today?

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/02/clearing_the_ai.html

He's got more balls than I thought!


No Annemarie1979, he has no balls at all.

He not only censors any and all comment on the issue at his website, he claims that his politically correct actions of contrition somehow demonstrate what a "brave" man he is.  Bullshit.  He's an uber-PC male feminist women's studies "professor" who tows the leftist party line, and he has tenure.  Nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing just what he's doing.

Balls?  I'll be he squats to pee.
Title: true
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Feb 01, 2005, 04:44 PM
Yeah, it's interesting.  I know he had tenure by 2000, when he says he went public with the info.  He knew they couldn't touch him, so what did it cost him?

What do you think of th e fact he is prolife?  WHere does this forum stand on abortion?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Feb 01, 2005, 10:04 PM
Quote
(Dr. Hugo) -- Yes, early on in my career, I did have "consensual relationships" with  adult female students enrolled in my classes. I am not going to provide numbers or details, but I will be clear that this behavior ended in 1998 as a consequence of an immensely important spiritual shift in my life.


Now take into consideration that he's a community college professor. And the females he preyed upon are "technically, barely legal..." i.e. 18 to 20 years old. Just out of high school and smitten by their first encounters with a "real" college professor.

In other words, Dr. Hugo did finesse an "important shift".... he got tenure, (can't be fired), and then decided it would be convenient to publicly adopt a belief system that erased his guilt and further insured his "transformation" into a righteous feminist-man.

How quaint. How transparent. How vile.

But I sincerely hope he keeps writing and posting, because his words are always illuminating ... darkness confessed.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 08, 2005, 09:57 PM
I haven't been back here much, because my time is really limited. And reading how much of this thread has turned into really mean-spirited personal attacks on my friend Hugo, I'm not inclined to stick around right now.

But I wanted to respond to a couple of things:

Quote from: "Odysseus"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Say, is that the study paid for by the IWF, using an IWF-selected scholar, and never given any independent or peer review? Funny, I thought the IWF objected to that sort of thing; they have criticized the Koss study (which, unlike the hook-up study, was reviewed by independent scholars) again and again on the grounds that it was sponsored by Ms.


Here is the study:  "Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today" (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-hooking_up.html) by Norval and Maquardt for the Institute for American Values. If you read the bio of Maquadt at the bottom, it mentions that the study has appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I don't know whether this is a proper journal or not.

It didn't appear in the Chronicle; it was <i>reported on</i> by the Chronicle. Not the same thing at all.

The study is fine; I have nothing against the study (and in fact, one of its authors is an online friend of mine). But I think that the IWF is incredibly hypocritical for acting in a way that they condemned Ms for. That's the IWF's fault, not the study authors' fault, and it doesn't reflect poorly on the study itself.

Quote
(Just a random idea, but some of our differences in experience could be due to a generation gap.


I'm 36, and first attended college in 1988. How old are you?

Most likely, the difference indicates that we hung out in different types of crowds.

Quote
Quote
Now, did I have as many romances or hook-ups as more aggressive and good-looking men? No, but c'mon - don't I have to take responsibility for my own life at some point? Of course the men (and, for that matter, the women) who put themselves out there and try again and again will end up dating more. That's true in any human endevour; those who try more aggressively succeed more often.


What if women were encouraged to [be] passive about say... pursuing careers in science? Should we say that they should just take responsibility for their own lives? Actually, of course we should: everyone should take responsibility for their own lives. Yet that shouldn't stop us from pointing out areas where the deck is unfairly stacked against people.


This is the bit I came back to respond to.

There is no comparison. People are entitled to be treated equally, without regard to sex or race or ethnicity or whatever, when they apply for jobs. They are entitled for equal treatment by teachers; girls are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't do science, boys are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't be homemakers. Etc..

But no one is entitled to get laid. No one is entitled to have women (or men) they find attractive be attracted to them back. You have no right to have sex with women (and women have no right to have sex with men). Period.

I do think we should try and change the social expectations for both men and women. Feminism has been trying to do this, but with only partial success at best.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 08, 2005, 09:59 PM
I haven't been back here much, because my time is really limited. And reading how much of this thread has turned into really mean-spirited personal attacks on my friend Hugo, I'm not inclined to stick around right now.

But I wanted to respond to a couple of things:

Quote from: "Odysseus"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Say, is that the study paid for by the IWF, using an IWF-selected scholar, and never given any independent or peer review? Funny, I thought the IWF objected to that sort of thing; they have criticized the Koss study (which, unlike the hook-up study, was reviewed by independent scholars) again and again on the grounds that it was sponsored by Ms.


Here is the study:  "Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today" (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-hooking_up.html) by Norval and Maquardt for the Institute for American Values. If you read the bio of Maquadt at the bottom, it mentions that the study has appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I don't know whether this is a proper journal or not.


It didn't appear in the Chronicle; it was reported on by the Chronicle. Not the same thing at all.

The study is fine; I have nothing against the study (and in fact, one of its authors is an online friend of mine). But I think that the IWF is incredibly hypocritical for acting in a way that they condemned Ms for. That's the IWF's fault, not the study authors' fault, and it doesn't reflect poorly on the study itself.

Quote
(Just a random idea, but some of our differences in experience could be due to a generation gap.


I'm 36, and first attended college in 1988. How old are you?

Most likely, the difference indicates that we hung out in different types of crowds.

Quote
Quote
Now, did I have as many romances or hook-ups as more aggressive and good-looking men? No, but c'mon - don't I have to take responsibility for my own life at some point? Of course the men (and, for that matter, the women) who put themselves out there and try again and again will end up dating more. That's true in any human endevour; those who try more aggressively succeed more often.


What if women were encouraged to [be] passive about say... pursuing careers in science? Should we say that they should just take responsibility for their own lives? Actually, of course we should: everyone should take responsibility for their own lives. Yet that shouldn't stop us from pointing out areas where the deck is unfairly stacked against people.


This is the bit I came back to respond to.

There is no comparison. People are entitled to be treated as equally as possible, without regard to sex or race or ethnicity or whatever, when they apply for jobs. They are entitled for equal treatment by teachers; girls are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't do science, boys are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't be homemakers. Etc..

But no one is entitled to get laid. No one is entitled to have women (or men) they find attractive be attracted to them back. You have no right to have sex with women (and women have no right to have sex with men). Period.

I do think we should try and change the social expectations for both men and women. Feminism has been trying to do this, but with only partial success at best.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Feb 08, 2005, 10:57 PM
Quote
Ampersand --  You have no right to have sex with women.


So, I can "assume" that all the female students Dr. Hugo "assumed" he could screw via faux-intellectual seductions were violated, yes?

He had NO RIGHT? True?

I realize he's had a spiritual conversion.

He's now a "different" man.

Even Hugo's assumed God makes assumptions.

I'd not wish to be on the receiving end of that karma....
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 12:46 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
I like how hugo and ampersand ignore me almost completely. So much for being respectful of the opinions of women. I guess it's only the women who march in lock step with their views. Perhaps they're threatened by an woman who is an independant thinker? And why not? When you hold women to be helpless victims of men's every twitch and grumble. After all, if they *weren't* how could you play the white knight, swooping in to save them by "not being like all the other men."

I'm sorry, I'm not going to play a fragile princess to Hugo and Ampersand's desire to be corageous saviors, defeating the horible dragon of masculinity.

I must say, at least you mra guys *listen* to me and *respond* even(perhaps particularly) when you disagree with me. I like that, even if it comes with some understandable anger and resentment.

Feminist men have overlooked the immense respect accorded to women by some mras. By recognizing the negative powers of feminity, mras are actually acknowleging the strength of female culture. Men like Hugo and Ampersand can't concieve of a powerful woman or group of women, they refuse to, even when the evidence is impossible to deny.


Blah, blah, blah. Personal attack, unfounded assumption, and no real content to speak of. Do you ever make arguments based on evidence, or is insulting people your only game?

Listen, I'm sorry to puncture your egomania, but I'm not obliged to respond to a word you say. And although you leap to the conclusion that I have something against you because of your sex, I didn't even know you were a woman.

I didn't respond to you because nothing you wrote especially caught my interest. Period. Sorry if that pissed you off, but despite what you may imagine, I wasn't put on the Earth for your benefit. When you stop being a jerk and have something interesting to say, then I'll respond.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 12:49 AM
Quote from: "Roy"
Quote
Ampersand --  You have no right to have sex with women.


So, I can "assume" that all the female students Dr. Hugo "assumed" he could screw via faux-intellectual seductions were violated, yes?


No, not really. That's a matter between then and Hugo. However, nothing Hugo said supports the assumption that any of the sex was non-consensual.

Quote
He had NO RIGHT? True?


No one has a right to sex with anyone else, ever. Including Hugo, and including you, and including me. True.

However, bringing Hugo into this has nothing to do with the point I was making. I've seen about ten thousand MRAs complain that they're nice guys but they're not getting laid. Who cares? Being a nice guy doesn't entitle you to sex. That's all I was saying.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 01:01 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
You know I 'm real dissappointed that ampersand never gave us any idea of why he thought this:

Quote
AMP: However… The mistake made by the men’s rights movement is that you folks tend to think it’s a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don’t have genuine complaints. Which is why men’s righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn’t as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-


I must say that I am truly insulted.  I sure would like to know how you can make such sweeping generalizations about us?  Accusing Glenn of writing column after column about how rape isn't serious? Are you kidding? You obviously don't know Glenn.   I wonder how many of Glenn's columns you have read?  Maybe the above was said in haste or without thought?


Well, it was said impromptu, so of course it wasn't carefully worded. You also cut out the part where Glenn clarified that he doesn't deny that rape is serious, but rather he denies that rape is "as common as feminists say."
I said "right." Glenn said the same thing, and I said "Indeed." In retrospect, I could have worded it better, but the fact is, I was agreeing with Glenn.

Glenn has done a few columns trying to establish that rape isn't "as common as feminists," and in particular Mary Koss' study, say it is. And Glenn is far from alone in this. Is it his only topic? No, of course not. Is it a topic that he's returned to several times - including later in the very show we're discussing - and that many other anti-feminists and MRAs have talked about quite a lot? Yes.

The thing is, y'all are totally wrong about Mary Koss' study; it was a decent (although not perfect) study, and subsequent studies have largely replicated her major findings. But you still have this weird need to argue that rape isn't as common as studies say it is. Why?

I'll stand by what I said on the show - Because MRAs and anti-feminists wrongly percieve the world as a zero-sum game. You (as a group, not meaning you in particular, Mr. Evil) think that to legitimize men's suffering, you have to deny women's suffering - for example, by attacking studies showing that rape of women is unfortunately not all that uncommon.

Quote
Maybe you should apologize for hurting all our feelings?


Sure. It wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings, and if I did, I'm sorry about that. But I stand by what I said, even while I regret the fact that I probably didn't say it very clearly or well.

Quote
Folks like you and Hugo have quite an investment in feminism being on top.  When  it drops like a stone you will have some serious worldview adjusting to do.  I guess I would be defensive/offensive too.  I guess I can understand why you would act like this.


Blah, blah, blah. You find - using a conveniently out-of-context quote - one misinterpretation of what I said, and then build a whole thesis out of it.

By the way, feminists don't percieve ourselves as being on top. On the contrary, we tend to think that we've achived some victories, but most of the power in society remains aligned against us. It's not like the Republican party is very pro-feminist.[/i]
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 01:04 AM
Quote from: "daksdaddy"
Quote from: "ampersand"
feminist theory as I understand it doesn't suggest that I as a man am all-powerful, nor does it suggest that I feel all-powerful.


Pardon Me!?? :shock:

What is this about then?:   "The Male Privilege Checklist".


There is no contradiction there, Daksdaddy. Saying that someone has privileges is not the same as saying that they are all-powerful. It's not even close.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 01:47 AM
Quote from: "neonsamurai"
It's late, but here's my response to Ampersand:

Quote

Earlier this thread, when I asked Dr. Evil for ways he thought sexism or discrimination harms women, he responded "Bathrooms. There aren't enough women's bathrooms to meet the demand. That's about all I can see..." And then Gonzokid responded "I don't even agree there."

So clearly, SOME people on this board believe that sexism is something that only harms men, and virtually never harms women.


I think that might be taken out of context. Just because Dr Evil mentions one thing and Gonzokid disagrees with it doesn't cancel out their arguments.


I didn't say it canceled their other arguments. I said it shows that they don't believe that sexism signficantly harms women, only men. You can find their posts and read them in context, but I think their quotes fairly support my point, even read in their original context.

Quote
Quote
Many feminists have published papers talking about court bias against women. Have MRA groups been interested in that?


I was unaware of that. If you could stick some links up then I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who'd like to go and take a look at those.


Sorry, I'm thinking about things I've read in academic journals, which aren't available online. But if you've got access to an academic library, you could look for journal articles by Martha Fineman for a start.

