Here We Go Again

[Galt]

Well, I guess I'm not THAT confused.

What you probably mean is that people are saying something that you, for your own personal reasons, don't want them to say. And appealing to "discrediting women" is usually a no-brainer as a tactic.

I feel a real rush of chivalry to shut my mouth now after you have pointed out that women are, once again, being victimized.

[Niall]

-- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

Typhonblue is a woman.

Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:

For the record, I thought about including a "with the exception of tb" disclaimer as part of my post, but decided it wasn't necessary since I've never actually seen her give critcial advice to any MRA here. Not saying she hasn't done it, just that I haven't seen it. And anyway she's clearly an exception to the rule about how women who offer critical suggestions around here get treated, probably because of her hardline stance, I would imagine.

[Niall]

I feel a real rush of chivalry to shut my mouth now after you have pointed out that women are, once again, being victimized.

Hey, here's a novel idea...

Why don't you try actually reading what people write to try understand what they're saying, rather than extrapolating information through your own filtered lens of preconceptions?  :roll:

[Galt]

Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:

It's the battle of the victims!

We don't want to talk about content or truth or insight anymore, we want to put in our ringers for biggest victim.

I suppose that I'll give up right now, though, because it appears you've had a lot more practice in the "presenting victims" department.  I bow to your superior skills, and will probably only be spending my time talking about content in the future.

[Galt]

Hey, here's a novel idea...

Why don't you try actually reading what people write to try understand what they're saying, rather than extrapolating information through your own filtered lens of preconceptions?  :roll:

OK.

I think that someone really hit home with you here for some reason.

You really don't like what I said, or what Typhonblue said, do you.

[dr e]

-- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

Typhonblue is a woman.

Yeah, I just knew someone was going to play that card.  :roll:

For the record, I thought about including a "with the exception of tb" disclaimer as part of my post, but decided it wasn't necessary since I've never actually seen her give critcial advice to any MRA here. Not saying she hasn't done it, just that I haven't seen it. And anyway she's clearly an exception to the rule about how women who offer critical suggestions around here get treated, probably because of her hardline stance, I would imagine.

I don't think the issue was one of not taking someones advice.  Last I heard Christiane was going to ponder the strategy idea and follow up later.  The issue to me seemed more in the volatile nature of the SAHM idea.  That issue, more than many others, seems to polarize people and ignite strong emotions.  When normally easy going posters start resorting to name calling you know that something is up.  

Let's please try to stick with the ideas here and avoid the name calling and personal attacks.

[Niall]

I don't think the issue was one of not taking someones advice.  Last I heard Christiane was going to ponder the strategy idea and follow up later.  The issue to me seemed more in the volatile nature of the SAHM idea.

Maybe I'm reading the posts differently than you, Dr. E. But to me, the "volatile nature" of the SAHM idea seemed to stem from the the thinly veiled accusations of some here that SAHM's are nothing but a bunch of parasites.

[dr e]

Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.

[Niall]

As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here:

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8842

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3290

[SIAM]

I'm disappointed but sadly not surprised. This is just the latest in an ongoing trend I've seen here at SYG -- any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

Dare I say it, but recognizing who your allies are does not seem to be the MRM's strong point.

Well, I'll also (redundantly) add that tb is a woman.  I reiterate that point to highlight the fact that SYG do accommodate the 'female viewpoint' (put in quotes because even you Niall could not distinguish that tb was a woman).  

We've had manhoodsbliss (confused gender feminist) on here contributing absolutely ZERO in meaningful discussion yet most posters here showed infinite patience towards her.  lkanneg is another example - we accommodated her point of view too.  devia as well.  This is a very tolerant board.   Tolerant because when you are armed with truth, you can accomodate liars to a certain extent.  It's feminist boards who, like the Chinese government, must ban those who disagree with the party line and annoyingly come armed with facts.

[dr e]

As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here:

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8842

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3290

No thanks.  Please don't evade the issue here. Stick with this thread only for now.  Later we can move on to other threads if need be.  Please back up this statement:

any advice or suggestions offered here about strategy for the MRM that comes from a woman is immediately shit on or discredited for no reason other than that.

[Niall]

Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.

Certainly.

Mr.Bad wrote:

In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.

Christiane responded:  

I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you. I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that: a road. Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem. Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before. On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor. And you need more votes. If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes. Your enemy is formidable.

Galt responded:

Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it. Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman. Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that.

Christiane:

I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man". Divorce happens. People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes. But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me. It's a partnership. And I respect him as head of our household. I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household. There are millions of us out here, Galt. Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.

The vast majority of "traditional" households work because the marriage partners are just that: partners. My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's. Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.

And here's what Galt said:

There ARE, however, situations with housewives that are not optimal for men. There ARE women living off men, which may be OK, until something happens (like the husband loses his job, with no good prospects for the future) and he gets to see that love isn't exactly absolute love after all.

So please join in with me in condemning THOSE housewives. LOL I'm not attacking you personally.

This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.

Edited to add: I didn't bother to add TB's contemptuous post which really fanned the flames, because I think that speaks for itself.

[Galt]

Niall,

In the first "Galt responded", I was clearly responding to what Scarbo said, not to what Christiane said.

You're chopping and hacking as you wish.

This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.

Read what I said. Some women who don't work ARE using the man, and I will definitely stick by that.  That is clearly brought out when I ask for people to join me in condemning THOSE [particular] housewives.

