We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed. You may recall my recent post about an MRA blog that basically celebrated the possible death of a missing Las Vegas dancer. The body of the murdered woman, Deborah Flores-Narvaez, has since been found. The news inspired a moderator of the Happy Bachelors Forum to start a topic entitled "Dirty skanky whore found dead."
And of course we've seen similar reactions to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others. While many in the manosphere responded to the shootings like normal human beings (displaying honest shock and horror) and others responded like typical internet paranoids (wildly speculating on how this meant the government would take away all our rights), there were others who found ways to blame women for the shootings or to twist the issue into one of men's putative oppression. On NiceGuy's MGTOW Forum, one commenter found an ingenious way to blame women for the shooting:
He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that's what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can't think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.
Others complained that the news coverage was slanted by evil feminism. From the MGTOW proboards forum:
it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.
this really shows you how society values women over men. and she's not even dead!
Over on NiceGuy's MGTOW forum, one member complained that Giffords was getting most of the news coverage and that the six others who were murdered in the attack, most of whom were probably men, were being ignored:
This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.
The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.
The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.
It wouldn't be surprising if the four unnamed dead people were men. If they were men, they would be considered less human than the others. They are not even human enough for the media to investigate and name. Their death, by American standards, was a tragedy but less of a tragedy than the non-death of female politician.
This comment is jampacked with an assortment of bad assumptions. To correct the most obvious of them: Giffords has gotten most of the coverage because this was not a random murder, but an attempted political assassination. Gender has nothing to do with it. When people talk about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, they rarely mention the three others who were also wounded that day. (Except for James Brady, and that's because he has gone on to be an influential gun control advocate.)
The male judge has gotten a good deal of attention, but isn't the main focus of the coverage because he was not the target of the assassination attempt. The girl has gotten attention because she was a child. The other victims were not named at first because authorities had not yet notified their next-of-kin. There were three men killed in the attacks, two women, and one girl.
Meanwhile, on this very blog, a regular antifeminist commenter who calls himself Random Brother has made clear that he doesn't extend basic human sympathies to feminists. Asking whether or not Giffords is a feminist, he explains:
I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. ...
If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is precisely zero evidence that Giffords is any any way a "man hater": Because she's a human being?
Sadly, this failure of empathy isn't confined to the manosphere, as Marianne Kirby notes on The Rotund:
Empathy is, in its simplest form, the ability to acknowledge the thoughts/reasoning/emotions of another person as valid. It is, so to speak, being able to see where they are coming from even if you do not agree. ... Empathy is, I think, coming to the realization of our own humanity and the humanity of other people - we are all simply people. ...
[W]hen politicians depend on hate and violent rhetoric to stir up their followers, no good can come of it. ... It teaches them that these people who believe different things are “the enemy” - that they are a danger and must be eliminated.
Is it any wonder that some people reach a point where the literal elimination of those who are different becomes the end goal?
For a long time I labeled the MRA/MGTOW blogs I've put in my sidebar as my "Enemies List." It was a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to Nixon's famous "enemies list." But many people took it literally, and some (even if they didn't) worried that this kind of terminology could lead to precisely the sort of dehumanizing of the "enemy" I've been criticizing here. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, and after pondering several eloquent emails sent to me on the subject, I've decided to change my "Enemies List" to, well, a "Boob-roll." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "boob" as "a stupid or foolish person; a dolt." The people I write about may be -- at least in my mind -- wrong, and foolish, and sometimes hateful assholes, but they are people.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
142 comments:
It's very ironic how the meaning of empathy comes up when feminists commonly say "what about teh menz" when ever a male issue gets raised.
Nick, we've talked about that over and over. "What about teh menz" doesn't mean "fuck men's rights." It means "what about problem's in men's rights?" is not a solution for "how do we solve this problem in women's rights?"
It's also completely ridiculous that you would compare "what about the menz", even if it WAS dismissive of men's rights, to a person not empathizing with the death or serious injury of someone else simply because that person is a woman, and therefore a suspected feminist.
I thought women said "what about teh menz" when issues get raised *out of context*.
Woman, "MY sister got decapitated for not submitting to a rape."
MRA "YOU NEVER talk about when I stubbed my toe while trying to kick my wife. It's not EQUAL."
Yeah, that's not equal. Women's issues do not always need to include a nod to anything man related. It depends on the topic.
Before, I was an exalted "enemy" on the Futrelle enemies list, locked in a pitched battle between world views and philosophies. Now, I'm just a member of the "boob roll." Why, I've never been so insulted! I say bring back the enemies list.
I love how MRAs have convinced themselves that they are living in a female-dominated world. Its so bizarre and hard to understand.
There was a thread in Antimisandry 2 years ago (it was removed) started by fschmidt (the guy that created the co-alpha brotherhood) that said that American women deserved to be raped. The thread degenerated in a flame fest between men and women. One female poster explained that she was involved in the MRA movement since 4 years and she discovered that the MRA movement has nothing to do with men’s right or men’s issues it’s a victimisation movement by guys that cannot get laid and she compared it to the many minority rights movement that exist and that see their member as perpetual victims of society. She said that at the beginning she refused to admit it - women that are attracted to the MRA movement are socially conservatives and sexually experienced since they had been in relationships and expect male members to be like them - but at the end she had to accept the truth that most MRAs cannot get laid. And she explained that if there are threads like that it’s because of these guys are losers that cannot get laid.
I've been reading shyness/dating forum since three years and it's always angry guys that have no success with women and cannot get laid that say things like that.
It's also the reason why MRAs are fascinated by PUAs.
@nobody,
It's also amazing how college educated, upper middle-class white women can portray themselves as victims of Western society.
magdelyn, If you think that's amazing, you don't know much about women's issues. Have you ever listened to a woman who entered a major not gender typical, like science, one of the sciences, or geology, something like that? And I wonder what you consider "upper" middle class? I would like to know because most women now a days barely give a nod to feminism. I wonder if you could give any amazing demographic/victim examples, or if you're just trying to be cute.
avp, I find it VERY VERY disturbing that the founder of the coalpha male site would say that about any human being. How could someone deserve to lose agency over their body? Under WHAT circumstance is this ok? In captivity, but even then, not THAT kind of agency does one lose. That this could even enter these people's MINDS is, well I'm speechless. It's VERY TELLING. What does this person think sex is, or bodies are? What? And this magdelyne posts her nonsense after this revelation? Come on. I know that all men aren't like that (I'm getting married), but how does even ONE MALE get that confused?
@booboonation:
What, pray tell, about white college women's issues am I missing? Please tell me what is keeping women out of physics, chemistry, geology, mathematics? I am dying to hear your answer. Since urban women in their 20's out earn their male peers, and have done so for over a decade now; since they do much better at every educational level; since they attend college in disproportionately greater numbers, get more graduate degrees, live longer, commit suicide less (by a factor of four), what is keeping a sister down? Let me guess, "rape culture." Bah! The wage gap? If the argument wasn't so disengenous on its face, it would be worth mentioning that women spend the vast majority of discretionary income, resulting in a "vast transfer of wealth from men to women." Even social security is a program that redistributes income to women. Not to mention the one sided enforcement of title IX, a gender neutral statute that hasn't been used to investigate why girls are doing so much better in school. Yet, whoa, if so private universities are letting some boys with lesser credentials in to even out the population, whoa, then the office of civil rights has a problem.
This very blog is a testament to the vilification of men. It attempts to dismiss legitimate issues by pointing to anecdotal baffoonery of some whack jobs. The plural of anecdote is not data. This blog takes a few nut jobs and attempts to slander a whole movement.
"This very blog is a testament to the vilification of men. It attempts to dismiss legitimate issues by pointing to anecdotal baffoonery of some whack jobs. The plural of anecdote is not data. This blog takes a few nut jobs and attempts to slander a whole movement."
Outstanding summation.
Magdelyn, what you're saying does not make sense. Women are out performing men academically and more women are going to college. Yet women are still not represented in fields such a s physics, chemistry, and mathematics, and women are still not equally represented among equity partners in large law firms, and women are a small minority of ceos.
What's keeping women out? Sexism. No, the difference cannot be entirely explained by personal choice. No, not even the wage gap can be entirely explained by personal choice. Furthermore, if a woman faces an environment hostile to her career progress, she may choose to focus on other areas of her life.
If you want data on the wage gap, see other posts on this blog about that topic.
Nothing on this blog vilifies men. This blog is about highlighting the rhetoric in the men's rights movement that is poisoning the movement.
avpd0nmmng said...
There was a thread in Antimisandry 2 years ago (it was removed) started by fschmidt (the guy that created the co-alpha brotherhood) that said that American women deserved to be raped.
What was EXACTLY said there? Feminists are often putting untrue words in your mouth.
And why do you think, moderators removed that thread?
About this thread here, well, 1 woman is glorified, another one - a girl of 9 is mentioned because of her parents, and a male judge is also mentioned.
And what about the others, who are dead or injured? I have not seen any media cover yet about them. Just forget about them?
About the victim, the female politician - regrettable she took threats against her and the attack of her office not enough seriously.
Obviously she ignored the fact that being an US-politician is sometimes a dangerous job.