Quote
Quote
I don't think feminists are obliged to solve all of MRA's problems, any more than MRAs are obliged to solve all of feminists' problems.


Very true, but what irks me is that feminism was supposed to be about equality. If we weren't speaking up for ourselves nothing would get done about it. When we have feminists like Dr Hugo putting down the mens’ movement it's like somebody from Breast Cancer UK saying that the Prostate Cancer Trust isn't worth supporting.


But Hugo doesn't put down the men's movement. On the contrary, he strongly supports the men's movement in the guise of the pro-feminist men's movement, and he's also pretty positive towards the mythopoetic men's movement (Robert Bly, drumming in the woods, that sort of thing). It's only the anti-feminist wing of the men's movement - the men's rights movement - that Hugo criticized.

Quote
Quote
Regarding the three Robin Morgan quotes you provided, do you have a citation to the whole article (not just the out-of-context quote), or at least the dates they were written?


Alas, I was unable to find any times or dates relating to when Robin Morgan said such things, although her quotes are all over the Internet. As you’ve explained though, these quotes were taken out of context, so maybe I’ve misunderstood what she meant by the following, because I got the impression that she was being misandric. What exactly did she mena by these statements?


I have no idea what she said in context, because no one has ever been able to tell me where the quotes come from, making it impossible for me to look them up! Truthfully, I can't even be sure she really said those things; it's rather suspicious that no one can provide a real citation to prove she said 'em.

Quote
Quote
That's why quotes from a feminist most feminists my age have barely heard of and even less often read are so incredibly popular on MRA and anti-feminist websites; they legitimize your views. That's fine, I guess, but it hardly constitutes a fair or representative sample of feminist writing. Why not quote bell hooks or Naomi Wolf or Susan Faludi on men, who are both more recent and far more widely read nowadays? Because quoting feminists who have a generally positive view of men, or who write about how sexism harms men, doesn't legitimize your views.


But that's kind of a circular argument. I read a quote from a well-known feminist outwardly slagging off men and it makes me become an MRA, is that what feminists want?


No, but if one feminist out of ten thousand says "man hating is honorable," and you choose to pretend that this represents all of feminism, that's not something I can control. There are hundreds of thousands of feminists; of course some of them are assholes, or occasionally say assholish things. But I don't think it's logical for you to use out-of-context, probably decades-old quotes from a handful of feminists as a means of judging the entire movement.

Quote
With all these ‘1 in 4’ women are raped stats though isn’t that doing the same, it’s using extremes to promote the feminist cause.


Well, the "1 in 4 women are raped" statistic is a distortion spread mostly by anti-feminists and MRAs. The actual statistic was closer to "At some point in their lives, 1 in 4 women experience completed or attempted rape, 1 in 8 women experience completed rape." That's pretty much an accurate statistic, not an extreme or dishonest statistic.

Quote
Why are feminists promoting [awareness of] violence against women on Valentines day? Why not have it on August the 17th when nothing else is happening?


Because August 14th isn't widely known as "V-Day," so the pun wouldn't make any sense if we held it then.

Quote
Could it be that they’re using it as an excuse to remind women how evil we men are? Just say we stop having Valentines day and replace it with Violence Against women’s day, do you think that it would be another obstacle between men and women? The same as destroying marriage, it is another attempt to push men and women further apart.


Do you have any evidence to support this remarkable conspiracy theory, or is this just something you've made up?

Have you even seen the Vagina monologues? There are plenty of women talking about loving men (and loving sex with men) included in the show. The show is not primarily about violence at all; the vast majority of it is just feel-good stuff. "Love sex, love youself, love your body," that sort of thing.

I'll tell you a secret: The reason feminists do performances of the Vagina Monologues on Valentine's Day is because something that was at first just a sort of pun or joke has evolved to become a huge, and fun, fund-raising tool for shelters for battered women. Most shelters, contrary to anti-feminist myth, are desparately underfunded, and can't even come close to affording to help all the women who call them needing help. It would be irresponsible to give up or mess with an effective fund-raising tool when we don't have to.

Quote
Quote
Free speech doesn't mean that MRAs have a right to not be criticized... There's a big difference between being disagreed with and being silenced.


You are reading my words, but are you dismissing them? Dr Hugo (he’s got a doctorate!) has said that our movement is a bunch of misogynists, so why should you want to listen to what we have to say? I’m not big on listening to what the Klu Klux Klan have to say for themselves because they’re a bunch of hate mongers.


Free speech has nothing to do with being listened to. You have a right to speak; you have no right to be listened to.

Quote
For example, Dr Lawrence Summers gives a talk on theories behind why women might not do so well at mathematics and science. This guy is the head of Harvard University but he almost immediately has to apologise and start looking into schemes to help promote women in the lacking areas, because his remarks caused offence.


He didn't have to apologize; he chose to after being criticized. He had a free speech right to say what he wanted, and other people have a free speech right to criticize him.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that men's righters should have the right to speak without fear of being criticized. But no one has that right.

Quote
Quote
Do men automatically get everything good in life handed to them on a silver platter? No, of course not. Do men, on average, tend to be better off in many ways than similarly-situated women? I'd say yes.


Surely feminists are meant to stop misogynists from speaking out against women?


No, I don't want to stop misogynists from speaking. I want to persuade people that a misogynistic point of view holds less merit than my point of view. There's a difference.

Quote
Again I agree with you that wealthy white men have it easier than poor black women, but I’ll also bet that rich black women have it easier than poor white men. I’m not sure where you’re located, but in the UK the majority of our homeless people are men.


I guess it depends on the situation. I suspect it's true that there are more homeless men than homeless women where I live (Oregon, USA). However, I'm not convinced that the one example mitigates everything else. Nor are the homeless women here (a lot more than there are in England, from what you say!) exactly living lives of comfort and joy; there's a serial rapist preying on homeless women here who the cops don't seem able to catch.

Quote
Why do you suppose that there are more homeless men than homeless women? Surely if men are better off in any given situation than a similarly disposed women there should be more women living on the streets than men?


I didn't say "in any given situation"; to any rule there are exceptions. I've read a little bit about homeless men. One theory is that men are more likely to suffer debilitating mental diseases, which may or may not be a genetic difference. Another reason is that women are more likely to be willing to beg relatives for help, permission to sleep on a sofa, etc.. Another reason is that women are perceived as being less dangerious, so relatives and friends are more likely to be willing to take in a homeless woman than a homeless man, all else held equal.

I've never said that things are never bad for men. On the contrary, I've said again and again that men suffer, men's pain is real, and sexism harms men. However, I think that sexism also harms women.

Are a tiny minority of men homeless? Yes. Does an even tinier minority of men die needlessly at the workplace? Yes. Both these things are real problems, and tragic ones.

Does a tiny minority of men nearly (not entirely) monopolize all the most powerful positions in society? Yes.

Do around 15% of women get raped at some point in their lives? Yes. Does the average woman get paid significantly less for her work than a man with similar qualifications and background? Yes. Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations abotu their bodies and appearance than men? Yes.

As an pro-feminist man, I have no problem acknowledging both sides of the coin.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Feb 09, 2005, 02:58 AM
"Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations abotu their bodies and appearance than men? Yes. "

If you're talking about monetary preasure, you're wrong.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/typhonblue/1604.html

Ugly women make 5% less then attractive ones.

Ugly *men* make 10% less.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: HarryPawedHer on Feb 09, 2005, 03:33 AM
Allow me, please, to remove the tunnel vision from one of your questions because, quite frankly, your concluding questions are a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations? No.

Let's be realistic here, shall we?  If you see both sides of the coin, then you realize that the fundamental problem with both parties is each wants something they can't have (power/glory/prominence/convenience), but I didn't see that anywhere in your retort.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 03:55 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
"Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations abotu their bodies and appearance than men? Yes. "

If you're talking about monetary preasure, you're wrong.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/typhonblue/1604.html

Ugly women make 5% less then attractive ones.

Ugly *men* make 10% less.


First of all, I didn't say I was referring only to wage discrimination. Wage discrimination matters, but it's not everything.

Seocnd, the methodology of the study you refer to makes the study no good for refuting my claim, because the measurement of what is "ugly"they used is potentially biased by sexism. You can't rule out the possibility that the men in that study were being judged less harshly than the women, just as I suggested.

For example, it's possible that only men who were wildly deviant from facial averages were catagorized as "ugly," whereas women had to be (relatively speaking) less deviant to be catagorized as "ugly." (It seems to me that this is the case generally; male movie stars are allowed to have a wider range of faces and still be seen as good-looking compared to female movie stars). If that were the case, what your study would show is that men whose faces are far deviant from facial averages pay a higher wage penalty than women whose faces are mildly deviant from facial averages. That's a sort of interesting finding, I guess, but it doesn't tell us a thing about which sex is held to more exacting standards of physical appearance.

Third of all, even the source that you link to isn't as clear-cut as you imply. From the same article:

Quote
In a paper from last year, Professor John Cawley found that an extra 65 pounds typically cost a white woman 7 percent of her wages. To put this another way, if you're a seriously overweight white woman, losing 65 pounds is likely to be as lucrative as an extra year of college or three extra years of work experience. For men and for black women, weight has no effect on wages.


Unlike the source you prefer, this source's measurement criteria isn't subjective - being 130pds overweight qualifies a person as fat regardless of sex, but only hurts the paycheck for women. (However, I should point out that I've read a lot of studies of this, and there are real problems of job segregation for fat men, even though it doesn't show up as a wage penalty.)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 03:56 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Roy"
Quote
Ampersand --  You have no right to have sex with women.


So, I can "assume" that all the female students Dr. Hugo "assumed" he could screw via faux-intellectual seductions were violated, yes?


No, not really. That's a matter between then and Hugo. However, nothing Hugo said supports the assumption that any of the sex was non-consensual.


Back in my days of teaching college, and what continues today, to have a relationship with a student was wrong.  Period, no excuses, consensual my ass.  An instructor of any stripe, from full professor down to T.A.  put you in a position of authority and first made such a relationship fundamentally unequal, and second made it corrupt.  And finally, it was considered grossly unfair for a mature and presumably fairly worldly man to lead some imature girl - fresh out of high school - down the primrose path for his own pleasure.

Consensual is an excuse, t is unethical in the extreme, so much so as to be all but a fatal flaw.

Quote
Quote
He had NO RIGHT? True?


No one has a right to sex with anyone else, ever. Including Hugo, and including you, and including me. True.

However, bringing Hugo into this has nothing to do with the point I was making. I've seen about ten thousand MRAs complain that they're nice guys but they're not getting laid. Who cares? Being a nice guy doesn't entitle you to sex. That's all I was saying.


Well, I'm not a nice guy.  In fact, I'm often te "jerk" of myth and legend.

I get all kinds of sex.

I think what your reading in such complaints is that despite all the claims of wanting a "nice guy" it's those nice guys who get rewarded with another saturday night alone, while "jerks" like me get rewarded with sex.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 03:58 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
There is no contradiction there, Daksdaddy. Saying that someone has privileges is not the same as saying that they are all-powerful. It's not even close.


When one fails to bring up feminine privilege and compare apples to apples, it's a one-sided half-truth.  Which is a polite term for a lie.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 04:08 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "ampersand"
There is no contradiction there, Daksdaddy. Saying that someone has privileges is not the same as saying that they are all-powerful. It's not even close.


When one fails to bring up feminine privilege and compare apples to apples, it's a one-sided half-truth.  Which is a polite term for a lie.


Well, thank goodness you're being polite.  :roll:

I love the way you don't even attempt to defend the original argument, but instead switch arguments.

The list is clearly labeled "the male privilege checklist." It in no way claims to be an exhaustive list of all privileges. Nor does it claim that life for men is all ice cream sundays - on the contrary, the introduction explicitly points out that this isn't the case, and that men are hurt by sexism (although not so much as women).

I guess if you assume that all readers are totally brainless and unable to comprehend that a list of "male privileges" is not claiming to cover anything but what it says it covers, then you could call the list dishonest. To me, however, that doesn't seem like a very rational assumption for you to make.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 04:22 AM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Back in my days of teaching college, and what continues today, to have a relationship with a student was wrong.  Period, no excuses, consensual my ass.  An instructor of any stripe, from full professor down to T.A.  put you in a position of authority and first made such a relationship fundamentally unequal, and second made it corrupt.  And finally, it was considered grossly unfair for a mature and presumably fairly worldly man to lead some imature girl - fresh out of high school - down the primrose path for his own pleasure.

Consensual is an excuse, t is unethical in the extreme, so much so as to be all but a fatal flaw.


:shrug: I don't defend what Hugo did. On the contrary, I think it's clear it was wrong and profoundly immoral; Hugo himself has said so.

However, if you're saying that making a distinction between consensual but inappropriate and wrong sex, and rape, is somehow wrong or inaccurate, then I think you're very badly mistaken.

