Healthy Masculinity

[hansside]

Brian, that is exactly what I'm asking. I *don't* think men are inherently evil or of less value than women, and I want to know why you do - and, why you think feminism is the cause of this, or a large contributing factor. NOBODY should feel a priori inferior on the basis of their sex!

Kate, this is really rather simple.

Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric. The unspoken ideal is thus woman. Men can then only hope to become honorary women.

If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare.

Feminism has been very succesfull in making society more women-centered.

[BRIAN]

I loved the quotes Dr Evil. Nothing like damning the FEMS with their own words. I am waiting with baited breath for Kates response.

[stands2p]

Kate says:

-The odd thing is, I got a little turned on reading this. No, seriously. Yes, the secret to feminists is we JUST WANT TO PEE ON MEN!

A sense of humor?!  Alright lady, out of the car, let's see some ID.

But seriously Kate, we don't allow that kind of thing here.  Or if we do no one has ever invited me, bastards.

[dr e]

"As for feminism vs science: I say to you, and to everyone else here, are you under the impression that there is no such thing as a scientist who is also a feminist?""

I should hope that any scientist worth his or her salt will consider themselves a scientist first and a _______ (fill in the blank ideology) second.  We can see the huge chaos and misery that is produced from a "feminist" professional by looking at the work of Tara Levicy the SANE nurse who first saw Crystal Gail Mangum.  Her take on things was that a rape had to have occured since mangum claimed that she was raped.  The nurse's feminist ideology had taught her that no woman lies about rape.   This is not conjecture or hearsay this is what she literally told the police.  Women don't lie about rape.  This of course is a feminist spawned lie and when mixed with a professional who is responsilbe to make decisions that impact people's lives in a big way it becomes the equivalent of plastic explosives.  Just look at what happened in the Duke case.  Largely on this nurses word the case went to grand jury and the boys were indicted.  Anyone who allows this sort of hateful ideology to impact their decision making at their job as did Levicy or their scientific research, well, they ought to be spanked and deprogrammed from the propaganda that is hurting people.  Thus far Levicy is getting off scott free but frankly I think she was at the beginning of a long line of feminist/chivalrist crap.   

[MAUS]

"-The odd thing is, I got a little turned on reading this. No, seriously. Yes, the secret to feminists is we JUST WANT TO PEE ON MEN!

-I believe you are referring to the guy who gave his name to 'masochism.' Didn't he write Venus-in-Furs, which has been widely translated, including into English""

I must give you credit, most feminists are as delicate as the dust on a butterfly's wing. You are feisty and not easily intimidated...the warrior called MAUS salutes you. 


I studied and taught martial arts for 25 years...you get to know how to make opponents who have a stylized approach make knee jerk reponses by using sacrificial probes.

This is not a feminist or mangina forum. Everyone who read what I posted knew exactly what I was on about without me havingto expand on it.... your response might have gotten you a giggle in a feminist forum...nobody is giggling here.

I am on a roll.....after a nearly five year struggle, just this week....high level mandarins of Status of Women Canada admitted in court under oath that feminists do not speak for women collectively....now you freely and of your own will admit that you were interested enough in the writings of Masoch to be famiiar with them and are conversant enough in what I am on about to have it's humour in your vernacular.

The feminists who are not full blown lesbians may not wish to literally "pee on men" in some cases that may be overstating it somewhat...but no feminist I have ever met enjoys sex nearly as much as she enjoys the POWER it affords her to broker....and again I say...masculinity might in some cases be a symptom....but I have examined the scope of it from drag queen to gladiator....and it is not the issue.

[shiva]

@ Mr. Bad

"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."

I call a flagrant foul here:  Attributing to one person the comments of another is a cheap shot.  You owe me shiva.

That wasn't meant to be attributed as your quote, I put three quotes together there and replied to all three in a non-specific manner. Your quote (I think) someone else's and someone else's. Generalized response, but yeah it wasn't very clear, so my bad. Sorry. Things been hectic lately.

@ dr e:

That wall of feminazi/misandrist quotes was sickening. I didn't get halfway through. (lol).

[Kate]

OK folks. I am not going to be able to post here until next week, weds or thurs. Just to let anyone with bated breath know! I'll try and address everyone's points then

[dr e]

OK folks. I am not going to be able to post here until next week, weds or thurs. Just to let anyone with bated breath know! I'll try and address everyone's points then

Kate - When you come back please post to the "Up Here Kate - Has Feminism hurt boys and men" thread at the top of the board.

In your first post and  introduction you wrote:

With that said, Mr Bad, let's have at it. I can repost my original questions or you can suggest another way to debate. I guess what I'm having trouble with is the idea that feminism's focus 'not harming girls and women' is somehow actively causing harms to boys and men.* I'm interested, too, in your definition of healthy/unhealthy masculinity.

The healthy masculinity discussion is interesting but the  "Has feminism hurt boys and men thread" is much more connected to the anger and disdain you see here for feminism.  Many have taken time to offer you reasons for their concerns.  I know we would all be interested in hearing your response.

[Kate]

Dr E. I have answered on the other thread. But there are still unanswered questions on this one, too...