Interesting that feminists avoid to talk about crime-prevention and I wonder why?
Internationally USA is known for its crimes and its gun-culture. Nowhere else are so many men in jail than in USA.
Nearby Mexico with over 30000 murder cases during the last years related to drugs and other illegal activities - often over the border into USA - should be another reason to be concerned about your own security if you are a politician talking with ordinary people in a supermarket.
Politicians, businessmen etc. are a target for kidnapping and killing not only in USA - Like it or not, but this is the reality.
mag You're dying to hear my answer? You're ignorant of these subjects,and I told you that you are. You can do your own research, since you clearly don't like to think about these things on any real level. I also am not going to deal with you because you said that this blog testifies to men's villainy. So you just project and are very prejudiced and shockingly hostile to any talk of these issues obviously. What on this blog is not true? If this blog makes MEN look bad, I don't even want to live. If I thought all men were like these FREAKS I would have problems living another day.
Not only that, but ALL women can care about feminism even if the movement only served the demographic that get roped into prostitution or sexually assaulted (which happens at all levels of society). I don't even see why you had to say "Upper" middle class. You think that any woman identified as feminist does so for selfish reasons? My life is fine. I just don't get your attitude or beliefs on any level.
@ David
Let me see if I can grasp this. I need to have empathy for people who are actively trying to disenfranchise me? I need to have empathy for people who in every word, every policy, every utterance view me, as a male, as a defective, as an inferior, as someone suffering from "testosterone poisoning" as someone whose sexuality, aggresiveness, hell even film choices need "correcting" and I should show empathy for them? I need empathy?!?! When something bad happens to the aforementioned people who are actively disenfranchising me I have to put aside their politics and actions and pretend to be overwhelmed with concern form my enemies? Really? Fucking really?
When Adolph Hitler bought it did jews feel empathy for him?
If Jesse Helms had caught a bullet in his prime should African Americans have wailed for him?
How about you show some fucking empathy for father's who aren't allowed to see their children, David.
How about you and your feminut followers show some empathy for men who are living hand to mouth because of excessive child support and alimony payments, David.
How about you and and the rest of the man haters show some empathy for the men falsely imprisoned on trumped up rape charges, David.
The same place your empathy is for these people, well that's where my empathy is for some feminist.
Random Brother
Dave, as a freelance writer, how much are they paying you to ghost-write this agitprop?
richard, how the fuck is Gabrielle Giffords disenfranchising you?
Your vision of feminists as "people who in every word, every policy, every utterance view me, as a male, as a defective, as an inferior, as someone suffering from "testosterone poisoning" as someone whose sexuality, aggresiveness, hell even film choices need "correcting"" is utterly at odds with the feminism I and virtually every feminist I've ever met supports. It's a caricature, not a reality.
As for the Hitler reference, well, that's what Godwin's Law is for.
As for empathy for the falsely accused, read the work of Debbie Nathan, a feminist who fought against the "satanic ritual abuse" hysteria. Or check out the organization she's a part of, the National Center for Reason and Justice, which fights for justice for those falsely accused of sex crimes. It's in my sidebar as well.
http://ncrj.org/
Or fucking read what I've got in my further reading sidebar. I challenge some of the wildly misleading myths set forth by the MRM, but nowhere do I deny the real suffering of men.
And show me some people in the MRM -- not the father's rights movement, which actually does engage in real activism, but the MRM -- who are actually doing anything about any of the issues they claim to care about -- that is, besides complain to each other online about how unfair everything is and what horrible bitches women are.
Ernest, who is this "they" you're talking about? I'd like to meet them, as I'm currently being paid zip for doing this blog.
David: .....how little basic human empathy I see there, towards women in general and towards feminists of both sexes. We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed.
We are all equals, David.
Where are all these feminists (of both sexes) who show basic human empathy to men?
I do not talk about ordinary men who have a job and a trouble-free family life. - I talk about men who need help.
Feminists do not even care about young boys accused for sexual harassment, old and sick men missing medical care, fathers who are victims of paternity fraud, men innocent in jail for not existing sex-crimes...
-----
The two examples of David are badly selected.
1.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/01/10/general-lt-congresswoman-shot-world_8248919.html
One is a politician, who was attacked because of her political function, nothing to do with her female gender.
Unfortunately for her, she took threats and violent actions against her office not seriously, and she was talking with ordinary people without considering any security issues in a border town, Tucson, near to Mexico...
Women who want to be politicians, CEOs etc. are exposed exactly to the same danger of crimes, like kidnapping and killing as their male counterparts.
2.
The other woman was a stripper for a cheap sex-show in Las Vegas, a city full with criminals. It was her own decision to live with violent thug boys.
It was HER decision, and it is her risk if something is going wrong - nothing what MRAs, including myself, can do about it.
David: And show me some people in the MRM -- ..... who are actually doing anything about any of the issues they claim to care about -- that is, besides complain to each other online about how unfair everything is and what horrible bitches women are.
So, and what is David doing, except complaining online, how bad all these MRAs are?
What are YOU doing for poor women?
And I am not talking about poor men, as I know you don't care about them at all.
Go with "enemy," Dave. The Biblical concept of Perfect Hatred is all the justification you need.
Fschmidt explicitly said that he knew a guy that kidnapped a woman to have a sex slave and he thought doing the same thing.
===============================================
Robert Tashbook worked with me at Nextag. He worked in QA but was very creative. Nextag's original business model made no sense. Tashbook found the business model that made Nextag work. He realized that there was an opportunity to treat comparison shopping as an arbitrage business, taking the profit in the difference between the cost of buying ads and price that we could sell ads to merchants. If you look up Nextag, you will see that it was valued at $1.2 billion. What did Tashbook get for making Nextag so valuable? He is currently in federal prison for unlawful sexual conduct. He tried to kidnap a girl using the Internet to be his sex slave. While at Nextag, we never discussed our personal lives, so I didn't know this side of him, but I completely understand where he was coming from since I considered a similar option myself before deciding to try finding a girlfriend Mexico instead. Luckily for me, I had better judgement than he did. This side of Nextag's history is unlikely to make it into the popular media.
===============================================
http://www.coalpha.org/Intelligent-men-I-knew-td2773539.html
The admins of antimisandry didn't want their site to be TOSSed. Most web server have a TOS that forbid people to say things like that. Fschmidt started posting on love-shy.com and he, and other guys started flooding the forum with posting about rape and murder. Love-shy.com had a huge conflict with two other forums (whygodwhy.org and fstdt) and it was TOSSed and they had the find another forum.
Some of the quotes of Fschmidt are still on fstdt:
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=71305
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=71363
If you wonder why MRAs (and many PUAs) hate women and believe that women are conspiring against men, it's because they have narcissistic personality disorder :
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-5-2002-19793.asp
"I've been reading shyness/dating forum since three years and it's always angry guys that have no success with women and cannot get laid that say things like that."---avpd0nmmng said
Nice to see some joker in the crowd.
" . . .it's because they have narcissistic personality disorder."---avpd0nmmng
The typical Ameriskank suffers from this in spades.
Sandy says:
"Nothing on this blog vilifies men. This blog is about highlighting the rhetoric in the men's rights movement that is poisoning the movement."
And then avpd0nmmng states not much later:
" . . .If you wonder why MRAs (and many PUAs) hate women and believe that women are conspiring against men . . ."
Uh huh.
Problem is I have met many of these MRAs in person at conferences where we were working on strategies to help men. They are from all walks of life, as are feminists. They are married and single, gay and straight, heavy and thin, black and white, male and female, liberal and conservative.
If you do not like people calling feminists overeducated ugly dykes with hairy armpits who couldn't get a date in high school, then please do not attack MRAs with the similar insults. It is unproductive and childish.
You will see few MRA's who condoned the violence in this political shooting. Just as you will find a feminist or two who will "you go girl" when some woman kills someone, you will find one or two men who will do the same. That does not mean MRAs as a group or even many of them condoned it.
On the other hand, looking at the media treatment of the event and disecting it for sexism is NOT the same as condoning the act which is being reported. We are criticizing the media for bias, not justifying the deaths of the victims.
On the site I frequent we have been discussing the complete distortion of the tackling of the shooter. The woman involved says she was already on the ground, and when the shooter was tackled down by two men she reached over and took the ammo magazine. The media has spun this to make the woman seem to have leaped at the gunman and wrestled the ammo to her actually tackling him alone. These are lies to make the woman appear more heroic than even she is comfortable with. She was an important part of keeping the shooter down and unarmed, but SO WERE THE TWO MEN. The woman herself gives most of the credit to the two men who physically brought the shooter down. We have to ask why the media is so invested in overplaying the woman and all but denying the men.
None of these concerns means we are not praying for those victims and their families. They do not mean we are happy a politician was shot because she was a woman. You are putting words in our mouths and twisting intent. That is dishonest.
"The woman herself gives most of the credit to the two men who physically brought the shooter down. We have to ask why the media is so invested in overplaying the woman and all but denying the men."--- TBQ
That's a very good question.
Unfortunately, those here trying so hard to demonize MRAs aren't typically concerned about answers to questions like that.
Great post, btw.
Much as they may claim to the contrary, the prevailing "but what about teh menz?" MRA techique here only proves David's point.