So few of you anti-feminists are able to make a logical argument that isn't based on attacking someone personally. The fact is, no one has a "right" to have sex; to complain that "all the good-looking women date jerks" is ridiculous.

Do you have a logical rebuttal to this? Not at all, so you concentrate on making personal attacks on Hugo. I'm not sure which is more pathetic, the reliance on character assualt or the inability to put together a logical argument.

Quote
I think what your reading in such complaints is that despite all the claims of wanting a "nice guy" it's those nice guys who get rewarded with another saturday night alone, while "jerks" like me get rewarded with sex.


I actually don't think there's a real nice guy/jerk dichotomy. I think there's a lot of guys who call themselves "nice" but aren't. I also think there's a lot of sour grapes among the complaining men.

For men, having sex a lot is mainly a matter of being reasonably attractive combined with (more importantly) being willing to risk rejection by hitting on women.

The famous nice guy/jerk dichotomy just isn't true, in my observation. Guys who are moderately attractive (or even "not hideous") and good at flirting will manage to get laid, if they want to, regardless of if they're nice or jerks. I've also known jerks who were unattractive and painfully shy, and they weren't getting any (as they were all-too-willing to relate).

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Sex is great, and if that's your hobby then you should enjoy it. But I don't think people (male or female) who have lots of sexual encounters are really any happier, in the long run, than those who have fewer. Like trying to own the most stuff, trying to get laid the most is a false road to contentment.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 05:29 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
I didn't say it canceled their other arguments. I said it shows that they don't believe that sexism signficantly harms women, only men. You can find their posts and read them in context, but I think their quotes fairly support my point, even read in their original context.


Envision this:  One day I fire two people - I tell Mary that basically she's being fired for being a woman (Too much time off for her kids, etc.) and then I tell Tom he's being fired for being a man (We need to hire aanother woman to get a federal contract, some women feel "silenced" by him, etc.)

Bets on which one lands me in court?  Bets on who is protected?

I never said sexism doesn't exist against women - I said that the case is vastly overstated, and that women have such protections against it where they can even claim sexism WHERE NONE DEMONSTRABLY EXISTS and still get protected from it.

Men have no such protections.

Quote
Quote
Many feminists have published papers talking about court bias against women. Have MRA groups been interested in that?


I was unaware of that. If you could stick some links up then I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who'd like to go and take a look at those.


http://www.slonet.org/~slonow/court.justice.project.html

The nice lie in there is the tired old "men win in 40-70% of contested custody cases" whetre they fail to mention that attorneys often will not even take such a case unless it is percieved tio be a "slam dunk" for fear of being accused of malpractice - and that's still a crapshoot for men.

Quote
But Hugo doesn't put down the men's movement. On the contrary, he strongly supports the men's movement in the guise of the pro-feminist men's movement, and he's also pretty positive towards the mythopoetic men's movement (Robert Bly, drumming in the woods, that sort of thing). It's only the anti-feminist wing of the men's movement - the men's rights movement - that Hugo criticized.


Well, I don't regard them as being respectively very celbratory of the masculine or partcularly effective.  And I doubt that a couple centuries ago a "pro-black" movement which urged them to be content in their slavery would have had as much credibility either.

Quote
I have no idea what she said in context, because no one has ever been able to tell me where the quotes come from, making it impossible for me to look them up! Truthfully, I can't even be sure she really said those things; it's rather suspicious that no one can provide a real citation to prove she said 'em.


From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989)

p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist.

p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.

p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.

p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body? "

...rape is the perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture-- it is the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession. -- Robin Morgan

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." - From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.

Quote
No, but if one feminist out of ten thousand says "man hating is honorable," and you choose to pretend that this represents all of feminism, that's not something I can control. There are hundreds of thousands of feminists; of course some of them are assholes, or occasionally say assholish things. But I don't think it's logical for you to use out-of-context, probably decades-old quotes from a handful of feminists as a means of judging the entire movement.


It is mainstream feminism.  The Dworkins, Brownmillers, Greers, and company are the heroines of the movement.  They are what is taught.  They are the required reading, they are who is quoted, and who is gone to  for the "feminist reaction" by the media.

More importantly, they are never disowned by feminism, except weakly, in darkened message boards, when their words are an embarassment to an argument.

Quote
Because August 14th isn't widely known as "V-Day," so the pun wouldn't make any sense if we held it then.


Personally, it tickles me to death that it is held on what I regard as "International Emotional Blackmail Day."  Please, after that day is blackened, there's one in October calledf "Sweetest's Day;" may I offer that up to ya'll so that never gets off the ground?

Quote
[Have you even seen the Vagina monologues? There are plenty of women talking about loving men (and loving sex with men) included in the show. The show is not primarily about violence at all; the vast majority of it is just feel-good stuff. "Love sex, love youself, love your body," that sort of thing.


I even saw it before Eve removed the pedophiliac lesbian rape scene, and glorification therof from it.

Quote
I'll tell you a secret: The reason feminists do performances of the Vagina Monologues on Valentine's Day is because something that was at first just a sort of pun or joke has evolved to become a huge, and fun, fund-raising tool for shelters for battered women. Most shelters, contrary to anti-feminist myth, are desparately underfunded, and can't even come close to affording to help all the women who call them needing help. It would be irresponsible to give up or mess with an effective fund-raising tool when we don't have to.


And it'd be a good idea.  One of my long term goals as an activist is to defund those misandric shelters of public monies which refuse to provide equal services for men.

Quote
No, I don't want to stop misogynists from speaking. I want to persuade people that a misogynistic point of view holds less merit than my point of view. There's a difference.
Quote


Well, first you're trying to persuade people of the profound untruth that antifeminism=misogyny.

Quote
I guess it depends on the situation.
<snip>
However, I think that sexism also harms women.


Sexism against men harms women, but there is a problem with feminuts acknowledging that.

Quote
Are a tiny minority of men homeless? Yes. Does an even tinier minority of men die needlessly at the workplace? Yes. Both these things are real problems, and tragic ones.


Are a smaller, tinier minority of women homeless?  Yes.  Do a percentage of women die in the workplace that is so small as to be all but statistically zero? Yes.

So by the "statistical morality" mode of thinking which justifies the almost nonexistant services for battered men, I trust that you will be philosophically consistant and support dropping any such discussion of the impact such things have on women, as it is "so rare" as to not be a problem?

Quote
Does a tiny minority of men nearly (not entirely) monopolize all the most powerful positions in society? Yes.


Which means....? The many must pay for the sins of the few?  I don't particularly notice these "powerful" people bending over to help me.

Quote
Do around 15% of women get raped at some point in their lives? Yes.


I live near a city of 30,000.  I've examined the books on such things, going back a good dozen years to when they were computerized.  It sure doesn't bear out intuitively on that.

Quote

Does the average woman get paid significantly less for her work than a man with similar qualifications and background? Yes.


Myth.  http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_4/ai_66678566

Quote

Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations abotu their bodies and appearance than men? Yes.


Ah - but those expectations are placed upon them by themselves and other women.

I believe that Hugo might say that there is a need for women to "transform themselves" and stop bitching aout this to men.

Quote
As an pro-feminist man, I have no problem acknowledging both sides of the coin.


Uh - yeah.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Feb 09, 2005, 05:30 AM
Ampersand - Are you saying that you believe MRA's to be uncaring towards women because we question studies about rape?  Using that sort of idea we could make all sorts of declarations about people who try to debunk studies...that they are in fact not just debunking the studies they are hateful towards the people being studied.  Given the feminist track record for things like the super bowl myth, the DV stats about injuries to women between 18 and 25 and many others I think that questioning feminists stats and studies is a wise thing to do.  I guess those people who try to debunk Farrells work are just uncaring towards men right?  

What a grand leap you seem to be making here.  Maybe I am not hearing correctly and will give you a shot to clarify but your original quote accused me and many others of not caring about women's pain.   What could the connection be between disputing a scientific inquiry and not caring about women's pain?  

I think that this little example is very helpful in seeing your prejudice.  You are willing to pre-judge MRA's, make assumptions about their motives, and claim that they, in general, don't care about women's pain.  When your prejudice is pointed out instead of accepting responsibility, you try to rationalize your behavior.   I can only tell you that in my case this is utter BS and am again insulted and shocked.    

You are vocal about not thinking feminism should be judged due to the behaviors of a few but turn around and are willing to judge us globally?    



Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
You know I 'm real dissappointed that ampersand never gave us any idea of why he thought this:

Quote
AMP: However... The mistake made by the men's rights movement is that you folks tend to think it's a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don't have genuine complaints. Which is why men's righters like you do spend time writing column after column talking about how rape isn't as serious a problem for women as feminists say it is, or that-


I must say that I am truly insulted.  I sure would like to know how you can make such sweeping generalizations about us?  Accusing Glenn of writing column after column about how rape isn't serious? Are you kidding? You obviously don't know Glenn.   I wonder how many of Glenn's columns you have read?  Maybe the above was said in haste or without thought?


Well, it was said impromptu, so of course it wasn't carefully worded. You also cut out the part where Glenn clarified that he doesn't deny that rape is serious, but rather he denies that rape is "as common as feminists say."
I said "right." Glenn said the same thing, and I said "Indeed." In retrospect, I could have worded it better, but the fact is, I was agreeing with Glenn.

Glenn has done a few columns trying to establish that rape isn't "as common as feminists," and in particular Mary Koss' study, say it is. And Glenn is far from alone in this. Is it his only topic? No, of course not. Is it a topic that he's returned to several times - including later in the very show we're discussing - and that many other anti-feminists and MRAs have talked about quite a lot? Yes.

The thing is, y'all are totally wrong about Mary Koss' study; it was a decent (although not perfect) study, and subsequent studies have largely replicated her major findings. But you still have this weird need to argue that rape isn't as common as studies say it is. Why?

I'll stand by what I said on the show - Because MRAs and anti-feminists wrongly percieve the world as a zero-sum game. You (as a group, not meaning you in particular, Mr. Evil) think that to legitimize men's suffering, you have to deny women's suffering - for example, by attacking studies showing that rape of women is unfortunately not all that uncommon.

Quote
Maybe you should apologize for hurting all our feelings?


Sure. It wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings, and if I did, I'm sorry about that. But I stand by what I said, even while I regret the fact that I probably didn't say it very clearly or well.

Quote
Folks like you and Hugo have quite an investment in feminism being on top.  When  it drops like a stone you will have some serious worldview adjusting to do.  I guess I would be defensive/offensive too.  I guess I can understand why you would act like this.


Blah, blah, blah. You find - using a conveniently out-of-context quote - one misinterpretation of what I said, and then build a whole thesis out of it.

By the way, feminists don't percieve ourselves as being on top. On the contrary, we tend to think that we've achived some victories, but most of the power in society remains aligned against us. It's not like the Republican party is very pro-feminist.[/i]
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 05:35 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Well, thank goodness you're being polite.  :roll:

I love the way you don't even attempt to defend the original argument, but instead switch arguments.

The list is clearly labeled "the male privilege checklist." It in no way claims to be an exhaustive list of all privileges. Nor does it claim that life for men is all ice cream sundays - on the contrary, the introduction explicitly points out that this isn't the case, and that men are hurt by sexism (although not so much as women).

I guess if you assume that all readers are totally brainless and unable to comprehend that a list of "male privileges" is not claiming to cover anything but what it says it covers, then you could call the list dishonest. To me, however, that doesn't seem like a very rational assumption for you to make.


The one sidedness of it is the lie.  It's propaganda.  Female privilege is omitted and glossed over, and it far exceeds male privilege.  Even on your list, there is scarecely an item on there that isn't walking hand in hand with a commeasurate responsibility for men - and in many ways that responsibility being even more costly than the alleged privilege.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 05:48 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Ampersand - Are you saying that you believe MRA's to be uncaring towards women because we question studies about rape?


Nope. I never said a thing about "uncaring towards women." Please attempt not to put words into my mouth.

I didn't say anything about "uncaring towards women" on Glenn's show, or anything even close to it. Nor did I say anything like that on this thread. You just made it up out of whole clothe, and then used it to construct a personal attack on my character.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 05:51 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
However, if you're saying that making a distinction between consensual but inappropriate and wrong sex, and rape, is somehow wrong or inaccurate, then I think you're very badly mistaken.


I'm often accused of being a "cad" becase I make it pretty much clear that I seperate any friendship with women with sex.  If I am friends with a woman, I don't have sex with her.  And the women I do have sex with, I do on the basis of it being just a friendly piece of tail, and just for tonight.

Be what as it may, there isn't woman one who can fairly claim that the Gonzman raised her expectations, and led her down the primrose path, and made promises he reneged on.  (There's a few who are pissy because they had to high an opinion of themselves, and thought they copuld somehow "change" me, but NMP.  Not My Problem.)