Apologies, though, as I still haven't figured out the blockquote function. I've enabled Javascript but can't get it to preview.

gwallan - re: NOW/Fawcett - I've addressed these on the 'has feminism hurt men and boys' thread.

As for the "wall of feminist hate quotes"....
Dr E, do you really want to go down this road? I could make a very good case, should I choose to, that MRAs are misogynists or whatever, if the evidence required is simply a wall of quotes taken out of context. If you really do believe that these statements represent feminism or have had a causal effect on society's treatment of men, then how about you argue it honestly? i.e. you take a quote from that selection, place it in context of the original source (one which we can both access, and ideally, one which anyone reading may access) and then we can debate the text, it's influences, and harms arising or not arising, fair and square.
As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism!

Hansside -

"Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric." -Right.  "The unspoken ideal is thus woman." - doesn't follow. Ideal for who? Feminists? Everyone? "Men can then only hope to become honorary women." - yes, if feminists were as you say they were and also if they ruled a totalitarian state....come on. I think we need to investigate what you mean by "woman" - what's wrong with being a woman or a honorary woman anyway?

"If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare." - yes, maybe, but that is a hell of a big IF.

"Feminism has been very succesfull in making society more women-centered." -yes, and that is an excellent thing, because society needs to be more equal in its representation. We're still not there yet, with women, or people of colour, or disabled people, or....and no, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that men need more representation in many areas, either!

Dr E - I am not familiar with the nurse/witness? or indeed, the case (Duke rape case)? We can discuss it if you want but I would need to research it.

MAUS - you make interesting, if extremely odd, points. I wonder what you can mean with your references to Sacher-Masoch and your dark hints about political lesbianism. I am not averse to discussing such things, but I wouldn't want to corrupt you, MAUS.

[hansside]

Kate

Hansside -

"Feminism is, per definition, woman-centric." -Right.

-- So we agree on this. Then consider that there is limited resources available to spend on groups and limited attention to pay to groups' problems.

It thus follows logically that if everyone is a feminist more will be spent on women and less on men. This, of course, already happens to a very great extent in my own (former) country, Denmark:

Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.

In the femicentric state men and boys pay - women and girls enjoy. Feminism and chivalry are similar in that they put women at the center of men's effort. But at least chivalry gave men some credit for their contributions.

The feminist state camouflages the efforts of men because feminists are to mean spirited to acknowledge that men contribute more  than women. Also the femistate wants to keep up the appearance that women do not need men in any way.


"The unspoken ideal is thus woman." - doesn't follow.

--Yes, it follows. Who is the ideal in a humanistic society? God? Dogs? No, the human is.

Who is the ideal in a communist state? The capitalist? Mice? No, the worker is.

In a feminist society woman is the ideal.

Ideal for who? Feminists? Everyone? "Men can then only hope to become honorary women." - yes, if feminists were as you say they were and also if they ruled a totalitarian state....come on.

-- Come on? OK, I will. Yes the feminist state is totalitarian because it wishes to suprees natural talents, needs and inclinations to achieve some higky abstract political ideals; namely 50 / 50 distributions among men and women in all areas. Since men are not thus distributed naturally, the state will have to enforce a lot of regulation to make sure the ideals are achieved.

In Denmark this is called "gender mainstreaming." What words, what words. Really, it is just newspeak for totalitarian measures.

-I think we need to investigate what you mean by "woman" - what's wrong with being a woman or a honorary woman anyway?

-- Wrong? I never said there is anything wrong with being a woman. Are you deliberately trying to derail the discussion by painting med - undeservedly - as a misogynist?

Being a woman is right for a woman, but expecting of a man to adapt to the woman template is not only wrong, it is futile.

"If society is centered around women's needs than men are valued not in their own right, but only to the extent that they further women's welfare." - yes, maybe, but that is a hell of a big IF.

-- No, this is already happening with many times over more spend on female-specific diseases than male-specific diseases.

"Feminism has been very successful in making society more women-centered." -yes, and that is an excellent thing, because society needs to be more equal in its representation. We're still not there yet, with women, or people of colour, or disabled people, or....and no, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that men need more representation in many areas, either!

--I would rather not be represented, but instead allowed to rule my own life as long as I do not hurt other people. Also the idea that special groups will represent as broadly as have thus far been the case for men is dubious. Instead of taking into considerations the needs of society and taking measures for it to work while respecting individual rights society is now fractioned in identity politics. To have all kinds of sexualities, genders, colours, disabilities does not really mean diversity in the political system because the diversity that counts in the political system is political diversity, not color or sex.

I everyone agrees with the slave-morality of feminists and socialists that it is okay to rip one group by state intervention to benefit another group regardless of individual rights all this color and sex diversity does no good anyway.

[dr e]

As for the "wall of feminist hate quotes"....
Dr E, do you really want to go down this road? I could make a very good case, should I choose to, that MRAs are misogynists or whatever, if the evidence required is simply a wall of quotes taken out of context

.