[dr e]

All I see is Galt disagreeing with her.  Where is anyone "shitting" on women for offering strategic advice? Frankly that looks like a false accusation from you as far as I can tell.  I could pull quite a few quotes from folks on this thread that were much more nasty than what you quoted.  

Give us some quotes Niall.  Show us what you are talking about.

Certainly.

Mr.Bad wrote:

In my book it's no longer acceptable to declare oneself as "not a feminist" - it's simply not good enough. Unless you're an active MRA, and even better an anti-feminist (i.e., anti-sexist) then you're part of the problem. Period.

Christiane responded:  

I've thought about this, Mr. Bad, and I would like to gently disagree with you. I think the road toward truly seeing injustice is sometimes just that: a road. Someone who is not as far along the road as you is not necessarily part of the problem. Declaring oneself "not a feminist"
might better be viewed as a necessary first step on that road.

If your goal is to garner wider support for your cause, I don't think it's productive to dismiss those whose interest has been piqued, who are beginning to think about issues they didn't notice before. On the contrary, every person who looks at your issues and declares her/himself "not a feminist" where no such declaration existed before, represents a potential vote in your favor. And you need more votes. If the MRM is going to effect real legislative change, you need more votes. Your enemy is formidable.

Galt responded:

Women have the very real possibility of getting it out of men - sometimes to the tune of millions, without any work (see Heather & Paul) - or getting money by working for it. Or usually a combination of the two.

But given that situation, and the fact that most women look to marry up, a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman. Aside from the shame from society, he wouldn't have the perks of a divorce court on his side if something went wrong, and he wouldn't have the major perk of being able to easily get some other woman to support him (as women can do much more easily with men).

Work can definitely be a source of satisfaction if you are in particular occupations, mostly professions, but even then I notice that almost everyone who wins the lotto quits work. And lots and lots of people are in jobs they hate.

On the bad side, what bothers me is the utter lack of empathy that many or most women have about that - they don't care to understand it, the guy pays and that's that.

Christiane:

I resent the blanket assertion that a SAHM is "living off a man". Divorce happens. People, of both genders, act like shits sometimes. But I am no more "living off my man" than he is living off me. It's a partnership. And I respect him as head of our household. I'm not an evangelical Christian, and I'm not alone in respecting my husband as head of our household. There are millions of us out here, Galt. Call it evolutionary, whatever, but we're here.

The vast majority of "traditional" households work because the marriage partners are just that: partners. My point is, and I see and respect yours, is the MRM is perhaps missing out on a source of support from SAHM's. Whatever your personal views, this is a place you will likely find female support.

And here's what Galt said:

There ARE, however, situations with housewives that are not optimal for men. There ARE women living off men, which may be OK, until something happens (like the husband loses his job, with no good prospects for the future) and he gets to see that love isn't exactly absolute love after all.

So please join in with me in condemning THOSE housewives. LOL I'm not attacking you personally.

This is kind of disengenous. Notice how Galt says he's not criticizing her personally, yet goes on to point out that "shit happens" and couples get divorced, the implication being that ANYONE who makes this decision to be a SAHM is making a choice that is bad for the couple and ultimately the man.

Edited to add: I didn't bother to add TB's contemptuous post which really fanned the flames, because I think that speaks for itself.

[bluegrass]

Raised 4-6 children, canned produce from her garden, raised livestock, sewed and laundered clothing(by hand), cleaned with lye and water, often hauled 40kg of water a day, etc. etc. Often in addition to bringing in money via a cottage industry.

She produced approximately 1/2 of what her family consumed.

Over the last century the bread winner has taken over the traditional tasks of the homesteader(now a home-maker). He(or, rarely, she) purchases clothing(previously made by the lady of the house), purchases fruits and vegetables (formerly harvested by the lady of the house), purchases meats (formerly raised, and often slaughtered, by the lady of the house) and also has basically taken over the tasks of cleaning by purchasing automated cleaning devices (such as vacuumes, washer and dryer, dishwasher, etc.)

Good points as usual, Typhonblue.

200 years ago being a homemaker was a back-breaking, full-time job for a lot of people, especially the rural population.

But as society has changed, men are still expected, and brainwashed into, taking on their full traditional responsibilities although this is no longer offset quid pro quo. The propensity on the part of women to "marry up" has remained, but I'm not sure anymore exactly WHAT some of them are offering in return.

What did Heather Mills provide in return for the very high lifestyle that Paul provided for her?  Besides sex?

I thnk two important ways to look at it are these:

1.  These days, much of what women used to make is now made in factories by wage earners.  The things women used to make are bought with the wages.

2.  The time needed to maintain a home and family has reduced drastically in the last 100 years and even in the last 50 years.  The time spent at a fulltime job has changed little.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the situation where one parent stays home while the other works is actually a bum deal for both participants and BOTH are crazy for doing it.

But the good DR is correct in pointing out that women usually have the choice, but even that's an illusion since we're all supposed to be accountable.

Much of it is a throwback to earlier times when we really DID need to have bigger families.  For any family with more than one kid, it's because that's what they want -- it has no benefit other than that and once you get past one kid, it becomes almost a necessity that someone stays home.

But we live in a society and an economy where one MUST be able to bring home a wage one way or another.  To opt out of that is to not really be able to take care of oneself.  To not be able to take care of oneself is to be childish in my mind.

The flipside is that to unilaterally remove oneself daily from the family is to marginalize oneself from the family.  The end result of that is total objectification.