I submit that using a position of power, of authority, or of vastly different leels of experience to get sex is dishonest in the extreme, and is the moral equivalent of rape.  

Consider for a moment sir, that when all is said and done, there is really only one crime:  Theft.  Murder is theft of life.  Bribery is theft of trust.  Rape is theft of innocence.  And so on.

If I, by misrepresenting myself or the goods I am peddling to you, take your money and profit from a bad dealing, I am stealing from you.  Theft by deception.  Conversion.  A scam.  Call it what you will - I would be a thief as sure as I broke into your house and stole by stealth, or confronted you on the street at the point of a gun and stole by force.

A trust was held, and that trust betrayed, for Hugo to take what he had no right to take.  When one steals by stealth, force, misrepresentation, r berayal of trust, when all the dross is stripped away, the person is a thief, the only difference between them and the next being their method of stealing.  When what they steal is sex, by stealth, force, or misrepresentation - wen they take what they have no right to take - that person is a rapist.

Male or female.
Quote

Do you have a logical rebuttal to this? Not at all, so you concentrate on making personal attacks on Hugo. I'm not sure which is more pathetic, the reliance on character assualt or the inability to put together a logical argument.


On the contrary, as illustrated above - you may not like the logic, and it may be uncomfortable to you, but it is there.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Beste on Feb 09, 2005, 05:53 AM
Well,  it ain't just anti-feminists or MRAs that are criticizing the Koss study.
Feminists are doing it too (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 06:48 AM
Quote from: "Beste"
Well,  it ain't just anti-feminists or MRAs that are criticizing the Koss study.
Feminists are doing it too (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)


Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.

If I called myself a Republican activist and an anti-feminist - but didn't change my political party, or any of my anti-Republican, pro-feminist views or arguments - would you feel obliged to agree with me that I was a Republican and an anti-feminist?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 09, 2005, 07:15 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
I haven't been back here much, because my time is really limited. And reading how much of this thread has turned into really mean-spirited personal attacks on my friend Hugo, I'm not inclined to stick around right now.


Translation:  "You people haven't been agreeing with me or playing by my rules, so I've been off moping with my feminist friends."

This is such a common theme with feminists like amp and Hugoboy - if they don't get to control the direction of the conversation, then they refuse to debate.  It has nothing to do with being civil, "mean-spirited," etc.  Just check out how much incivility and mean-spiritedness they're willing to indulge when it comes from feminists with whom they agree and relate to.  Nope, these people are simply  cowards, plain and simple, when they can't control the discussion.  Heck, Hugo even goes as far as to ban any discussion of, e.g., domestic violence over on his blog, and most Women's Studies departments and other feminist entities do the same thing.  Why would they do this?  Because they know that they've been shamelessly lying about this since the 1970s and they're mortified by the reality that society is waking up to their scam and about ready to take them to task on this.  So what do they do?  Fight vigorously to suppress much-needed discussion, debate and reform.  

This is a pattern that plays itself out when addressing every topic related to gender issues.  

Quote

But I wanted to respond to a couple of things:


(large snip of extraneous material)

Quote
I do think we should try and change the social expectations for both men and women. Feminism has been trying to do this, but with only partial success at best.


This statement is extremely misleading.  Feminism indeed has been trying to change the social expectations for both men and women, however, their efforts have been focused on enhancing the already substantial female privilege that women enjoy and shifting the responsibility of shouldering societal burdens onto men even moreso than they already have.  Now, I'm sure a feminist would argue that "Maybe, but not all feminists are like this.  There's always a radical fringe element..." blah, blah, blah, but that's simply a convenient excuse.  The "there are all kinds of feminists" argument is used to blame one element of the movement so that the movement as a whole is allowed to get off the hook.  It boils down to the typical use of double standards where we MRAs are supposed to be accountable for the lunatic fringe of our movement, but feminists are allowed a pass on similar responsibility.

That's just one more example of the female privilege that society accords to women and feminists (even male feminists), and folks like amp and Hugoboy are experts at exercising that privilege on behalf of women.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 07:17 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Beste"
Well,  it ain't just anti-feminists or MRAs that are criticizing the Koss study.
Feminists are doing it too (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)


Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.

If I called myself a Republican activist and an anti-feminist - but didn't change my political party, or any of my anti-Republican, pro-feminist views or arguments - would you feel obliged to agree with me that I was a Republican and an anti-feminist?


"Do you have a logical rebuttal to this? Not at all, so you concentrate on making personal attacks on (Christina.) I'm not sure which is more pathetic, the reliance on character assualt or the inability to put together a logical argument. "


Your words there, Amp. Now, while it is argumentum tu quoque to point out the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" as a rebuttal, you sure seem to think that a discussion of the person is relevant to the content of their arguments.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on Feb 09, 2005, 07:21 AM
Uh-oh.  Somebody is a little defensive.  I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I asked if that was what you were saying.  Huge difference.


So let's re-word things to suit you and try again.

Ampersand said-

Quote
The mistake made by the men's rights movement is that you folks tend to think it's a zero-sum game. You tend to think that, because men do have genuine complaints, that means you need to spend your time talking about how women don't have genuine complaints.



Are you saying that you believe MRA's spend their time claiming that "women don't have genuine complaints" because we question studies about rape? How do you see the two connected?  Using that sort of idea we could make all sorts of declarations about people who try to debunk studies...that they are in fact not just debunking the studies they are insensitive towards the people being studied and dont' think they "have genuine complaints". Given the feminist track record for things like the super bowl myth, the DV stats about injuries to women between 18 and 25 and many others I think that questioning feminists stats and studies is a wise thing to do. I guess those people who try to debunk Farrell's work are just saying that men don't have genuine complaints right? I think it is great that anyone would question Farrell.  That's debate right?

What a grand leap you seem to be making here. Maybe I am not hearing correctly and will give you a shot to clarify but your original quote accused me and many others of focusing on women not having genuine complaints.   What could the connection be between disputing a scientific inquiry and this accusation?

I think that this little example is very helpful in seeing your prejudice. You are willing to pre-judge MRA's, make assumptions about their motives, and claim that they, in general, don't care about women's genuine complaints. When your prejudice is pointed out instead of accepting responsibility, you try to rationalize your behavior. I can only tell you that in my case this is utter BS and am again insulted and shocked.

You are vocal about not thinking feminism should be judged due to the behaviors of a few but turn around and are willing to judge us globally?   Please explain.





Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Ampersand - Are you saying that you believe MRA's to be uncaring towards women because we question studies about rape?


Nope. I never said a thing about "uncaring towards women." Please attempt not to put words into my mouth.

I didn't say anything about "uncaring towards women" on Glenn's show, or anything even close to it. Nor did I say anything like that on this thread. You just made it up out of whole clothe, and then used it to construct a personal attack on my character.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 09, 2005, 07:42 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
I'll stand by what I said on the show - Because MRAs and anti-feminists wrongly percieve the world as a zero-sum game. You (as a group, not meaning you in particular, Mr. Evil) think that to legitimize men's suffering, you have to deny women's suffering - for example, by attacking studies showing that rape of women is unfortunately not all that uncommon.


Well, the world in theory may not be a zero-sum game, but the realities of our society make it a zero-sum game when it comes to funding research, programs targeting issues important to various groups, etc.  To make the argument that it's not a zero-sum game is disingenuous, and you see this in discussions about rape because feminists refuse to even acknowledge the large number of male rape in prison, let alone allow the issue to be included in the discussions.  It's like feminists think either 1) the problem doesn't exist, 2) it's not worthy of addressing because those men somehow deserve it, or 3) it's not important because it's men doing it to other men (a common excuse used by feminists to dismiss real injustice against men).

Another example is Hugoboy taking strong exception to Laura Bush's comment that "it may be time to shift out gaze," referring to focusing on the needs of boys instead of girls vis-a-vis education, etc.  Hugo prefers that we "expand out gaze" but fails to acknowledge (or is hopelessly ignorant of) the substantial female privilege in our society which in a world of "expanded gaze" would still favor girls' over boys' interests.  Further, since resources used to support programs aimed at helping boys who are lagging behind girls (since the 1980s!) are finite, it is completely appropriate and indeed crucial to start seriously thinking about diverting funds from girls' programs to ones devoted to helping boys.  Yes, I said it - take funds away from girls and give it to boys.  It's what is desperately needed, because frankly, having disfunctional boys - who grow into disfunctional men - is a much more serious problem than the parallel issue of disfunctional girls growing up into disfunctional women.  

Quote
By the way, feminists don't percieve ourselves as being on top. On the contrary, we tend to think that we've achived some victories, but most of the power in society remains aligned against us. It's not like the Republican party is very pro-feminist.


Again, this is very misleading.  Of course the Repblican party isn't pro-feminist!  Feminism has devolved into a disfunctional movement of corrupt fanatics who work to expand inequality and female privilege, not one devoted to true equality between men and women, so of course nobody in their right mind would openly associate with such people any more.  The public is wising-up, and you can see this in the way most younger women view being associated with feminism as similar to having a bad case of  herpes.  

However, being non-feminist is not the same as pandering to women and their pet issues, which both parties fall all over themselves to do.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 09, 2005, 08:28 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"


Quote
Very true, but what irks me is that feminism was supposed to be about equality. If we weren't speaking up for ourselves nothing would get done about it. When we have feminists like Dr Hugo putting down the mens' movement it's like somebody from Breast Cancer UK saying that the Prostate Cancer Trust isn't worth supporting.


But Hugo doesn't put down the men's movement. On the contrary, he strongly supports the men's movement in the guise of the pro-feminist men's movement, and he's also pretty positive towards the mythopoetic men's movement (Robert Bly, drumming in the woods, that sort of thing). It's only the anti-feminist wing of the men's movement - the men's rights movement - that Hugo criticized.


What you're really saying is that Hugoboy supports feminism (i.e., the pro-feminist men's movement) and guys who go out to the woods, get naked, beat drums and dance around a bonfire.  In other words, Hugoboy supports people who support them or at least aren't a threat to the monopoly that feminists currently have in the political and social sectors.  

Sorry, but there's a reason why the men's movement has an anti-feminist element:  It's because feminists have declared war on boys and men (i.e., we didn't start the so-called "gender war," they did) and we're not going to sit by and passively take what they dish out any more.  We're taking the "war" to them, and of course they don't like it.  Too bad.  However, we're completely justified in actively fighting people who are opposed to us and eroding our civil rights  (i.e., feminists), and there's nothing whatsoever for us to feel bad about.  In fact, I think that we need to be a lot more forceful in our opposition to feminists, as long as we do so via non-violent means.


Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
Quote
That's why quotes from a feminist most feminists my age have barely heard of and even less often read are so incredibly popular on MRA and anti-feminist websites; they legitimize your views. That's fine, I guess, but it hardly constitutes a fair or representative sample of feminist writing. Why not quote bell hooks or Naomi Wolf or Susan Faludi on men, who are both more recent and far more widely read nowadays? Because quoting feminists who have a generally positive view of men, or who write about how sexism harms men, doesn't legitimize your views.


But that's kind of a circular argument. I read a quote from a well-known feminist outwardly slagging off men and it makes me become an MRA, is that what feminists want?


No, but if one feminist out of ten thousand says "man hating is honorable," and you choose to pretend that this represents all of feminism, that's not something I can control. There are hundreds of thousands of feminists; of course some of them are assholes, or occasionally say assholish things. But I don't think it's logical for you to use out-of-context, probably decades-old quotes from a handful of feminists as a means of judging the entire movement.


That's a blatant cop-out.  You and feminists like you hold up examples of extremist MRAs as examples of the movement but at the same complain when we show you that extreme elements exist in your movement.  Pathetic.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
With all these '1 in 4' women are raped stats though isn't that doing the same, it's using extremes to promote the feminist cause.


Well, the "1 in 4 women are raped" statistic is a distortion spread mostly by anti-feminists and MRAs. The actual statistic was closer to "At some point in their lives, 1 in 4 women experience completed or attempted rape, 1 in 8 women experience completed rape." That's pretty much an accurate statistic, not an extreme or dishonest statistic.


Bull.  

I don't believe this - it's numerically impossible.  That would mean that hundreds of millions of American women are out there who've experienced this, and it just ain't so.  Give me a citation to a legitimate, peer-reviewed study or three that measured this

Quote from: "ampersand"
Have you even seen the Vagina monologues? There are plenty of women talking about loving men (and loving sex with men) included in the show. The show is not primarily about violence at all; the vast majority of it is just feel-good stuff. "Love sex, love youself, love your body," that sort of thing.


Ah yes, it's Ok for Eve to objectify men (i.e., show them as only good for sex, i.e, serving women).  I've seen The Vagina Monologues and IMO is a blatant anti-male rant, start to finish.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote
Why do you suppose that there are more homeless men than homeless women? Surely if men are better off in any given situation than a similarly disposed women there should be more women living on the streets than men?