If you could make a good case please go ahead and make it.  Show us editors of popular national magaizines that are offering up qyotes that are hateful to women.  Show us authors of popular masculinist books that are dishing out hateful quotes about women and girls.  Show us quotes from male college professors that are hateful towards women.  I really look forward to this.  What you can find are a few misogynous overzealous men who are spouting this sort of crap but you will notice they are nowhere near the status of the sources of the  quotes I listed.  They are banned from this board while Oh please do make the case.  I would love to see itany feminist board would never dream of banning one of those feminists who were quoted.  They would be glorified.  I simply can't believe you can't see the difference here.  Any rational person can see that the leaders of the feminist movement have been hateful towards men for some time.     

As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism!

Feminism fits like a glove into his schema.  Do you admit this or deny it? 

I think you would have a pretty hard time fitting men's issues folks into that. 

[neonsamurai]

If you could make a good case please go ahead and make it.  Show us editors of popular national magaizines that are offering up qyotes that are hateful to women.  Show us authors of popular masculinist books that are dishing out hateful quotes about women and girls.  Show us quotes from male college professors that are hateful towards women.

I've got to agree with the Doc on this one Kate. Every political movement will attract extremists in its ranks and we've had our fair share here and I've been on the recieving end of some pretty venomous rants on some of the feminist boards. But those people are normally ignored and sidelined.

However, the quotes that the Doc posted had a sizeable chunk of accademics, writers and editors, hardly your common or garden whacko.

As regards David Byron's definition of a hate group - again, a case could be made that MRAs are a hate group against feminism

Then surely that would follow that the Jews are a hate group toward Nazis? I'm not sure that hating a political ideal can be considered a hate crime?

[dr e]

hansside said: 

Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.

That is a very important stat.  Do you know if there has been anyone tabulating the number for the US?  This is the sort of thing that we need to get out there.   BS exposed as chivalry from the government who does all of this "giving" by taxing the men.   

[Mr. Bad]

Men have been deemed expendable for eons and long before the advent of feminism.  You are right about that.  Where feminism has pissed in the drinking water is in their attempts (all too often successful) at framing men and masculinity in terms of violence, greed, and arrogant self-centeredness.  They blame all men, not just some men and have been sadly effective in promoting propaganda that claims men are evil, unpredictable and not to be trusted.  The implication is that they need to grow up and be more like women.  (etc.)

E., this is very interesting because one of the recurring themes I've noticed among feminists is their strong propensity for transference and projection.  I believe that in most cases it is indeed the feminist that is need of, e.g., growing up, not to be more like men but to more like an adult in general.  I'm sure we can all identify cases where we've debated with feminists who do this sort of thing.

Mr Bad:

"I would tend to agree that there are a lot of societal/political aspects to how society addresses "gender" - the more modern customs associated with "chivalry" as it pertains to male/female interactions (vs. its original manifestation of behavior between Knights) is an example of such.  However, one cannot escape biology when examining why those customs were put into place, e.g., the sexual dimorphism between men and women leading to men deferring to women and accepting duties and sacrifices when confronted with physical challenges. "

-Interesting. I am not arguing one needs to 'escape biology.' However, your assertion that sexual dimorphism leads to men deferring to women appears to be a sociological observation. In what way does biology lead to male deferral?

One example:  Women are generally not as strong as men are, so men defer to this weakness and take-on the physically-demanding, dangerous and difficult work that women either cannot or will not do. There are many, many more examples of this phenomenon.

"I disagree that gender roles are traditionally due to socialisation rather than biology; that reasoning puts the cart before the horse so-to-speak.  The social roles of 'masculine' and 'feminine' have evolved over many millenia, IMO primarily due to the biological differences between men and women."

-You seem to be arguing that biology is destiny here. Fair enough: but how do you square that with the MRA arguments against domestic violence: i.e. that feminists who observe men are more violent are 'man-haters' and promoting false assumptions about men?

The observation you cite is due to one simple fact: Investigator bias.  The fact that feminists are the ones doing the "observing" makes it a foregone conclusion that their 'results' will show that men are more violent.  In fact, the valid, legitimate scientific evidence clearly demonstrate that re. interpartner violence (what feminists usually call "domestic violence") men and women are approximately equal vis-a-vis being perps and victims.  However, when it comes to all family violence, i.e., domestic violence against partners, children and the elderly, women are by far the more predominate perps.

Men are not more violent than women - that's a feminist lie used to propagate a myth and scare people into fearing men.  Men are stronger than women and thus they do more damage when they are violent.  The distinction is important. 

[hansside]

hansside said: 

Women's lower average net contribution and longer life span means that an average female can expect to receive 2.4 mill. dkr ( ~400.000 $ ) more from the public than she pays. On the other hand the average male can expect to pay 0.8 mill. dkr ( ~133.333 $ ) more than he receives from the public.

That is a very important stat.  Do you know if there has been anyone tabulating the number for the US?  This is the sort of thing that we need to get out there.   BS exposed as chivalry from the government who does all of this "giving" by taxing the men.   

I know of no such numbers for other countries than Denmark.

These particular numbers are from a special report on the future of the Danish Welfare State called Velfærdsrapporten. It is an official government report so the numbers themselves are pretty much beyond dispute.