When we protest against "but what about teh menz"-type comments, we don't mean to say that men's issues should not be discussed seriously and empathetically. Rather, it's an objection to the type of comment whose point boils down to denying empathy to women on the ground that it should always go to men, who are the more important sex. It's a type of comment, at the center of which there is the idea that the attempted assassination of a female politician by a man is an occasion to discuss the victimization of men by women -- just like violence by a woman against a man would also be an occasion to discuss the same thing; in other words, we should never, godforbid, express sympathy to a female victim of violence, because that somehow takes away from the more important victims of violence -- men. This goes back to that analogy I made a few days ago, to the story of Justice Brandeis' confirmation. People who see men as the default "sex" -- in other words, see only men as people, and women as chattel who exist for, and at the mercy of, people -- are outraged because they see any sympathy going towards any woman, under any circumstances, as unfairly taking attention away from men, who are the "real" people. Ask any reasonable person, without reference to gender: "Do you think that an attempted assassination against a politician by an extremist, coming on the heels of years of exceedingly violent rhetoric by a major political party, something that's very newsworthy?" The answer will, without a doubt, be "yes". But insert gender in there, and the outlook changes: MRA's see any media coverage of a violent act committed by a man against a woman, no matter what the socio-political context, as unfairly taking media coverage away from men, because in the minds of MRA's, "important" news coverage should only be about men.
Also, it's cute how they blame Giffords for her own shooting by implying that she deserved it for not carrying a gun -- but don't apply the same argument to the male judge, casting him instead as victim of feminists, never mind that he was shot by a man. In other words, it's all the fault of Giffords, because she failed to protect herself, and failed to protect him.
Yohan-Gabby was trying to address the security concerns by having smaller events and doing so in places no one expects to have shooters just showing up.
One cannot live in a bubble when one is an elected official like Gabby. You must be accessible to your constituents because they have the right to petition their government. When she is at an event like that, she is the government in person and to have cops standing around will have the affect of chilling a person's constitutional right to petition their government.
Also, I live in AZ. It is not the wild west out here with OK Corral shootings every other day. Yes there is violence but Tucson is not known for this for a reason-even with the border having a lot of violence going on, it is on the Mexico side with the US side is generally peaceful.
David,
You are a hypocrite. You called me a dick a few days ago. In your misandry and bigotry, you have reduced me to my genitalia in order to insult me.
"People who see men as the default "sex" -- in other words, see only men as people, and women as chattel who exist for, and at the mercy of, people -- are outraged because they see any sympathy going towards any woman, under any circumstances, as unfairly taking attention away from men, who are the "real" people."~ Amused
Either you have just taken psych 101 or started in a women's studies course. The average person, and indeed the average MRA does not see women as less of a person. They simply want men to be seen as equal people as women. If this had been a congressman shot, we would have seen less coverage. Had it been a 9 year old boy killed we would have seen less coverage. Had only men disabled the shooter we would have seen less coverage.
We value the lives of women more than men. This is shown to be socially accepted by such assumptions as "women and children first", negotiating female hostages first, the male only draft, and other chivalric practices. It is seen in media coverage showing sympathy for female criminals and victims, and distain for male criminals and victims. It is seen in how we laugh as a nation at genital violence against a man, and condone genital violence of male children, but (rightfully) show outrage at female genital violence. Wouldn't it show far more ...empathy...for people to condemn violence against women AND men?
The actual practice of the majority of men is in direct conflict with your very acedemic, and removed from actual reality idea, that men somehow see us as less. Step outside your ivory tower and talk to some actual men.
I have known many MRAs for nearly a decade. I
can count on one hand the number of real misogynists I have come across. And those few were dismissed by my fellow MRAs and are not a part of the mainstream movement.
Disagreeing with feminists does not make one a misogynist. Feminism is not defined as equality in our opinion, which is based on observing the actual actions of feminists. Thus disagreeing with feminism is in our minds a greater act of equality than being a feminist.
Shaming people for asking to be treated equally is exactly what feminists claimed was so bad about men, and exactly what racists did to blacks. How is it better when you do it to men?
"You are a hypocrite. You called me a dick a few days ago. In your misandry and bigotry, you have reduced me to my genitalia in order to insult me."
See David, this is why you should use gender-neutral terminology like "pedantic asshole" instead.
Much better.
Wow. There really isn't a point reasoning with MRAs.... I've recently also come to the conclusion that a lack of empathy is really the main issue.
It should be very clear by now that David made those posts about those shootings with FULL KNOWLEDGE that connections to MRA's were weak or non-existent and FULL KNOWLEDGE that the majority of comments would NOT be 'sympathetic' so he could trumpet from the rooftops "Look how awful these MRA, (anti-fem) type (commentors) are!"
There's really no point in using reason on the internet, period, "theclementine." It's not like feminists are going to give up their ground and come to the middle to agree on anything, nor are MRAs going to give up any ground and come to the middle either. (Or ANY diametrically opposed groups - atheists and the religious, left and right, so on and so forth.)
That's why you troll and make lulz.
The Bisquit Queen, women and children first does not show that we value the lives of women more than men.
It is part of the traditional idea of masculinity: independence, bravery, sacrifice for others. Putting women and children first was a noble thing to do because a man's life was so valuable.
It is also part of the idea that women are like children, weak and in need of protection.
Therefore, it was noble for a man to sacrifice the most valuable of things, his life, to protect women, who were weak and helpless, like children.
"Women and children first" was an ideal in an age when men owned their wives and children. There is little doubt that the lives of men were valued higher.
Also:
1. You may have met a handful of misogynists, the rest of us have met many more in the MRA movement.
2. No where on this blog is misogyny used to mean "disagreeing with a feminist."
3. No where on this blog are pleas for equality shamed. Rather, misogyny is shamed.
Some drunk stoner who happens to also be a PUA shoots a woman in the face. Naturally he did this because he was a PUA and not because he was a drunk stoner.
And leave it to David to spin a political assassination in which men were also targeted as another Polytech massacre.
It is a well-known tactic in feminist communities for men who disagree with women having rights to assume female handles and pretend to be women in order to lend themselves some kind of credibility.
And yes, there are ways to find out.
Just tossing this out there.
I like how in the same thread we have someone saying "Ameriskanks" and how Giffords got herself shot by "not taking threats seriously" (kind of like how women "get themselves raped" or "get themselves pregnant," right?), and then we have someone claiming MRAs totally see women as people.
I think there's plenty of evidence right here that women are not considered people by MRAs.
Loads of politicians receive threats. Some are taken more seriously than others based on a lot of factors, but as anyone knows, when you receive threats you can't just hide in your house. And it's funny that this is what people are saying about Giffords because this is what women hear all the time. Basically, "Don't go out without your male escort (and if your male escort rapes you, we won't believe you)." Even if she'd had twelve giant security guys standing around her with machine guns and gotten shot anyway, she would be blamed for being outside of her house. Some men still consider women to be children who shouldn't be allowed to go out after dark or without their chaperone, and get what's coming to them if they do.
"It is part of the traditional idea of masculinity: independence, bravery, sacrifice for others. Putting women and children first was a noble thing to do because a man's life was so valuable."
What? Suggested reading, although, you need at least a high school level reading comprehension go understand the arguments.
"It is a well-known tactic in feminist communities for men who disagree with women having rights to assume female handles and pretend to be women in order to lend themselves some kind of credibility."
Because feminists NEVER assume male identities and post crap that makes MRAs look bad, right?
Dr. Deeze, why don't you respond to my argument instead of offering a tired link and an insult.
"Some drunk stoner who happens to also be a PUA shoots a woman in the face. Naturally he did this because he was a PUA and not because he was a drunk stoner."
I read this comment and momentarily forgot whether I was in the Giffords thread or the Gunwitch thread.
Although they all seem to end up as the same thing, anyways.
"Women and children first" was an ideal in an age when men owned their wives and children. There is little doubt that the lives of men were valued higher."
Women lives have ALWAYS been valued more (due to the sperm-egg bottleneck).
BUT being valuable and having control over ones own value are not the same thing.
Not clearly making such a distinction is the reason men and women accuse each other of having always 'ruled the world'.
The men think this because they see only the value of women but not their lack of autonomy.
Women think this because they only see the control of men but not the man's expendability.
Boo, hoo, hoo sounds like the feminists are finding out what it's like to be treated like a man.
Sandy,
Because the link THOROUGHLY handles your argument and hence was the point. Men did not put women and children first out of some stupid "nobility" which made men's lives valuable - men did it because men are (and, biologically speaking, always will be) the more expendable sex. All it takes is a simple thought experiment to confirm:
Suppose you had two societies of equal size - 100 men and 100 women. One society loses 99 men and the other loses 99 women. Which one will be able to replace itself faster?
"The woman involved says she was already on the ground, and when the shooter was tackled down by two men she reached over and took the ammo magazine. The media has spun this to make the woman seem to have leaped at the gunman and wrestled the ammo to her actually tackling him alone."
Jesus fricking pancakes, The Biscuit Queen ... where did anyone say that the woman tackled Loughner? I've read a lot of reports on the incident, and nothing I've seen even came close to suggesting that version of events. In fact everything I've read claims that the woman was on the ground, saw the cartridge, and grabbed it while the men tackled him.