I didn't say "in any given situation"; to any rule there are exceptions. I've read a little bit about homeless men. One theory is that men are more likely to suffer debilitating mental diseases, which may or may not be a genetic difference. Another reason is that women are more likely to be willing to beg relatives for help, permission to sleep on a sofa, etc.. Another reason is that women are perceived as being less dangerious, so relatives and friends are more likely to be willing to take in a homeless woman than a homeless man, all else held equal.


Or, more likely, that women's programs are vastly over-funded relative to men's.  We should be directing resources to the people who need it most, not those who are most politically favored.  Therefore, we should redirect at least some of the finite funds from resources for women and give it to resources devoted to helping the majority of people in need, i.e., men.

Sounds fair to me.

Quote from: "ampersand"
I've never said that things are never bad for men. On the contrary, I've said again and again that men suffer, men's pain is real, and sexism harms men. However, I think that sexism also harms women.


But there's far more sexism - institutional and individual - against men than against women, so overall sexism hurts men a lot more than it does women.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Are a tiny minority of men homeless? Yes. Does an even tinier minority of men die needlessly at the workplace? Yes. Both these things are real problems, and tragic ones.

Does a tiny minority of men nearly (not entirely) monopolize all the most powerful positions in society? Yes.

Do around 15% of women get raped at some point in their lives? Yes.


No, and your noting that a few men hold many (not "most") positions of power is misleading.  It's what those men and women in power do with their power that matters, and in almost all cases the needs and interests of women take precedence over men vis-a-vis their decision-making.

Put another way, a tiny minority of women are raped,  suffer DV, etc., and similar proportions of men are victimized in the same way, however, women get the vast majority of attention and resources needed to help solve the problems they face.  

It's not who holds power, it's what they do with it that counts.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Does the average woman get paid significantly less for her work than a man with similar qualifications and background? Yes.


No - that's demonstrably false.  It's been shown that when comparing earnings of men and women with equal education, experience, etc., that women actually hold a slight edge on men.

The good data proves that women make as much or slightly more than men do when they actually earn it.  Men get paid more on average than women do because we earn more, plain and simple.

Quote from: "ampersand"
Do women face much, much more pressure to conform to unreasonable expectations abotu their bodies and appearance than men? Yes.


Maybe, but IMO that's hardly an issue to get overly excited about.

Quote
As an pro-feminist man, I have no problem acknowledging both sides of the coin.


Maybe, but your bias is clear for any reasonable person to see.  And yes, I'm biased too, but then I don't claim to be otherwise.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Buddy-Rey on Feb 09, 2005, 10:38 AM
Regarding the rape statistics...I'm the first to agree that far too many women are raped in the world, and to deny that would be a grave oversight, BUT has anybody, when examining these statistics, thought of the millions of men in prison who are brutally raped every day without having ANY legal recourse?!  Jailed rapists are hardly ever punished for their crimes, and when they are, it's a wrist-slap.  People laugh about prison rape all of the time, but these aren't just numbers or figures, they're real people, most of them non-violent offenders who are doing time under archaic drug possession laws, and this happens more often that anybody could possibly imagine.  I'd wager that the female 1/4 statistic is probably true among male prison inmates.  In fact, the shocking truth is that it's probably much, much higher.

    This leads to a very simple question.  Have you EVER...EVER in your life, heard of an initiative from feminists to end prison rape?  Have you ever heard ANYBODY demand such an initiative?  No, you never have, and you probably never will.  Feminists won't beg for an end to prison rape because they don't care about it.  They don't care about mens' problems, or the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases that continues unabated in a prison environment, because it's not happening to them, which in my mind, makes them a selfish, myopic group.  If you only care about your OWN problems, you're not really pushing for equality, you're purely hung up on shallow self-interest.  With a few exceptions, the mens' movement is much more altruistic in its general scope.  We want the world to be better for everybody, not just us.  We want our sons, daughters, mothers, sisters, wives, and girlfriends to be happy and healthy, not subjugated or spurned by an agenda.  We don't want to hurt anybody, we just want our basic human rights.

    "But wait, Buddy-Rey.  Feminism started out that way too, but look what happened!"  Heh, I could just see the words forming in your head, so I figured I'd beat you to it.  :wink:

    Well, I used to think that feminism began with noble goals and humanitarian motives too, but something about this theory just doesn't gel when you take a look at one of the darkest times in American history.  You see, feminists, even though they'd like to conceal this fact, were responsible for the eighteenth amendment being enacted in 1920.  Yep, a very vocal lobby of militant teetotalers, who enjoyed such recreational empowerment activities as destroying taverns with sledgehammers and devastating businesses without legal consent or remorse for the folks who ran these establishments, were the reason for Prohibition becoming law, and therefor, helped to usher in an era of corruption, gang violence, rum-running, and mob control.  Now, I'm not blaming the feminists for the effects of prohibition because nobody could have guessed that it would have turned out to be such a bad idea (well, maybe most of us would actually, but that's beside the point), but let's look at their rationale during this time.  They said to themselves, there's a societal problem (alcoholism) that we're trying to put an end to, but instead of using education, support, or rehabilitation to help end alcoholism, we're going to ban ALL alcohol for everybody, even if they don't have a substance abuse problem, because what is true for us is true for everybody.  If we don't drink, you shouldn't be able to drink either.  What's morally right for some must be morally right for all.

    You see, even back then, feminists were employing a very "one size fits all" way of dealing with the world and its problems.  They claim to be moral relativists so they can have the high ground in an argument, but in actuality, they don't hate race-baiting, or class-baiting or sexism, they only hate it when it's coming from the opposite direction.  They're the worst brand of hypocrite.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 09, 2005, 12:49 PM
Quote from: "Buddy-Rey"
Regarding the rape statistics...I'm the first to agree that far too many women are raped in the world, and to deny that would be a grave oversight, BUT has anybody, when examining these statistics, thought of the millions of men in prison who are brutally raped every day without having ANY legal recourse?!  Jailed rapists are hardly ever punished for their crimes, and when they are, it's a wrist-slap.  People laugh about prison rape all of the time, but these aren't just numbers or figures, they're real people, most of them non-violent offenders who are doing time under archaic drug possession laws, and this happens more often that anybody could possibly imagine.  I'd wager that the female 1/4 statistic is probably true among male prison inmates.  In fact, the shocking truth is that it's probably much, much higher.


Not just that BR, but consider that men who are raped in prison are usually raped repeatedly, day after day, while women who suffer rape usually only have to endure it once.  I wonder what the numbers would look like if we counted each instance of rape rather than the number of people who are raped?  I'd bet dollars to dimes that the numbers would then show that instances of men as rape victims actually outnumber instances of women as rape victims.

That's why feminists refuse to even recognize rape of men in prisons.  If the topic was included in the discussions of rape and addressed in a serious and honest manner, the direction of the discussion would change 180 degrees and would show once and for all the true selfish, sexist, and bigoted nature of the feminist movement.   And that frightens the bejeesus out of them.

Like I've said before, feminists are essentially cowards.

Quote from: "Buddy-Rey"
This leads to a very simple question.  Have you EVER...EVER in your life, heard of an initiative from feminists to end prison rape?  Have you ever heard ANYBODY demand such an initiative?  No, you never have, and you probably never will.  Feminists won't beg for an end to prison rape because they don't care about it.  They don't care about mens' problems, or the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases that continues unabated in a prison environment, because it's not happening to them, which in my mind, makes them a selfish, myopic group.  If you only care about your OWN problems, you're not really pushing for equality, you're purely hung up on shallow self-interest.  With a few exceptions, the mens' movement is much more altruistic in its general scope.  We want the world to be better for everybody, not just us.  We want our sons, daughters, mothers, sisters, wives, and girlfriends to be happy and healthy, not subjugated or spurned by an agenda.  We don't want to hurt anybody, we just want our basic human rights.


Absolutely - feminists have no interest whatsoever in true equality.  I'll say it again: IMO feminists are simply cowards. They're afraid of true equality because they know that if men and women were truly equal they'd no longer enjoy the substantial female privilege that they currently have and would have to actually uphold their fair share of the responsibilities.  For a change.

Quote from: "Buddy-Rey"
"But wait, Buddy-Rey.  Feminism started out that way too, but look what happened!"  Heh, I could just see the words forming in your head, so I figured I'd beat you to it.  :wink:

    Well, I used to think that feminism began with noble goals and humanitarian motives too, but something about this theory just doesn't gel when you take a look at one of the darkest times in American history.  You see, feminists, even though they'd like to conceal this fact, were responsible for the eighteenth amendment being enacted in 1920.  Yep, a very vocal lobby of militant teetotalers, who enjoyed such recreational empowerment activities as destroying taverns with sledgehammers and devastating businesses without legal consent or remorse for the folks who ran these establishments, were the reason for Prohibition becoming law, and therefor, helped to usher in an era of corruption, gang violence, rum-running, and mob control.  Now, I'm not blaming the feminists for the effects of prohibition because nobody could have guessed that it would have turned out to be such a bad idea (well, maybe most of us would actually, but that's beside the point), but let's look at their rationale during this time.  They said to themselves, there's a societal problem (alcoholism) that we're trying to put an end to, but instead of using education, support, or rehabilitation to help end alcoholism, we're going to ban ALL alcohol for everybody, even if they don't have a substance abuse problem, because what is true for us is true for everybody.  If we don't drink, you shouldn't be able to drink either.  What's morally right for some must be morally right for all.

    You see, even back then, feminists were employing a very "one size fits all" way of dealing with the world and its problems.  They claim to be moral relativists so they can have the high ground in an argument, but in actuality, they don't hate race-baiting, or class-baiting or sexism, they only hate it when it's coming from the opposite direction.  They're the worst brand of hypocrite.


Amen to that BR.  And the feminst movement from the very beginning had strong elements of, among other things, racism (e.g., Anthony), sexism and female chauvanism/supremacy (e.g., Stanton), and eugenics and genocide (e.g., Sanger).  And you know what?  The movement hasn't changed all that much.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Feb 09, 2005, 01:02 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Absolutely - feminists have no interest whatsoever in true equality.  I'll say it again: IMO feminists are simply cowards. They're afraid of true equality because they know that if men and women were truly equal they'd no longer enjoy the substantial female privilege that they currently have and would have to actually uphold their fair share of the responsibilities.  For a change.


I'll take it a step further and say that the only reason feminists get away with this game is due to male chivalry.

Any typical man is going to at least try to present the "chivalrous" thing in society - especially if he wants to catch the attention of some woman - but even if he doesn't.

The dichotomy is really strange and something worth thinking about.  The modern "spoiled brat" feminism in universities almost counts on men doing their traditional roles.  Daddy or husband or society (men pay the most taxes) has to provide for them - while they rant against the "Patriarchy" and inequality.  Puh-leeeeze.

I'm for equal opportunity: If you can cut a job, then you should do it, whether man or woman.  Unfortunately, feminists proclaim "equality" while doing the exact opposite, by simply expecting that men have to be men (uncaring robots who simply provide for them - possibly even due to taxes for the radical lesbians).

Let's really make things equal.  No, I mean really equal.  No more "marrying up" etc. on the part of women.  No more traditional expectations on men.  And feminism would disappear in a heartbeat - and probably be replaced by the old nagging that you see complaints about in old films.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 09, 2005, 01:04 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Beste"
Well,  it ain't just anti-feminists or MRAs that are criticizing the Koss study.
Feminists are doing it too (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)


Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.

If I called myself a Republican activist and an anti-feminist - but didn't change my political party, or any of my anti-Republican, pro-feminist views or arguments - would you feel obliged to agree with me that I was a Republican and an anti-feminist?


I thought that feminism was a "Big Tent" where any woman who worked for equal rights between men and women and thus could define herself as a feminist was welcome?  I guess that too is just more jive double-talk, and in reality only women who tow the Party Line are allowed in the Big Tent.  

Nevertheless, I think women like Sommers are more "feminist" (using feminst's own self-stated but seldom actually practiced definition of working towards equality) than people like Hugo, Greer, Ireland, Burke, et al.  Sommers walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.  She actually works making a world where men and women, boys and girls are treated with equal compassion and concern, something that is painfully missing in contemporary mainstream feminism.  The only disconnect with Sommers and the mainstream feminist movement is that Sommers doesn't do what the dictators in the movement want her to do, so they lable what she does "anti-feminist."  

And the issue of political party is a Red Herring - feminism and political party are independent.  Unless of course that's another aspect of the litmus test required to be granted the honor of being able to identify oneself as a "feminist" in the eyes of Big Sister.  It's like saying that Log Cabin Republicans can't be gay because they're Republicans.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Gonzman on Feb 09, 2005, 01:10 PM
Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
I thought that feminism was a "Big Tent" where any woman who worked for equal rights between men and women and thus could define herself as a feminist was welcome?  I guess that too is just more jive double-talk, and in reality only women who tow the Party Line are allowed in the Big Tent.  

Nevertheless, I think women like Sommers are more "feminist" (using feminst's own self-stated but seldom actually practiced definition of working towards equality) than people like Hugo, Greer, Ireland, Burke, et al.  Sommers walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.  She actually works making a world where men and women, boys and girls are treated with equal compassion and concern, something that is painfully missing in contemporary mainstream feminism.  The only disconnect with Sommers and the mainstream feminist movement is that Sommers doesn't do what the dictators in the movement want her to do, so they lable what she does "anti-feminist."  

And the issue of political party is a Red Herring - feminism and political party are independent.  Unless of course that's another aspect of the litmus test required to be granted the honor of being able to identify oneself as a "feminist" in the eyes of Big Sister.  It's like saying that Log Cabin Republicans can't be gay because they're Republicans.


You've hit on a big and badly kept secret here - Feminazi types love like hell to have all manner of feminist "branches" running around so that when criticism of the movement comes up they can protest "No, no - you mean those fringe lunatic people who just call themselves feminists" But when you get down to it there are the marching orders of Pro-Lesbian, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Divorce, Pro-Reverse Discrimination things with which one cannot disagree and remain a feminist in good standing.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on Feb 09, 2005, 01:12 PM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Beste"
Well,  it ain't just anti-feminists or MRAs that are criticizing the Koss study.
Feminists are doing it too (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)


Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.

If I called myself a Republican activist and an anti-feminist - but didn't change my political party, or any of my anti-Republican, pro-feminist views or arguments - would you feel obliged to agree with me that I was a Republican and an anti-feminist?


"Do you have a logical rebuttal to this? Not at all, so you concentrate on making personal attacks on (Christina.) I'm not sure which is more pathetic, the reliance on character assualt or the inability to put together a logical argument. "


Your words there, Amp. Now, while it is argumentum tu quoque to point out the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" as a rebuttal, you sure seem to think that a discussion of the person is relevant to the content of their arguments.


Beste's argument was that feminists are criticizing Koss' work, too. There was no logical way to address Beste's argument without addressing the question of if CHS is actually a feminist.

Is there any way I could have addressed Beste's argument without addressing his main claim - that CHS was a feminist? Not that I can see.

Did I address CHS' arguments? No, obviously I did not. I'd be willing to argue about Koss' work, if someone wants to write argumetns and post them; but I don't think I'm obliged to argue with the content of every link people provide. Especially since it takes ten seconds to post a link, and it may take me an hour to compose a reply to that link.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Feb 09, 2005, 01:20 PM
Ampersand - this is really a side note - but I find it odd that you are so confident posting your real opinion here - which you should be - without being banned.

My experience on the Ms. Boards was a bit different.  In fact, a lot of feminist boards are that way (although admittedly, the feminist on-line scene is really starting to fall apart).

How do you see that?

No one here is going into the whiny corner of calling for a secret space that only men can access.  People really are going into your arguments.  My experience on almost any feminist board was that they couldn't hold up against arguments - so they had to curse someone out and then ban him.  Even very polite, rational posters.  I don't necessarily count myself among them, but I know for a fact that there was an extremely intelligent poster on Ms. named Shodan or the like - his insight into economics was simply met with childish responses, and then he was apparently banned.  I was impressed with his insight, and I was also amazed that he always responded objectively to the taunts on that board.

It's called throwing pearls before the swine, I think.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on Feb 09, 2005, 01:27 PM
All I can see here is that people don't buy your arguments.  That's not a crime.  Most give detailed reasons, and some just dismiss you.  I can understand both approaches.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: FP on Feb 09, 2005, 02:12 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"

I'll stand by what I said on the show - Because MRAs and anti-feminists wrongly percieve the world as a zero-sum game. You (as a group, not meaning you in particular, Mr. Evil) think that to legitimize men's suffering, you have to deny women's suffering - for example, by attacking studies showing that rape of women is unfortunately not all that uncommon.




Perhaps MRA's, antifeminists etc. attack these studies because they don't agree with them and actually go on to prove their flaws? Perhaps they treat it as a zero sum game because whenever one challenges feminist thinking that men do in fact suffer in a lot of ways, its always, "but women suffer more!" I definately agree that women suffer a lot in society but I'm rather sick of hearing that men don't because that simply is not the case.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Acksiom on Feb 09, 2005, 06:58 PM
Ampersand, can you name for me one -- just one -- specifically male-discriminatory issue that has been commonly identified by the general majority of feminists, or society in general, as a feminist issue per se?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Steve on Feb 09, 2005, 08:07 PM
Acksiom,

Don't you know it's all a vast "patriarchal" conspiracy?  Don't most men spend the vast majority of their time by thinking of ways to "oppress" women?

And how dare you even think to question feminist dogma or "methods"?

Academic feminists are generally the worst.  They're a bunch of mindless ideologues.

If you want a good laugh, take a look at Hugo's blog sometime.  Just be sure to have an air sickness bag handy when you do.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: typhonblue on Feb 09, 2005, 09:52 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Seocnd, the methodology of the study you refer to makes the study no good for refuting my claim, because the measurement of what is "ugly"they used is potentially biased by sexism. You can't rule out the possibility that the men in that study were being judged less harshly than the women, just as I suggested.


So who is the arbitrator of which studies *aren't* tainted by sexism?

Quote
If that were the case, what your study would show is that men whose faces are far deviant from facial averages pay a higher wage penalty than women whose faces are mildly deviant from facial averages. That's a sort of interesting finding, I guess, but it doesn't tell us a thing about which sex is held to more exacting standards of physical appearance.


Could you link me to where you found info on the methodology of the study?

And, since we're offering up wild suppositions... both men and women tend to view men as "uglier" then women. Therefore more *men* may have ended up in the ugly catagory, thus hiding some of the discrepancy between ugly men and attractive ones.

Quote

Unlike the source you prefer, this source's measurement criteria isn't subjective - being 130pds overweight qualifies a person as fat regardless of sex, but only hurts the paycheck for women. (However, I should point out that I've read a lot of studies of this, and there are real problems of job segregation for fat men, even though it doesn't show up as a wage penalty.)


Another "oppression" that manages to hit white women worse. Who would have thunk it?

And if we introduce pay differential due to weight, we also have to introduce pay differential due to height. That's a big one that disproportionately affects guys.

BTW, if a group of scientists and statisticians can't be objective enough to make a statement on lookism, how can anyone, including you, state catagorically who is most affected by it?

Finally a statement on your belief that women are under more preassure to look good...

Just because women have an impossible standard of beauty to live up to, and use as some sort of emotional currency in their homosocial relationships with eachother, doesn't mean they have less "attraction" power then men.

In fact, they have much, much more.

For instance, I bet dollars to donuts that I, a rather plain jane, has considerably more sexual power then even a Brad Pitt look-a-like.

So, leaving aside the whole "beauty-ideal-made-for-women-imposed-on-women-by-women" thing, how is *that* oppressing me?

Seriously? Right now I could go out and have sex with as many men I wanted to, all of whom could easily be several orders of magnitude more attractive then me. Then I could settle down with someone who will be as attractive as I am. In the first instance,  me being female means I fish in one-night-stand-waters men *as* attractive as me could only dream of.

Beauty must translate into attraction before it becomes power, and women are not loosing out on the attraction game. Therefore how is the beauty ideal oppressing them?

It might be upsetting, seeing all those billionaires when you're only a millionaire, but still, it's a damn site better then being a pauper (man).
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Feb 09, 2005, 09:55 PM
I'm glad you decided to come back, Ampersand, because this is an interesting discussion.

Quote from: "ampersand"


I'm 36, and first attended college in 1988. How old are you?

Most likely, the difference indicates that we hung out in different types of crowds.


Hmmm, I thought you knew my age because I have mentioned it on both ifeminists and Hugo Schwyzer's blog. I am 19, and a freshman at Stanford. Does that surprise you?

Quote

This is the bit I came back to respond to.

There is no comparison. People are entitled to be treated as equally as possible, without regard to sex or race or ethnicity or whatever, when they apply for jobs. They are entitled for equal treatment by teachers; girls are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't do science, boys are entitled to not be told by teachers that they can't be homemakers. Etc..

But no one is entitled to get laid. No one is entitled to have women (or men) they find attractive be attracted to them back. You have no right to have sex with women (and women have no right to have sex with men). Period.


Perhaps I shouldn't have compared a social example to a political example, because you seem to be missing my larger point. I was trying to show that if you are facing a disadvantage in a certain situation, you can protest that disadvantage but still take responsibility for dealing with the situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seemed to imply that it's ok that men are often trained to be passive, because they can work through it by taking resonsibility for their lives. I have a problem with that logic: just because you can work past a disadvantage or a stupid social attitude doesn't mean that you shouldn't protest the existence of that disadvantage or attitude. Otherwise, there would be no basis for protesting attitudes that, while not explicitly violating anyone's rights, still inhibit people from pursuing happiness.  

True, people aren't entitled to have hot sex with attractive partners (and I don't think I ever implied that they were). True, people who put in enough effort can find happiness even in the presence of social attitudes that try to impede them. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest social attitudes that make it unnecessarily harder for people to achieve happiness, especially when those ideas are rooted in sexism. For instance, the idea that the female orgasm is less important than male orgasm is problematic even though nobody is entitled to have orgasms.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Acksiom on Feb 09, 2005, 10:46 PM
Actually, Steve, I'm trying to get away from that kind of scene.  It's why I finally left abUsenet way back when, in fact.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Odysseus on Feb 10, 2005, 12:00 AM
Quote from: "Ampersand"
I actually don't think there's a real nice guy/jerk dichotomy. I think there's a lot of guys who call themselves "nice" but aren't. I also think there's a lot of sour grapes among the complaining men.


Yes, the nice guy / jerk dichotomy is too simplistic. There is a lot that goes into the construction of the "nice guy" concept that is not readily apparent. I go into this in further detail on the discussion (http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2005/02/nice_guys_and_p.html) on Hugo's blog about nice guys.

Quote
For men, having sex a lot is mainly a matter of being reasonably attractive combined with (more importantly) being willing to risk rejection by hitting on women.


[tongue-in-cheek]Ah, but "hitting on" women isn't "nice"! Remember, women don't like to be hit on. Only guys who are bad boys, jerks, or players go around hitting on lots of women.[/tongue-in-cheek]

The above paragraph sounds ridiculous, no? Yet that is what I used to believe. And I think similar beliefs are held by many guys who call themselves "nice guys." For example, in this (http://www.americanvalues.org/html/a-a_guy_s_perspective.html) article, a college guy laments: "I feel like I can't just go around asking every girl out until I find one who says yes."

Furthermore, flirting, and being willing to risk rejection are not quite as easy as you make them sound. Facing multiple rejections requires a large degree of stoicism. Also, if you know that there is a good chance you may be rejected, that is a disincentive to emotionally invest in the woman you are interested in. Flirting requires good interpersonal skills, and an ability to read social cues and body language. Unfortunately, male socialization right now does very little to teach guys to learn those skills. Learning flirtation skills seems to be mainly in the province of guys who "play the game," and any guy who tries to improve his flirtation skills faces the stigma of being a "player" or "putting on an act" (even if that stigma is in his head).

Quote
In the end, it doesn't really matter. Sex is great, and if that's your hobby then you should enjoy it. But I don't think people (male or female) who have lots of sexual encounters are really any happier, in the long run, than those who have fewer. Like trying to own the most stuff, trying to get laid the most is a false road to contentment.


Oh, but it does matter. Many people form their attitudes about the opposite sex through relationships. If individuals are having trouble in their relationships, they will all-too-often blame the opposite sex (this may not be rational, but people still do it). If the socialization they receive is the cause of their troubles in relationships, then we have a problem: people are more likely to blame themselves, or blame the opposite sex, than to see that the real problem lies in the messages they received. Hence, the kind of socialization people receive in the areas of sex and relationships is very important, because it influences the attitudes that people develop towards the opposite sex.