I've also never seen anything where the woman takes credit for anything she didn't do. Not that the media always portray events in the most truthful light, but seriously? Your revision of media coverage is breathtaking.
So I went through these comments and counted each one where *IMO* the poster demonstrates a lack of empathy. I counted ad hominem attacks, and negative personal characterizations of entire groups (e.g., "MRA's", "feminists") as empathy FAILs, along with dehumanizing language.
22/49. Better than I expected. I'm not going to point to specific examples, because it's not worth arguing with people who operate via innuendo instead of rational discussion. But I will say that I counted empathy FAILs on both "sides" of this "debate".
@Earnest NOT ENOUGH *raspberries*
"2. No where on this blog is misogyny used to mean "disagreeing with a feminist."
3. No where on this blog are pleas for equality shamed. Rather, misogyny is shamed."---Sandy
2) I've seen it happen on blogs like this and forums.
3) Feminists aren't for equality, they are for female supremacy. You shame MRA and equate it with misogyny when you can.
"Because the link THOROUGHLY handles your argument and hence was the point. Men did not put women and children first out of some stupid "nobility" which made men's lives valuable - men did it because men are (and, biologically speaking, always will be) the more expendable sex."---Dr. Deezee
You hit the nail on the head here.
So by this logic men should cease and desist aiding women in any way, as it signals to the women they are weak and assumes ownership by the man.
BTW, had this happened the death toll would be much higher.
If men stopped doing all the crappy jobs they do in order to help their families society would cease to function. Food, energy, waste removal, construction, road maintainance, machinery repair, fire control-all dominated by men and all dangerous jobs. We call it the glass cellar. Few of these pay particularly well, most are in harsh weather conditions, and many require outside of 9-5 work hours. ALso note these are the jobs feminists are NOT knocking down the doors to gain parity with men.
You may want to stop with the "men helped because they were oppressing women and pushing their idea of self value" and just say thank you. I certainly appreciate men's contributions for what they are.
The media bias was mainly in the headlines, which is all many people read. Headlines which rarely mentioned she only assisted in taking the clip, one headline reading "Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload" He was no longer reloading as he was being wrestled to the ground by two men.
"A 61-year-old woman wrestled an ammunition clip from the Arizona gunman as he tried to reload his weapon, it was revealed today.
Patricia Maisch told of the moment she tackled Jared Loughner, stopping his killing spree outside an Arizona supermarket on Saturday.
Loughner had allegedly just shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords through the head and murdered six other people including nine-year-old Christina Green, who was born on September 11, 2001."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html#ixzz1Aly0MkhK
There was more to the article but only after a lot of pictures and ads. Most people only read the first bit, which was very misleading.
@Bee:
"Jesus fricking pancakes, The Biscuit Queen ... where did anyone say that the woman tackled Loughner? I've read a lot of reports on the incident, and nothing I've seen even came close to suggesting that version of events."
London Daily Mail
January 10, 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html
Second paragraph in the article:
"Patricia Maisch told of the moment she tackled Jared Loughner, stopping his killing spree outside an Arizona supermarket on Saturday."
And men never really "owned" women as a widespread policy, just as "rule of thumb" was a carpenter's measurement term rather than some law which condoned wife beating. Most men and women were too poor to worry about gender relations. Everyone had to work very hard to keep from starving, and things like childbirth injury and death to women and farm/job/war injuries and death to men as well as a high infant and child mortality meant that ownership of each other was the last thing anyone worried about.
Sure, some men had some advantages in the past, but SO HAVE SOME WOMEN. The have/have not line was not gender related, it was wealth related. Nice try.
Below is a quote from the sheriff where the shooting occurred. He mentions the gender of the woman who pulled away the gun's magazine. But he omits the gender of the others, who happened to be men, and they were the ones who actually physically subdued the shooter. I submit that the sheriff omits the gender of the men precisely because they are men. This is a common theme in our culture. Women are recognized as women for both their heroism and/or their victimhood, whereas men are recognized as men only for their alleged perpetration. This video explains the phenomenon:
"Men Don't Exist"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
On the video from the ABC News report, here's the quote from the sheriff, which occurs about 6 minutes or so into the video:
"He unloads, and he's trying to reload when one of the individuals hits him over the head with a chair, two people grab him, and a lady grabs the magazine. And at that point he is subdued."
Source of the ABC News video:
http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55105820/world-news-110-tucson-shooter
The Daily Mail is not exactly a bastion of fine journalism. Nor is it a feminist mouthpiece.
I did see a few early news articles that exaggerated what Maish did. I attribute this mainly to 2 things: 1) when something like this happens, much of the initial reporting is inaccurate because of the chaos surrounding the incident and 2) the idea of a woman, particularly an old woman, wrestling an ammo clip from a gunman is unexpected. In the world of news, the unexpected generally gets more attention than the expected.
Is that unfair to the male heroes who tackled the shooter? Or to men in general? A case could be argued either way: the fact that people assume men will more likely act heroically in a situation like this could actually be seen as anti-female sexism.
The heroism of Daniel Hernandez has certainly gotten a good deal of attention, as I think it should.
John, the reference to the male heroes as "people" could also be interpreted as an example of men being considered the "default sex."
@David Futrelle:
"John, the reference to the male heroes as "people" could also be interpreted as an example of men being considered the 'default sex.'"
So men being invisible is a sign of male privilege, whereas women being pedestalized and privileged is a sign of female oppression. Like I've always said, feminists sure have a knack for portraying the privileges of women as burdens, and the burdens of men as privileges. It's a deceptive ruse that the public eats right up, but nevertheless a deceptive ruse.
I'm sorry, John, but the notion that men in this culture are "invisible" is beyond ludicrous.
Also, the notion of putting women on a pedestal is not a feminist notion. It is a rather traditional, patriarchal notion. If you support patriarchy -- and you do, right? -- then it seems a bit churlish to complain about this kind of female "privilege."
@David Futrelle:
"I'm sorry, John, but the notion that men in this culture are 'invisible' is beyond ludicrous."
It's not ludicrous. The notion that men are NOT invisible is what's beyond ludicrous. To illustrate why I believe this, I again point you to the following video:
"Men Don't Exist"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
If you disagree with me on this, then refute the points that are made in the above video, because they describe my perspective perfectly. If, however, you simply make a statement that my perspective is ludicrous without refuting the points in this video, then you concede the points that it makes which invalidate your view. Female suffering, female fear, and female heroism is given special attention as specifically female.
"Also, the notion of putting women on a pedestal is not a feminist notion."
So I assume that you would support the repeal of primary aggressor laws, which permit female abusers to avoid arrest for their own perpetration of domestic violence even in states where arrests are required? That sure sounds like pedestalizing women to me.
Based on your supposedly anti-female-pedestalizing statement above, I also assume that you would support the repeal of the Violence Against Women Act too. After all, VAWA as written prohibits its STOP grants from going to any organization that isn't specifically devoted to *primarily* to violence against women in particular.
Source:
"Frequently Asked Questions on STOP Formula Grants"
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/FAQ_FINAL_nov_21_07.pdf
Page 3:
Q: Can STOP funds support services for men?
A: Yes. However, funding may only be directed to those entities whose primary focus is combating violence against women.
Male victims of domestic violence are comparatively invisible under VAWA.
@David Futrelle:
"If you support patriarchy -- and you do, right? -- then it seems a bit churlish to complain about this kind of female 'privilege.'"
Patriarchy is a cultural system where fathers and heads of family clans possess authority -- along with its attendant responsibilities -- relative to their families. Patriarchy is not reflected merely by the fact that more men are in positions of leadership in today's society. If you want to get into a discussion about patriarchy, then first you should use more precise language to define your lexicon, because I reject the feminist interpretation.
No John, the feminist perspective of this is "what about teh menz".
Patriarchy is supposed to be about male privilege. It always makes me laugh how feminists always try to present female privilege in the guise of patriarchy. Its friggin ludicrous at its best.
In a feminist perspective, any problem either gender has all results to the fault of men. This is pretty much the core perspective from the majority of feminist who exist. To sit here and tell me that the feminist movement is not rampant of bigotry is a crack up. It's basically not calling a spade a friggin spade. A bigot refuses any responsibility from a gender even though it’s as obvious as bright as day.
This even goes to the point of any failure a woman has in life such as career, it's the fault of men one way or the other. Patriarchy/men are used as a multipurpose scapegoat to avoid women having to take accountability and responsibility for their own shortcomings.
nick, I don't know what planet you're from, but feminism on this planet bears very little resemblance to what you've just sketched out here. Also, patriarchy does not mean what you think it means.
I suggest you read up on these subjects before posting more idiocy. One good place to start would be Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy.
Here is a detailed summary of the book:
http://mark.degrassi.ca/papers/ma/soc-family-kinship/gerda-lerner/creation-patriarchy.html
Dr. Deeze,
No, "women and children first" was not "because otherwise how will we repopulate?" It was because women and children were weak, and the noble thing was to protect them. It is about the chivalrous idea of protecting those weaker than yourself.
The link does not "prove" otherwise.