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
I don't believe this - it's numerically impossible. That would mean that hundreds of millions of American women are out there who've experienced this, and it just ain't so. Give me a citation to a legitimate, peer-reviewed study or three that measured this


There is evidence for Ampersand's statistics. Check out these DoJ statistics (http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles/172837.txt):

Quote
Using a definition of rape that includes forced
vaginal, oral, and anal sex, the survey found that
1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men has
experienced an attempted or completed rape as a
child and/or an adult


I don't see these figures as detrimental to men's rights. Actually, I suspect that the rates of rape, sexual assault, or stalking may be partially due to with problems with male socialization that I have mentioned: namely, that male socialization sets many men up for failure with women in finding sex and relationships. Statistics show that a large amount of date rape is perpetrated by boyfriends, friends, or acquaintances. I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb: perhaps some of those men used force or coercion because they failed, or didn't know how, to initiate sex through honest means. If those guys had been socialized to be able to properly turn women on and get them comfortable having sex, maybe some of those guys would not have committed date rape.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on Feb 10, 2005, 04:54 AM
Quote from: "Odysseus"


Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
I don't believe this - it's numerically impossible. That would mean that hundreds of millions of American women are out there who've experienced this, and it just ain't so. Give me a citation to a legitimate, peer-reviewed study or three that measured this


There is evidence for Ampersand's statistics. Check out these DoJ statistics (http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles/172837.txt):

Quote
Using a definition of rape that includes forced
vaginal, oral, and anal sex, the survey found that
1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men has
experienced an attempted or completed rape as a
child and/or an adult


I don't see these figures as detrimental to men's rights. Actually, I suspect that the rates of rape, sexual assault, or stalking may be partially due to with problems with male socialization that I have mentioned: namely, that male socialization sets many men up for failure with women in finding sex and relationships. Statistics show that a large amount of date rape is perpetrated by boyfriends, friends, or acquaintances. I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb: perhaps some of those men used force or coercion because they failed, or didn't know how, to initiate sex through honest means. If those guys had been socialized to be able to properly turn women on and get them comfortable having sex, maybe some of those guys would not have committed date rape.


Thanks for the link Odysseus.

There are potential problems that study:  First, we don't know how the questions used to collect the data were actually phrased, and phrasing makes a big difference in how people answer.  I didn't see anything in there about methods for validating the questionnaire for this particular study, just that it had been used before to survey women.  In other words, it wasn't validated for use on male subjects.  Second, it's a well-known fact that men underreport experiencing violence, rape, etc., relative to women, and I saw nothing in my brief reading of that link that showed that the investigators controlled for this type of reporting bias.  This is especially important because the main criteria used to count a positive score for an answer was whether the person was "frightened."  Let's be real here - women are generally more easily frightened than men are, so the scoring issue is definitely a source of potential bias in this study.  (I also find it interesting that feminists like Amp hold up this study as "proof" of their claims because it used the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a tool that they've consistently criticized when it doesn't find what they're looking for.  Interesting.)  Third, there's the issues of definitions of rape and especially, attempted rape.  Just what qualifies as "attempted rape?"  And when you couple this with the reporting differential between men and women, the issue of reporting bias in these types of studies becomes extremely important.  Fourth, there were questions asked of women only; (e.g., "--[Female respondents only] Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina. ".  In other words, there two different questionnaires used, one for women and one for men.  That means the results for men and women aren't really comparable.  

I'm not saying that rape isn't a problem - indeed, I think it is a real problem, for both men and women.  However, there are serious issues that cause significant problems with these types of studies, and I've seen very few reports like this that effectively deal with controlling the bias and confounding inherent in them.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: powder-monkey on Feb 10, 2005, 06:01 AM
Since personal ovservation has been established as an acceptable criterion:

The dichotomy does not apply to self-described nice guys, but rather to those men who have had the title conferred upon them.  I learned long ago that, if I were interested in a woman, it was more encouraging to hear through third parties that she thought I was kind of a jerk than a really nice guy.
The exasperation arises from the amount of complaining one hears from women about the jerks they somehow always seem to find themselves involved with, as well as their professed mystification about it all.  
"I'm some kind of 'jerk magnet'", manages to strike just the right note of passivity.  It's a puzzling phenomenon that happens to them, rather than anything they can account for; or be held accountable for.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Feb 10, 2005, 08:54 AM
Quote
For example, it's possible that only men who were wildly deviant from facial averages were catagorized as "ugly," whereas women had to be (relatively speaking) less deviant to be catagorized as "ugly." (It seems to me that this is the case generally; male movie stars are allowed to have a wider range of faces and still be seen as good-looking compared to female movie stars). If that were the case, what your study would show is that men whose faces are far deviant from facial averages pay a higher wage penalty than women whose faces are mildly deviant from facial averages. That's a sort of interesting finding, I guess, but it doesn't tell us a thing about which sex is held to more exacting standards of physical appearance.


Here is the problem with this.  Women are not allowed much deviation in physical appearance.   However women can dress how they like, behave how the like, have as many personality flaws they wish. Flaws are what make women complex.


Men are allowed more leeway in their facial physial features. However hieght and weight are still very much accounted for. While the recent trend in heavy men in sitcomes may on the outside contradict this, these men are the comic relief for the show, they are loved dispite all the flaws because their women are so benevolent.

Also, men are not allowed personality flaws. In all walks of life, men are treated like animals in need of training.  Flaws are to be fixed.

Let us look at film, both romantic comedy and action flicks.

In romantic comedy, the women are quirky, flawed, yet innately worth their weight in gold because they are women. The men are tall, thin  and handsome, boring in their lack of flaws. They are cookie cutter men, their point in the film is to make the women happy and loved. They usually work with their hands, fix up houses, don't cry unless it os over the girl. There is never any discussion of what the women can do for the  men. The men inevitably must change or sacrifice something to get the girl. The amount of change= how much he loves her.

Men are not femine, they rarely  are short, they rarely complain, they are rarely balding. They also are rarely on  the other end of the spectrum. You never see a man who spends all weekend hunting and fishing, who watches football every night, or who absolutely will not go to a romantic comedy. If any of these traits are at all present, they are expected to be changed.

In action flics, the women are all beautiful. They are also strong, independant, and generally can kick ass. (Think Laura Croft, Bond movies, or the Alien chick)

In the Bond movies the girls usually ended up in bed with Bond, but they still were stong, important characters. Bond never tried changing them, they were valued for who they were.

Laura Croft has to the the most kick ass woman character in years. Yet she was also the strongest, most independant and well fleshed out action hero in years.

So sure, women are judged more on their looks in a way, but men are far more harshly judged on thier character. Men are in a straightjacket when it comes to thier behavior. When women are encouraged to behave in any way they see fit, men are expected to be men, in a nuetered way. They also are expected to be fit, tall, and have hair.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Feb 10, 2005, 03:34 PM
I like that, and that makes sense.  You know , my bf is a bit chubby, and I have no problem with that. I'm the one who sorries about weight.  But I know that he is always judged by his friends and fam for how much money he makes.  He works for SBC, the phone co.  He makes a decent living, and I don't need him to support me.  But he gets so much flack from his friends for not making more.

Don't you think financial pressures on men are also so much worse?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Feb 10, 2005, 03:53 PM
Absolutely. As women we can earn lots or not work at all and it does not affect how people look at us. But men are very much judged for their earning capacity. They put their self-worth into it, they are dated or not because of it, they are deemed worthy or not because of it.

Excellent point, Annemarie.

What do you guys think?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Stallywood on Feb 10, 2005, 03:59 PM
The simple answer, is that men ARE judged by how much they make, or what they do. No matter what a feminist might say.

Stally
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Annemarie1979 on Feb 10, 2005, 04:46 PM
It makes me wonder why feminists don't talk more about thsi -- or men's rights advocates for that matter.  It just seems to affect every man out there.  My little brother is 20 -- he has a new girlfriend, and he is terrified of Valentines Day becasue he feels he has to lay out so much money (flowers, dinner, etc.)  He loves her but he says he's been miserable.  I actuilly lent him a few bucks, but that's no soliution.  Of course, his stupid GF expects it!

I'm cooking dinner for my boyfriend on Monday  He is in charge of dessert...

By the way, i know it seems I am obsessed with Hugo -- I'm not.  But somone points out on his blog that he wears a Kabbalah red string.  But he's a Christian.  How confusing is he?

Here's a pic:

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/photos/miscellaneous_pics/postobon_chin.html
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: LSBeene on Feb 10, 2005, 05:14 PM
AnneMarie,

I'm quite sure that men are very much pressured to succeed and to make money.

Women DO get a hard time on issues and life choices too.

Now, forgetting the feminazis types in "Womyn's Studies" (wouldn't THAT be a great day!), I am glad that the discussion is being openly discussed w/little finger pointing.

Men are judged on SUCCESS.  And in our culture that is $$$.  I make a very comfortable living, and I'm in the military.  A lot of that is due to the fact that I have almost zero debt.  I got a student loan, a car payment, and a military credit card I use to get stuff shipped to me because I am in a remote location.  That's it, and no more.

But, that's just my personal example.  

I think men ARE pressured to succeed, and a lot of it comes from the women they are with.  And that's not a put down either.  A woman supporting a man (such as my wife - housewife) encourages her man, helps to make sure that if he's the sole breadwinner that she is part of his success, and also chides him on poor decisions.

And ya know, that's all good.

But, few men whine that their wives don't make 6 figures.  Hell, I WOULD like if my wife got a part time job to help out the $$$ situation, but I make it work.

What is remarkable is that about 1/2 the guys in my unit have 2nd or 3rd jobs (I don't have kids, they do - go figure), while only 2-3 of the wives have full time jobs.  And yea, the guys grumble, but step up, and most of the wives appreciate that.

Where the "disconnect" occurs is when a wife who is underacheiving, or feels entitled to life's "finer things" (but has not job or works 10-20 hours a week) takes her husband for granted and he is seen as an OBSTACLE to her wants or not appreciated.  THAT's what gets under men's skin.

I know my post was disjointed, but I'm running late for an appt and have to go.

Steven
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Roy on Feb 10, 2005, 09:27 PM
LS -
Quote
Where the "disconnect" occurs is when a wife who is underacheiving, or feels entitled to life's "finer things" (but has not job or works 10-20 hours a week) takes her husband for granted and he is seen as an OBSTACLE to her wants or not appreciated. THAT's what gets under men's skin.


Dr. Laura wrote a book a while back called "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" that talked a lot about how women/wives fail to express appreciation for their man's efforts and contributions to relationships, parenting, and general family survival.

She was basically coming from a "men are simple creatures" angle...

They just want affection, admiration, appreciation.

The thought occurred to me that if feminists ever figure this out and take on an "appreciate men" strategy, then men's rights will be set back another 200 years....

Because ya'll know we'd fall for it... again!   :oops:
Title: adolescent treatment
Post by: blogGreen88 on May 04, 2006, 09:26 AM
Are you talking about adolescent treatment (http://www.apdc.info/s-adolescent-treatment.html) or something else?! Umm. There is a good page for adolescent treatment perhaps!
Also,you can find some other content on it,such as b to b (http://www.apdc.info/s-b-to-b.html) or locaux commerciaux (http://www.apdc.info/s-locaux-commerciaux.html) or vermiculite (http://www.apdc.info/s-vermiculite.html).
You can search on the homepage (http://www.apdc.info) try some other keywords,no ads even.these page updated every day.Because of the huge database,it perhaps not very fast,if you don't like it,take it easy.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on May 04, 2006, 09:54 AM
The spam bot has been banned.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Metal MRA on May 05, 2006, 09:00 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
When I think that debating with anti-feminists is entertaining to me or useful for my cause, I'll do that. But when I think it's more effective to criticize your views without engaging you directly, then I'll do that.

* * *



Sooooo what you're saying is that sometimes it's more effective to criticize someone's views without actually engaging with them and actually BACKING UP WHAT YOU SAY?  

When you complain about MRA's going and flooding the NOW websites with insults, isn't that criticizing someone's views without engaging directly?  Where is the difference?   WHY ARE YOU SUCH THE DAINTY FLOWER, AND WE'RE JUST THE NEANDERTHAL IDIOTS WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T USE THE SAME TACTICS FOR 'DEBATING' THAT THE OTHER SIDE USES??  

If I don't agree with you on an issue Ampersand, I will attempt to engage you to get your response.  If I call you a man hating misandrist because of your disparate views on personal responsibility as it applies to males and females, wouldn't that be criticizing your views without engaging you directly?? :wink:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: TerryGale on May 05, 2006, 12:29 PM
Quote
Here's a clip from Glenn Sacks site about his upcoming show. This is the sort of thing we are up against.

Has Glenn's show restarted??  I didn't know it was a prospect.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on May 05, 2006, 12:45 PM
Quote from: "TerryGale"
Quote
Here's a clip from Glenn Sacks site about his upcoming show. This is the sort of thing we are up against.

Has Glenn's show restarted??  I didn't know it was a prospect.


This thread dates back to January 2005 while Glenns show was still running.

E
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Metal MRA on May 05, 2006, 01:16 PM
Ok, I'm a retard...... :roll:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on May 05, 2006, 01:51 PM
Quote from: "Metal MRA"
Ok, I'm a retard...... :roll:


Not in the least.  It's fine to call someone out on an old thread.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: gwallan on May 05, 2006, 04:50 PM
Quote from: "Metal MRA"
Ok, I'm a retard...... :roll:


You certainly are not.
Also do not expect any response from Ampersand. He's far more comfortable on his own site where his jackbooted femikook friends do his abusing for him and he can ban the targets of those attacks if they dare make more than a squeak.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Niall on May 06, 2006, 10:28 AM
Well even though this is an old thread, I just couldn't resist taking ampersand to task on this particular comment:

Quote
Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.