Also, note the phrase (and practice on ships) didn't emerge until 1852. Strange for a practice that is vital to the survival of the species.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/women-and-children-first.html
Furthermore, there are plenty of cultures where women and children are not rescued first.
"Captain Herndon's first order, 'Save the women and children!' was the test of this Christian heroism... Every man on board that doomed ship knew the captain was acting rightly."
Heroism. Not following the natural order, but acting valantly, rightly, with chivalry.
Quick show of hand: who here is currently on a sinking ship with too few lifeboats?
Anyone?
Deezee?
Uh oh. I'm afraid Dr. Deezee may have gone under. Another victim of chivalry!
No not chivalry, we would sacrifice Dr. Deeze because he will be of no use repopulating the new, post ship wreck, world.
chocomintlipwax said... how Giffords got herself shot by "not taking threats seriously" (kind of like how women "get themselves raped" or "get themselves pregnant," right?), and then we have someone claiming MRAs totally see women as people.
This killing has nothing to do with 'women' and with the gender of the victim. It was a killing of a politician, gender irrelevant.
The killing would have taken place, regardless if this politician has been a man or a woman.
Any reference to pregnant women or raped women etc. is bare feminist propaganda.
To question the basic necessity of crime prevention is hardly understandable.
To presume that the female gender of a politician might protect her against an attack is bare nonsense.
David, instead of throwing me a link of some feminist claptrap which is just more rubbish of "everything is the menz fault", please explain in exact logical detail of how its patriarchy of what you were discussing with John.
In your own words (not some feminist link about blaming men for everything) HOW IS IT PATRIACHY? Explain it all in exact logical detail. Make a good argument out of it
Seriously, what you were discussing before with John is the very definition of idiocy. Its so fucking stupid and simplistic to blame such a scenario on patriarchy. Its fucking stupid and simplistic within its self to blame any form of female privilege on patriarchy. Really and truly, I don’t know either to be disturbed or amused at such feminist stupidity.
You femiclowns need to face up to the fact that not every god damn thing that goes wrong in the world is the fault of men. For fucks sake, isn’t it clear enough that this feminist type of attitude is just pure evil bigotry?
Its totally sexist beyond belief.
I personally love the arguments from 1912, they're lulzy.
Nick, I have officially given up on you.
What a great post. The example you set is awesome, showing that even when our heads are in the right place, reconsidering things never hurts. As reactions to the shooting in AZ have unfolded, I've tried to reexamine my own thoughts & feelings of anger and violence towards others. Those who espouse policies that end up harming society's most vulnerable? Those who tacitly (or explicitly) support sexual, physical, any kind of assault or abuse? Those who view others as less than human? They get my wrath up. But dehumanizing them the way they dehumanize others doesn't help... it doesn't help me be any happier, at any rate. Your post was a good reminder to reconsider even my tongue-in-cheek manifestations of said sentiment.
Thanks for fighting the good fight... or... some less violent aphorism. Anyway, you do an impressive job.
David
Give up on me all you want. Sometimes I just don't bother to reply from a response on here that I get as I just think feminists are too deluded with their bigoted agenda.
Speaking of chivalry; let me point out the simple fact about chivalrous concepts such as the life boat situation.
Society as a WHOLE created such ideas. It wasn't only men. It wasn't men holding a whip telling women that you have to have these privileges or else get punished. In fact, women DEMANDED AND STILL DO such ideas MORE SO than men. Why? Because it simply gives them privilege. Women had as much say over chivalry as men did and still do. So how can this be patriarchy when women simply demanded and had as much say over such privileges?
Women are the first to shame men as for saying we are not real men etc etc if we won't give women chivalrous privileged treatment. On a sinking ship, do you truly think that these men want to give their own lives up more so or to the same degree as the women who want to be privileged to the lifeboat? I don’t think so. Put your self in a life and death situation and tell me how much fear you feel of dying such an awful death.
To blame it all on the men just because men abided by such chivalrous ideas is just as insane as saying that objectification towards women is all the fault of women because many women encourage it to happen due to sense of female empowerment .
This feminist notion of men being privileged as somehow being the "default sex," I really have to challenge you on that, David. Are you actually trying to justify the idea that men should be consigned to a position that is even lower than what you call a "default" status, whereas women should be elevated to "special" status in order to correct some sort of injustice of male-favoritism? I mean, when men risk their lives subduing a mass-killer, they get ignored whereas a woman who merely picks up the gun magazine eclipses them and becomes a celebrity hero. To you this means that women are somehow valued less. Less! Or if a woman becomes the first to compete in some sort of competition, this alone affords her enormous attention even though the competition measures ability and honors the winner.
Here's a picture of a woman being "oppressed" at a marathon a couple years ago. She came in 70th place but still made the front page of the Washington Post. I guess if she had been "privileged enough to be invisible" then she would have been equal to men. Or something. Check it out; this picture defines feminism so perfectly in my opinion:
http://standyourground.com/images/postmarathon10-09.jpg
We discussed this picture here on StandYourGround.com.
I'm not sure why the two tacklers haven't gotten attention -- maybe they wanted to avoid the media attention and have -- but certainly Daniel Hernandez has gotten attention. As he should have.
No, I don't think men should be consigned to whatever low position you somehow have convinced yourself that I think they should be consigned to -- frankly, I don't understand what you're talking about. But somehow I don't feel horribly oppressed by a picture of the first woman to cross the finish line in a marathon.
Do you get angry every time women's sports are shown on television, because, dammit, a man could easily beat Serena Williams?
I mean, it's so unfair that men in sports are never shown in newspapers or on television. Oh, wait ...
nick: "Society as a WHOLE created such ideas. It wasn't only men."
Huh. So perhaps you might want to ask this question about patriarchy:
""Once we abandon the concept of women as historical victims, acted upon by violent men, inexplicable "forces," and societal institutions, we must explain the central puzzle- woman's participation in the construction of the system that subordinates her."
Does that seem like a reasonable question to you?
Well, guess what? That's the central question behind the book I recommended to you either.
Feminists don't define patriarchy as "men lording it over women and having all the advantages." They define it as a complicated system that women have participated in and to some degree have shaped from the beginning.
But since you don't bother to actually pay attention to what feminists actually say on the subject, you're forever arguing against straw men (or women, as the case may be)
David, I have officially given up on you.
(In this thread.)
David
"Does that seem like a reasonable question to you?"
ROFL hell no. For one, NOT all women are historical victims as not all men are historical victims from such ills that have happened. Secondly, not all men are violent towards women. In fact, only a small minority may be just as a small minority of women are violent against men in the old days and present.
You femitwits really need to let it go.
"Well, guess what? That's the central question behind the book I recommended to you either."
"But since you don't bother to actually pay attention to what feminists actually say"
Are you willing to listen to MRAs? Are you willing to read a book from Warren Farwell?
I have no interest in feminist books as I already know its just another bigoted propaganda book about men are evil and men are the fault of everything thats wrong in the world.
No thanks
I would love to know how many positive things the feminist movement says about men.
Could you provide this info, David?
Not just one example or a few examples, but a solid balance of how evil men are compared to what good men are from feminism.
I would love to see the proof
Come on David, prove to us that feminism is not a sexist, hateful, bigoted movement.
If you can’t answer this, what does this tell us all?
Daniel Hernandez got attention because he is gay. He is therefore acceptable to the feminist movement. Straight men are not acceptable to the feminist movement unless they are basically neutered, groveling, and non threatening in any way.
Random Brother
Nick, his quote said exactly that, we give up on the victim notion and examine female participation in the system.
(I personally feel that's a false dichotomy, but we might end up in a semantics discussion if we explore that paragraph. )
So, Nick, you may have been tired when you read that paragraph.
Also Nick, nobody is required to disprove a claim you make. If you make the claim you have to prove it. Also can you prove that MRA movement is not misogynist, what has the MRA movement done for women? Why don't they focus on the abuse of women? Why don't they care about what happens to women? Please explain this deficit in the movement. Also can you please prove to me that the bulk of MRAs do not consist of disgruntled abusers that are no longer propped up by the more enlightened segment of society and are now just bitter they can't lord it over the bitches?
You need to disprove that MRAs are not DV abusers that are bitter. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, Many are convicted batterers. The fact is, that if I make the claim, I am the one that needs to provide evidence.
Like I said Sandy, you'd need at least a high school level reading comprehension to understand why nobility/chivalry are just cultural artifacts which underlie the true reason why it's women and children first. Only someone who is insanely deluded would argue that a class of people who are sacrificed in life and death situations are the "privileged" class.
Booboonation -
Can you prove the feminist movement is not misandrist? Why don't they care about what happens to men? Please explain this deficit in the movement. Also can you please prove to me that the bulk of feminists do not consist of disgruntled abusers propped up by the more "enlightened" segment of society but who are really just bitter hags that want to be like men?
You need to disprove that feminists are not DV abusers that are bitter. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, many are convicted batterers.
Deezee, you might want to give that Gerda Lerner book a look too.
And maybe read back a few comments to see why booboo asked all those questions in the first place. (Hint: it had something to do with a comment by nick.)
richard: so the media is run by cabal of straight-male-hating feminists?
Dave,
I thought booboonation was more than capable of fighting her own battles?
I answered this one on another thread here. WOW you are totally a pseudo intellectual chump if you think that people need to disprove other people's claims. OMG that is so funny. There is another post here with my answer to nick.
Wait, OMG, no, this is hilarious. It's THIS THREAD. What's the first sentence of my post Dr. Deeze. ?
I love this blog and both my fiancee and my boyfriend love it, too because I've been out of this other negative dynamic for awhile. I do sex industry and trafficking research. This is such a load off.
Yeah, Dr. Deeze, can you just scroll up a bit? My post starts and ends saying that you don't DISPROVE other people's nutty claims. Egads. And what's this crap about fighting battles? What a cop out. Knock that off pronto. You just wanna slice of my time, I'm on to you.
As David can't answer me Booboonation, can you? On the fact that what good things feminists say about men compared to the negative things? Not just one or a couple of things. I mean a whole handful of things compared to the handful of negative things about men.
If such a movement can't provide this; can anyone say bigotry and sexism?
Both your fiancée and your boyfriend? ;)
It's called sarcasm, hun, with the point being (as it it usually is) that extremism exists on both sides of the fence. "Pseudo intellectual chump" is pretty funny coming from someone who has a barely comprehensible grasp on the English language. Half the shit you say is obfuscated by how you say it - for example, the sentence I picked out above implies that you have a fiancée AND another boyfriend.
Never mind, of course, that many have gone to great lengths to prove how feminism is a hate movement - casual dismissal of things you disagree with doesn't "disprove" anything either, my dear "pseudo intellectual chump."
Thanks, The Biscuit Queen, for the clarification. I've seen those headlines as well, and I agree that they were misleading. Thanks to John Dias as well; I hadn't seen an article that claimed what your linked article claimed. I'm more likely to agree with David, however, that early reports on big stories aren't edited and verified the way they should be. They're rushed out. Most of the early reports also said that Giffords had died. I just don't think that sloppy reporting equals a bias either way on the gender debate.
I just want to comment for a minute on that whole "women and children first" controversy. Aside from the fact that this guideline was limited to Western civilization, it never had the force of law -- so in every case where people needed to escape some disaster, it was always a choice on the part of those who were stronger and better armed, as to whether let women and children, or just children, or men and children escape first. True, according to traditional notions of "chivalry", a man who pushed a woman aside in order to escape first would be disgraced -- but only if someone saw it and lived to tell about it. And that goes back to what I've always said about chivalry -- that it's almost always about displays and token gestures, virtually never about substance. In the real world, grand displays of male gallantry usually persist only for so long as their costs are largely symbolic, but in situations where chivalry begins to entail real sacrifices and putting oneself in danger with no hope of a comparable gain, chivalric displays usually -- not always, but usually -- taper off sharply. In fact, in war, the idea that women's and children's deaths are to be especially avoided and are particularly tragic, is often a liability for women and children rather than an advantage -- for as we've seen, using them as human shields and propaganda tools is too common a political tactic in warfare. In short, when push really comes to shove, being female is no guarantee of preferential treatment, and the idea that in any natural or man-made disaster, women just sit back and pop bonbons safe in the knowledge that they'll be rescued, is utterly ridiculous.
As to the rationale -- at the time when this idea was popular, women were safeguarded from harm for the same reason they were "safeguarded" from education, employment, and social and political freedoms and opportunities: to keep them available for reproduction and to service men. It wasn't so different from putting oneself in danger to protect an expensive piece of property, such as a house or livestock. And of course, the "rule" -- to the extent it was a "rule" at all -- benefited women only on condition that they lived up to contemporary expectations of female morality and behavior. So when MRA's declare that they won't "protect" (as if they've ever protected anyone in their lives) all those "skanks" who refuse to sleep with them or make them a sammich -- they aren't saying anything that hasn't been said before, for hundreds of years.
Amused -
Are you trying to imply that this "chivalry" never had an effect? As this article points out, women had a 75% higher chance of survival (and children, hilariously enough, a 52% higher chance of survival) than men when it came to the Titanic disaster. (Women were so privileged that they out-survived children!) Your argument that men were protecting them to safeguard them for future servitude and reproduction doesn't make a whole lot of sense in a situation where men were generally trading their lives in order to save women.
Dr. Deezee: That was one instance -- one. As for more children than women dying, you are confusing a correlation with a cause. Children, by virtue of having a far smaller body mass and their biological immaturity, are more susceptible to hypothermia than adults. If having a body larger than a child's is a privilege, then men enjoy the exact same privilege.
I never said that chivalry never had an effect -- for godssake, read before you respond -- only that its "effect" has been vastly exaggerated, and its less heroic displays (like not gratuitously calling women "bitches") have clearly been overpraised. To state that "chivalry" is exercised in each and every case and that women rely on chivalry to be completely safe from all harm in every conceivable set of circumstances is utterly absurd.
Furthermore, what I was saying is that "chivalry" isn't "free" to women -- women ARE expected to pay a price, and the price is entirely too high. Giving up educational and career opportunities, foregoing economic self-sufficiency, and being reduced to the status of a breeding vessel and a chamber maid -- all because there is a chance, a very remote chance, you might be involved in something like the Titanic disaster, where a man may give up "his" seat for you -- seems like a terribly bad deal to me. YOU wouldn't take it, would you? When adjusted for the rarity of an event like that happening at all, the comparative chances of men and women of being involved in it AND dying edge closer together. But if a woman pays the appropriate price for chivalry, her chance of being irrelevant, belittled and lacking agency are about 100%.
And by the way -- on 9/11, one of the secretaries in my firm was struck in the face and pushed aside as she was trying to get on the ferry and escape downtown Manhattan -- by two men who ran up behind her. They were assaulting others as well, and generally using their fists to cut through the crowd. (And please, please don't regale me with speculation about how they only did it because they were angry with the "oppressive feminist regime". Judging by their appearance, they were Wall Street brokers, the most privileged group in this country, hands down.) No, this doesn't mean men are brutes, and I know I cannot prove it happened (although let's be realistic, if I made it up, I could have made it far more gruesome) -- but it goes to show that for every example of "chivalrous" behavior, a counter-example can be invoked of a man whose thinking probably goes along the following lines: "Ahh, fuck it, my life isn't worth it. I hold the door for my mother, and that's good enough. Out of my way, bitch!" Or even something more simple: "Oh, no, we're all gonna die!! Nooooooooooo!! I don't care what anyone thinks about me tomorrow, I just want to live."
@ David
David said: "richard: so the media is run by cabal of straight-male-hating feminists?"
You believe that there is a patriarchy of evil men who have been working together to harm women pretty much forever, but a couple of media outlets working in unison is too much for you?
Random Brother
"And by the way -- on 9/11, one of the secretaries in my firm was struck in the face and pushed aside as she was trying to get on the ferry and escape downtown Manhattan -- by two men who ran up behind her."
Chivalry's been dead for a long time. What do you expect? That's "equality."
richard: as someone who's actually worked in media as a writer and editor for many years I have to say that, no, it's not run by a feminist cabal.
Deezee: And chivalry was not always all it was cracked up to be. At least when it comes to that whole "women and children first" aspect of it:
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Women-and-Children-First-A-Tale-of-Two-Ships
"it's not run by a feminist cabal"
Political correctness is simply feminist influenced. As mainstream media is usually politically correct, I am sure there are plenty of feminist influenced people who pull the strings.
"Deezee: And chivalry was not always all it was cracked up to be. At least when it comes to that whole "women and children first" aspect of it:"
Chivalry has nothing to do with patriarchy. Feminists just use this as a ridiculous ploy to simply yet again place all blame on the male.
Women would be the first ones to shame a man for not giving her such treatment. Exactly like the chivalry that prevails today. If a man is not willing to buy the woman dinner, many women would quickly jump at him and call him a cheapass. To call this patriarchy is comical
Dr.Deezee: "Chivalry's been dead for a long time. What do you expect? That's "equality."
Chivalry was always an illusion, as I've explained. Better a dead illusion with equality, than a persistent illusion with oppression. At least that's the way I see it.
"Women would be the first ones to shame a man for not giving her such treatment. Exactly like the chivalry that prevails today. If a man is not willing to buy the woman dinner, many women would quickly jump at him and call him a cheapass. To call this patriarchy is comical"
That's a bunch of nonsense. Traditional women -- not feminists -- expect preferential treatment. So you guys should stop talking out of both sides of your mouth: if you want a woman who adheres to Victorian values, don't whine about having to buy her dinner. If you want a woman who will not see you as a meal ticket, stop bashing feminism and women who pride themselves on being financially independent.
That aside, if you are the one hosting an evening -- whether for a date, a friend, or a relative -- you are the one who should pay. If she hosts the date, she should pay your way. That's merely a simple rule of hospitality. And, in a relationship, it's natural for people to buy each other meals and presents. They don't have to be expensive, but that's just what people who like each other typically do for each other. Someone who takes meticulous care never to spend a penny towards his girlfriend's benefit or enjoyment IS cheapass; as she would be if she acted that way towards him.