Ampersand, I don't know if you're still around or not. But if you are, I'd be interested in knowing if you've actually read any of her works, like her first book Who Stole Feminism?, where she states that she was motivated to write this book because she considers herself a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.[/b] Sommers makes it very clear that she, like most women, considers herself to be a classical equity feminist in the tradition of women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and the suffragettes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who fought for women to enjoy the same equal rights as men under the law. And that's all an equity feminist wants -- a level playing field, with no special favours or privilleges for anyone. This stands out in sharp constrast to the gender feminists, who are convinced that Western women are subjugated under a brutal patriarchy, a consipiracy of white males who plot ways to keep women subordinate and miserable. This is the kind of feminism that dominates the mainstream feminist activist movement and well as academic feminism in women's studies departments, which in turn have been responsible for influencing so many of the laws and policies one sees today. This gender feminism, she says, is polarizing, irrational and divisive and this is the form of feminism that she speaks out against.

Why then, in spite of the fact that she calls herself a feminist, do you dismiss her as not worthy of calling herself one? The answer that comes immediately to my mind is that she doesn't kowtow to the mainstream aka gender feminst party line that women are oppressed victims of a brutal male patriarchy, and therefore you --like Steinem, Faludi, Hugo and others -- consider her a traitor and sellout and therefore not a real feminst. No doubt Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Daphne Patai -- all of whom also consider themselves feminists -- have also earned scorn and contempt from you for the same reason.

Of course, I acknowledge that this is my own interpretation and if I'm wrong in my understanding, then I'll be more than happy to re-examine my views and assumptions.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on May 06, 2006, 10:39 AM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Absolutely. As women we can earn lots or not work at all and it does not affect how people look at us. But men are very much judged for their earning capacity. They put their self-worth into it, they are dated or not because of it, they are deemed worthy or not because of it.

Excellent point, Annemarie.

What do you guys think?


Umm ... yup ... that's pretty much how it is.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Malakas on May 06, 2006, 11:34 AM
Long ago , in a universe far away, I wrote:
Quote
I've said it before and I'll say it again until hell freezes over. Feminism did us a huge favour. Some men woke up, thousands more became deeply suspicious, millions more learned to stop listenening to the messages of their oppressed forefathers. Without the feminist epidemic we might still be toiling the same old toil as domestic appendages under the magic spell of 'patriarchy'.
This very day, Roy wrote:
Quote
The thought occurred to me that if feminists ever figure this out and take on an "appreciate men" strategy, then men's rights will be set back another 200 years....
Because ya'll know we'd fall for it... again!
Thank you Roy! That concept has been bothering me for twenty years and you're the first person I've encountered that feels the same.  :oh-yeah:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: ampersand on May 28, 2006, 12:28 AM
Quote from: "Niall"
Well even though this is an old thread, I just couldn't resist taking ampersand to task on this particular comment:

Quote
Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.


Ampersand, I don't know if you're still around or not.


Not really. But a friend saw this and emailed me.

I think I've addressed most of your questions on my blog at one time or another. Regarding why I don't consider many of the writers you mention to be feminists, you should see this post about Cathy Young (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/29/feminism-and-anti-feminism/). The thread has some interesting discussion in it - Cathy was nice enough to post several times in it. Comments #174 and #175 will give you a fairly accurate impression of where Cathy and I currently stand, I think.

Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but part three is probably the part that you should read (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/01/13/the-narrowness-of-equity-feminism/), to answer your questions.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: gwallan on May 28, 2006, 01:53 AM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Quote from: "Niall"
Well even though this is an old thread, I just couldn't resist taking ampersand to task on this particular comment:

Quote
Chirstina Hoff Sommers is one of the country's leading anti-feminists. She's also a Republican activist (you can read her pro-Republican articles most election cycles). She long ago quit being a college professor to go work for a right-wing think tank.

She's no more a feminist than you are, Beste.


Ampersand, I don't know if you're still around or not.


Not really. But a friend saw this and emailed me.

I think I've addressed most of your questions on my blog at one time or another. Regarding why I don't consider many of the writers you mention to be feminists, you should see this post about Cathy Young (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/29/feminism-and-anti-feminism/). The thread has some interesting discussion in it - Cathy was nice enough to post several times in it. Comments #174 and #175 will give you a fairly accurate impression of where Cathy and I currently stand, I think.

Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but part three is probably the part that you should read (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/01/13/the-narrowness-of-equity-feminism/), to answer your questions.


Ampersand you have the opportunity to debate here - we wont ban you for breathing the same air you know(and even if we did we'd have the courtesy to at least tell you).
But if you only come here to promote your own blog forget it and piss off.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Niall on May 28, 2006, 09:31 AM
Thanks for providing me with the links, Ampersand. I'll respond in more detail later today when I have the time.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: S.I.G.E. on May 28, 2006, 09:50 AM
Ampersand,

I was reading your blog (which I was banned from for reasons never explained)last night, in reference to the Duke Rape case, and I couldn't help but notice a comment from "Ginmar" to another poster:


First, lets review point one of the moderation policy you wrote for your blog:

I'd like the discussions here to be respectful. By that, I mean not merely refraining from swearing at each other all the time, but actual respect for other posters, which means treating everyone you deal with as if they were as wonderful and important a person as you yourself are.


ginmar Writes:

May 24th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
And....this proves what, exactly?

Amp, can you ban this stupid fuck yet or what? He's just wasting time now.


This was in response to "Steven", who was simply trying to conduct a civil debate with Ginmar, AND REFRAINED FROM PROFANITY THE ENTIRE TIME, yet you banned him at the behest of Ginmar, contradicting the moderation policy you wrote yourself.



Why don't you just take down the moderation policy?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: S.I.G.E. on May 28, 2006, 10:13 AM
Ampersand,

Your blog and its moderation policy remind me exactly of a kid in my neighborhood named Joel Berger.  He had a really cool basketball hoop, and he invited us over to play.  He used the basketball hoop to get friends.  The only problem was, if we started beating his team too badly, he would make us leave, "Its my ball, its my hoop, you can't beat me, go home!!!"
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on May 28, 2006, 10:42 AM
Hi Amp good to see you.

I would recommend folks check out  post #91 (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/29/feminism-and-anti-feminism/#comment-88188) to get a sense of how Cathy Young thinks about this feminism.  Post #90 just before it is also excellent.  I find myself agreeing with most everything she says including that there is plenty of room for criticism of both feminists and  MRA's.

Cathy Young said:
Quote
Frankly, I believe that the term "feminism" has been so debased by its practitioners that I'm not particularly interested in laying claim to it (and I also think that it inherently has overtones of being "for women," rather than "for gender equity" -- which isn't always the same thing). However, I think that the term "anti-feminist" has a very clear dictionary meaning: someone who opposes equality of the sexes. I therefore consider the term to be both pejorative and, in my case, inaccurate.


I agree with her point that "anti-feminist" is used to disparage and belittle.  I would appreciate your not using that towards myself or others on this web site.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on May 28, 2006, 10:47 AM
SIGE, you have been on Amp's blog discussing the Duke case?  Now that is worth a look!  Do you have a link?

Banned ya did they?  How about that.  Were you beating on Joel's team again? :roll:
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: S.I.G.E. on May 28, 2006, 10:52 AM
No I got banned long ago, I was just reading it last night.  I got banned in April for trying to present the defense side of the Duke rape case.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Galt on May 28, 2006, 10:59 AM
Quote from: "S.I.G.E."
I got banned in April for trying to present the defense side of the Duke rape case.


What's funny is that it's looking more and more, at least to me, that you are going to turn out to be right.

It may not even go to trial ... we'll see.
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: dr e on May 28, 2006, 11:01 AM
If he is correct and the Duke team are innocent will Hugo reinstate Mr Bad?  Will Amp reinstate SIGE?  Will the media provide as much ink about the maligned boys as they have so far to discredit and shame them?
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Niall on May 28, 2006, 04:01 PM
Quote from: "ampersand"
Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but I think part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.


OK I'm back, and have had a chance to read it. And as promised...

(Note the following quotations are all from the sections of Ampersand's blog referenced to me above.)

Quote
Ironically, although self-dubbed "equity feminists" often say they’re continuing the traditions of first-wave feminism, it’s doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme in its pretense that feminism has nothing to say beyond formal legal equality that it believes that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias.


This statement is nothing but deliberate obfuscation. The first wave feminists had clearly defined goals. They wanted the right to vote, own property, to run for political office and what not. They wanted the same equal rights under the law as men. These were Goals that were achievable and goals which progress toward them could be measured. We have no knowledge of what they believed about rape, simply because elimination of rape wasn't part of their political agenda. And the reason it probably wasn't was because it was beyond the realm of what they set out to achieve. Futhermore the whole concept of rape being a means by which the patriarchy uses to keep women down just didn't exist back then. That was a uniquely post-modern theoretical perspective developed by the second wave (gender) feminists during the 70s. So your argument here is little more than a smokescreen.

Quote
One odd effect of Hoff Sommers’ formulation - in which equity feminists do not perceive any social problem of anti-woman beliefs (a position very at odds with first-wave feminist thought, by the way)


And this is unclear to me. Perhaps you can help clarify.

What exactly do you mean when you say "equity feminists do not perceive any social problem of anti-woman beliefs"? Do you mean that equity feminists don't think (Western) women are held back by widespread discrimination cultural misogyny, perpetrated by some abstract and ill defined "patriarchy" to keep women in their place? If that's what you mean then yeah, you're absolutely right. And I think Sommers and other equity feminists have made their beliefs pretty clear regarding that.

But if that's not what you meant, then could you please tell me what it is you do mean.

Quote
additionally think feminism’s only legitimate goal is formal equality under the law - is that the category of feminists who can be considered equity feminists is astonishingly narrow.


And what other goals, do you think equity feminists should be pursuing, if they wish to earn the distinction of being feminists worthy of that label? (I already have a pretty good idea about what some of your answers to this will probably be, but I'll wait to hear them from you first.)
Title: this is what we are up against
Post by: Mr. Bad on May 28, 2006, 04:46 PM
Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "ampersand"
Regarding so-called "equity feminism" and "gender feminism," I wrote a three-part post explaining my views about those neologisms - but I think part three is probably the part that you should read, to answer your questions.


OK I'm back, and have had a chance to read it. And as promised...

(Note the following quotations are all from the sections of Ampersand's blog referenced to me above.)

Quote
Ironically, although self-dubbed "equity feminists" often say they're continuing the traditions of first-wave feminism, it's doubtful any first wave feminists would have signed on to an ideology so extreme in its pretense that feminism has nothing to say beyond formal legal equality that it believes that rape has nothing to do with misogyny or gender bias.


This statement is nothing but deliberate obfuscation. The first wave feminists had clearly defined goals. They wanted the right to vote, own property, to run for political office and what not. They wanted the same equal rights under the law as men. These were Goals that were achievable and goals which progress toward them could be measured. We have no knowledge of what they believed about rape, simply because elimination of rape wasn't part of their political agenda. And the reason it probably wasn't was because it was beyond the realm of what they set out to achieve. Futhermore the whole concept of rape being a means by which the patriarchy uses to keep women down just didn't exist back then. That was a uniquely post-modern theoretical perspective developed by the second wave (gender) feminists during the 70s. So your argument here is little more than a smokescreen.


The idea that rape is used by all men to keep women down is a paraniod delusion in some feminists and a deliberate ploy for others.  All but an infinitesimal - and statistically insignificant - number of men not only don't condone rape, they vigorously denounce it.  Same thing with so-called "patriarchy" vis-a-vis being a paranoid delusion in the minds of some feminists and a deliberate ploy for others.  The latter group of modern feminists have exploited both rape and "patriarchy" to create a state of near-hysteria in ordinary women (and some gullible men, e.g., Ken Dolls, misinformed chivalrous men, et al.) so that feminists attain a level of support that they otherwise would not have.  


Quote from: "Niall"
Quote from: "ampersand"
additionally think feminism's only legitimate goal is formal equality under the law - is that the category of feminists who can be considered equity feminists is astonishingly narrow.


And what other goals, do you think equity feminists should be pursuing, if they wish to earn the distinction of being feminists worthy of that label? (I already have a pretty good idea about what some of your answers to this will probably be, but I'll wait to hear them from you first.)


Come on, that's too easy:  Modern feminism is a movement dedicated to enhancing the already substantial female privilege that women in modern First World nations enjoy; as they've stated many times, this sort of political maneuvering is all about power and control.  If modern feminism were truly about equality under the law there would be no VAWA, feminists would marching in the streets to eliminate rape shield laws, bias against men in divorce and child custody, reproductive choice for men, etc.  That feminists not only don't work for those goals, but indeed actively oppose all of the above says all we need to hear re. the true goals of feminism.