Dave -
Saying that "chivalry is not always all it was cracked up to be" is misleading, because the Lusitania wasn't really an example of a failure of chivalry per se. The reason chivalry did not take effect is because it is a learned, cultural behavior (like my other link, which I will quote from below, pointed out as well) and on the Lusitania, with 18 minutes to react, there wasn't time for these behaviors to kick in - pure, instinctual survival ruled the day.
Since I don't think anyone bothered to read the Baumeister piece, below is his section on how and why males are more expendable than females:
Any man who reads the newspapers will encounter the phrase “even women and children” a couple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of this phrase is that men’s lives have less value than other people’s lives. The idea is usually “It’s bad if people are killed, but it’s especially bad if women and children are killed.” And I think most men know that in an emergency, if there are women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his life without argument or complaint so that the others can survive. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it looked in the movie). That in itself is remarkable. The rich, powerful, and successful men, the movers and shakers, supposedly the ones that the culture is all set up to favor — in a pinch, their lives were valued less than those of women with hardly any money or power or status. The too-few seats in the lifeboats went to the women who weren’t even ladies, instead of to those patriarchs.
Most cultures have had the same attitude. Why? There are pragmatic reasons. When a cultural group competes against other groups, in general, the larger group tends to win out in the long run. Hence most cultures have promoted population growth. And that depends on women. To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a few penises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. If a group loses half its men, the next generation can still be full-sized. But if it loses half its women, the size of the next generation will be severely curtailed. Hence most cultures keep their women out of harm’s way while using men for risky jobs.
These risky jobs extend beyond the battlefield. Many lines of endeavor require some lives to be wasted. Exploration, for example: a culture may send out dozens of parties, and some will get lost or be killed, while others bring back riches and opportunities. Research is somewhat the same way: There may be a dozen possible theories about some problem, only one of which is correct, so the people testing the eleven wrong theories will end up wasting their time and ruining their careers, in contrast to the lucky one who gets the Nobel prize. And of course the dangerous jobs. When the scandals broke about the dangers of the mining industry in Britain, Parliament passed the mining laws that prohibited children under the age of 10 and women of all ages from being sent into the mines. Women and children were too precious to be exposed to death in the mines: so only men. As I said earlier, the gender gap in dangerous work persists today, with men accounting for the vast majority of deaths on the job..."
If men's lives are so valuable, like Sandy argues, why aren't our front lines primarily filled by females? Why aren't females serving in combat roles? If feminism is truly about equality, why aren't they lobbying for a 50/50, fully integrated military where females can share the burden of combat service equally with men? Why don't women have to register with the selective service when they turn 18, as men do?
Amused, I never said that feminists expect preferential treatment. My complaint is that feminists try to blame this on patriarchy rather than simply blaming it on women who have a poisoned sense of entitlement which they have 100 percent control over this mentality.
If a man is not willing to buy the woman dinner, many women would quickly jump at him and call him a cheapass
Sure they would, as (and MRAs don't seem to understand this) not ALL women are feminists or believe that equal rights/egalitarianism for the sexes is preferable, many women want to retain "traditional manhood and womanhood" roles. To them, yes, he is a cheapass, and not only that, he is probably not going to make suitable "husband as protector/provider/head of the household" material. From what I've read, MRAs seem to want to hold fast to that dominant male authority/submissive, obedient woman hierarchy, so those are the women that they should be aiming for, not complaining about!
On another note, I have dated men where I have offered to pay or, at the very least, offer to pay my own way, and that was seen as damn insulting in some cases, downright emasculating in others. Women certainly don't corner the market in hurling abusive insults at someone who doesn't fit their paradigm of how things ought to be. But in either case, neither should hurl abusive insults, they should just move on to finding a partner who shares their values.
And as Deezee was saying; it's funny how when women are privileged in an area, such as not being forced into combat against their will, there is a deafening silence from feminists who will protest against it. It's only important for feminists to protest against something when they feel males have a privilege
I don't know how many times in how many different forums I have seen this 'women not serving in combat' issue raised. And almost every time it is raised, the fact that feminists have been lobbying for YEARS to have women serve in the military and on the front line is pointed out. To that there is commonly a volley of insults aimed at women......their uselessness, laziness, inferiority, etc., ..... mainly coming from men and many of whom state that they are in the military, who are protesting AGAINST having women in the military because women are so incapable that men will get killed due to the fuckups of women. So convinced many men are of their superiority over women in every way that they are blinded to the fact that they are shooting themselves in the foot (no pun intended) over this issue every time. Deafening silence from feminists? They're too busy watching you shoot yourselves in the foot, no need for them to get involved. You are your own worst enemies! As Amused stated, "you guys should stop talking out of both sides of your mouth".
It's not just men who oppose it, but the actual women who've served as well:
"Many Army women are puzzled when they see feminists in the media pushing to open up combat roles to women, because they are unaware of any military women who are interested in such roles.(1) These feminist activists accept the policy for men as the standard and seek to apply that policy to women. Thus they support making women eligible for the draft and assigning them to combat arms, even on a non-voluntary basis if necessary.
Many Army women, however, believe that lobbying for compulsory service for women is regressive, and instead maintain that serving in the military and in a combat role should be voluntary for both men and women. When pressed to choose between the current exclusion of women from the combat arms and a policy that would assign women the way men are now assigned, women soldiers tend to support the status quo."
Pam
We are aware of people not agreeing with women being in the frontline etc etc. But can you show come source of evidence where feminists actually protest at the fact why ONLY men are FORCED against their will into combat?
Probably feminists have and I haven't seen it. Forgive me if I am wrong.
My point was in my last post is that feminists only seem motivated to actually protest something when men are somehow privileged.
nick --
Can you show me evidence of MRAs actually protesting draft registration? Not complaining about it online, actually getting off their asses and marching down to a recruiting center and protesting?
Also, just so you know, men aren't being drafted in the US. Generally speaking there is not much anti-draft activism from anyone when there is no draft.
Feminists are often involved in anti-war protests, and have been since the beginnings of feminism.
Here's an example of a feminist who was arrested for protesting the draft:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kpNarH7t9CkC&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=feminists+against+the+draft&source=bl&ots=WmAxwfOGpb&sig=syfIS6mO5DhvsXCho_9yxOrweuo&hl=en&ei=_FMuTeODM4WdlgfeqqiaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=feminists%20against%20the%20draft&f=false
Here's an example in Israel; the draft affects both sexes there, but it's not like the femininists there are only against the draft of girls/women.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/04/feminists_in_is
Feminist antiwar activism:
http://womensstudies.homestead.com/antiwargroups.html
http://www.barnard.edu/crow/archive/militarism.htm
"Can you show me evidence of MRAs actually protesting draft registration?"
No I can't as I don't think they have. I am not an MRA myself so I wouldn't have a clue.
However, I just find it amusing how feminists will jump up and down when its males who are being privileged but when its females being privileged, they don’t want to know about it
You show examples of anti-war protest which is a totally different thing to the disparity of which gender is likely to get drafted
Secondly David, feminists act like the gender police and all. They always seem to want to be the primary voice of gender issues. For such a movement that acts in such a way is amusing when they are silent over female privilege.
Secondly, it's funny how feminists constantly tell MRA's to stop complaining online and do something about it. It's ironic when 99 percent of feminists do nothing but complain online themselves. Only a small minority of feminists actually pull the strings to make things happen. I would not be one bit surprised that every feminist online who has thrown this at me would be a hypocrite.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judy Goldsmith are prominent feminists who, though not supporting conscription for either sex, pushed for conscription to include women if there must indeed be conscription. They also did not want such things as, for example, alimony being decided on basis of gender.
But staunch ANTI-feminist, Phyllis Schlafly, wrote an article that included this:
"While claiming to benefit women, the ERA would actually have taken away some of women’s rights. We based our arguments on the writings of pro-ERA law professors, among them current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The amendment would require women to be drafted into military combat any time men were conscripted, abolish the presumption that the husband should support his wife and take away Social Security benefits for wives and widows. It would also give federal courts and the federal government enormous new powers to reinterpret every law that makes a distinction based on gender, such as those related to marriage, divorce and alimony."
Now, after reading the above, who is it that does not want equitable laws and legislation, and views "privileges" that women had/have as being their rights, feminists or anti-feminists.
nicko81m: ...funny how feminists constantly tell MRA's to stop complaining online and do something about it. It's ironic when 99 percent of feminists do nothing but complain online themselves ...
Feminists were spoiled in the past. They could publish any hateful statement against men and nobody dared to say even a word against it.
Times are changing. I see more and more anti-feminist websites coming up, not only in USA, but everywhere between Germany, India and Australia.
Most men, but also more and more women, feel disturbed by all this hateful rhetoric coming from a few feminists, who are claiming leadership over all women.
Men are talking back now to feminists, everywhere, not only online.
Men are not ashamed anymore to file lawsuits against malicious women, demanding the same laws - they are gender-neutral and we all are equals - to be applied for them too.
Other men give advice, how to avoid marriage, inform about problems many ex-husbands and fathers might face after divorce, talking about foreign women and even about expat to another country.
Many men see the best solution to remain single and to ignore women in their own country due to bad laws and their excessive demands.
The other important point is about who pays for feminism? Even Western countries are more and more unwilling, due to their financial situation, to pay for the expenses of a non-productive movement.
Future of feminism does not look nice.
"Secondly, it's funny how feminists constantly tell MRA's to stop complaining online and do something about it. It's ironic when 99 percent of feminists do nothing but complain online themselves. Only a small minority of feminists actually pull the strings to make things happen. I would not be one bit surprised that every feminist online who has thrown this at me would be a hypocrite. "---Nicko
They want to use men to do their dirty work via proxy, and if those screw up they blame those men, too and feel guiltless.
booboonation said...
Also Nick, nobody is required to disprove a claim you make. If you make the claim you have to prove it. Also can you prove that MRA movement is not misogynist, what has the MRA movement done for women? Why don't they focus on the abuse of women? Why don't they care about what happens to women? Please explain this deficit in the movement. Also can you please prove to me that the bulk of MRAs do not consist of disgruntled abusers that are no longer propped up by the more enlightened segment of society and are now just bitter they can't lord it over the bitches?
"You need to disprove that MRAs are not DV abusers that are bitter. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, Many are convicted batterers. The fact is, that if I make the claim, I am the one that needs to provide evidence."---booboonation said...
You made this inflamatory and slanderous claim, and you provide zero evidence.
Many are convicted batterers? What planet do you live on?
"Why don't they care about what happens to women?"---booboonation
Being a feminist, you care nothing about what happens to men.
In the US, the fact that women are excluded from the draft was decided in 1981 after Congress reactivated the Selective Service from President Carter's request (which included a request to have women drafted.)
Several men filed suit and multiple briefs were filed by women's organizations asking for the draft to include women.
"In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Congress's decision to exempt women from registration "was not the 'accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females'" and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court found that men and women, because of combat restrictions on women, were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of draft registration. The Court also upheld Congress's judgment that the administrative and military problems that would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act."
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_251 The link is the oral arguments of the case.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/US/448/1306.html This is the case itself.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u20026 This is the case regarding the Virginia Military Institute and having a male only admission policy.
It also had multiple filings from women's organizations asking for the allowing of women in military institutions.
I've never seen anyone jump up and down demanding to be drafted. Women don't, but men don't either -- though MRA's and their pals here obviously imply that this issue should be the basis for denying women equal rights with men. People who join the military do so overwhelmingly for pragmatic reasons, and those who seek combat assignments do this for pragmatic reasons as well, since this is the surest way to promotion and success in one's career. As far as women in the military go, just this morning on NPR where was a segment that dealt with the problem of women actually being in combat, but not getting officially assigned to combat units -- in other words, putting out and getting no credit for it. In fact, this situation became increasingly common since World War I -- that women serve, but because it's not "official", it doesn't "count".
However, all this is beside the point. As a feminist, I think equal rights should come with equal obligations, and people of both sexes should be registered with Selective Service. However, what is crucial here is that who is "forced" to serve in combat and who is "forced" to work in a dangerous occupation -- this is a giant RED HERRING. There hasn't been a draft now for nearly 40 years. Most men, and indeed, most MRA's, don't serve in the military, don't want to, and never will -- to say nothing of being in combat. Most men, and most MRA's, don't work in dangerous occupations. And yet MRA's demand that special privileges be extended to all men on the basis of what a tiny minority does.
This, to me, is absurd and utterly unacceptable. Look, we could take a page out of Israel's book, where one's civil rights and liberties are contingent upon service for every individual separately. If you served in the military, you get rights. If you didn't, you don't. You don't get rights because your friend, or your brother, or some guy you read about on the Internet served, just because you look similar down there. If engaging in dangerous endeavors is to be the sine qua non of enjoying civil rights, then this should be on the basis of individual contributions, not gender. Truth is, if civic participation and civil liberties were ever made contingent on military service and/or dangerous occupations, then the overwhelming majority of men would be shit outta luck and in the same position as women. If you don't want to be denied civil rights simply because you aren't a soldier, a miner or a fisherman, then stop insinuating that women should be treated as subhuman chattel because our lives aren't dangerous enough. Merely having a penis doesn't put you in the same league with people who engage in dangerous occupations, and you aren't entitled to claim credit for what they do.
@Elizabeth, I have read the opinions in that case and a key point of dispute was the fact that women are banned from combat roles in the US (under federal law) and the draft is for the purpose of obtaining people to fill combat positions. This is what the issue of being "simularly situated" revolves around. The majority opinion argued that it was pointless and a waste of money for women to be forced to register when they were prohibited from serving in the necessary capacity, making the sex specific rules valid. The dissent held that notions of women being unfit to serve in combat were based on stereotypes and therefore were not valid reasons for gender discrimination in draft law. NOW filed a friend of the court brief supporting a removal of sex specificity in selective service.
As to dangerous occupations, it is worth noting that dangerous occupations involve far higher pay than those available for people of similar backgrounds and educational levels who do not work dangerous jobs. It is not difficult for men to find jobs of comparable risk to women, they just would not receive the same level of pay as for working a dangerous job, but it is very difficult for a woman to get work in fields like mining or construction and reap the higher pay for the higher risk. Construction pays three to four times as much per hour as food service, men can work either, women generally can only work the latter. This contributes to the much higher rates of poverty for women.
Years ago, I was in the military and I distinctly remember that female personnel were subjected to a lower standard than males in their physical training (PT) competency tests. It's not enough for feminists merely to demand that women and men be equally drafted. In order to serve they should be equally qualified. The reason why the determination of qualification sets a lower standard for female military personnel is precisely because compared to males, they are less competent physically, and this lower competence is a reflection of their biology. If both women and men were equally obligated to serve in the military, there would thus still remain privileges and exemptions for women (and this would present a net liability to the security of the nation if such women were given an equal role in combat). Either lower the minimum PT standards for all military personnel (assuming that a lower standard would not negatively affect military readiness), or exclude women as less physically competent. If women are then excluded on that basis, then male authority over such women is justified, based on the male obligation to register (and the female exemption/privilege from registering) for the Selective Service.
As an addendum to my comment above...
Feminists -- including the feminist author who David Futrelle is fond of citing, Gerda Lerner -- claim that men determine all the standards by which humanity is judged and evaluated. And so even an equal standard in the minimum physical training requirements for military personnel would inevitably be challenged by feminists as unequal, and by implication unjust, because it didn't measure and evaluate women by standards that are easier for women to meet. This is textbook feminism: lower the standard on behalf of females whether or not this lowered standard inures to the benefit of males, and call it equality.
John Dias -
The standards are still much lower for women than they are for men.
John Dias: By that logic, women should have authority over men who are less qualified than they. Also men would have authority over other men, who are less qualified. Naturally, older men would lose their authority and civil rights, as well as men who were sick or disabled (including men disabled as a result of service, since they could no longer "protect" anyone). In other words, you confirm what I stated: that if military prowess is a prerequisite to full human status and enjoying civil rights, then most men would be relegated to the same subhuman status as women under a system like that. However, nothing in your comment justifies your apparent belief that a man, regardless of his personal qualifies, just because he is a man, should lord over "his" women, and even all women, just because some other man can bench press 90 times.
"Feminists -- including the feminist author who David Futrelle is fond of citing, Gerda Lerner -- claim that men determine all the standards by which humanity is judged and evaluated. And so even an equal standard in the minimum physical training requirements for military personnel would inevitably be challenged by feminists as unequal, and by implication unjust, because it didn't measure and evaluate women by standards that are easier for women to meet. This is textbook feminism: lower the standard on behalf of females whether or not this lowered standard inures to the benefit of males, and call it equality. "
The benefit of males shouldn't be the only concern, especially since you deny that males are the "default" people. After all, men comprise only half of humanity. Women are not a narrow minority or a "special interest" anymore than men are, because we comprise half the human race.
Now, as to standards. High standards, no matter how extremely high, are fine if they are rationally related to the objective. However, certain standards imposed solely for the purpose of creating a legitimate-looking ground for excluding people based on gender, race or class are bogus and should be done away with.
I don't think reasonable physical standards in the military should be relaxed to accommodate women -- just like I don't believe that humanities and languages curricula in our schools should be dumbed down just because boys are "less verbal" than girls and therefore can't be bothered to learn a foreign language. But then, requiring fluency in a foreign language along with flawless pronunciation to get a job, say, as a doctor would privilege women without any good-faith basis for it.
In my opinion, having an exemption from the necessity to provide for one's own survival justifies one's subordination. But that's not the only justification in existence for authority. People who are in authority must not only demonstrate competence, but also assume obligations that subordinates are not subjected to.
Also, regarding educational standards:
If a different teaching method helps one sex to more effectively absorb the necessary knowledge and skills that are required to meet a minimum testing standard, then by all means, a change in the teaching method would be warranted on behalf of such people. That helps people to meet the standard, rather than lowering the standard itself.
The physiological constraints women have as opposed to men is the only legitimate reason to bar women from long marches. They simply are not as muscular as men are and lose muscle mass faster.
At any rate, the issue was that women were not asking to be drafted-yes they did ask. They were told no.
@Elizabeth:
1. Women also cannot throw grenades farther than men. For example, in grenade training the army had to erect a grenade barrier wall to protect the female soldiers from the blast of the grenades than they could not throw far enough. This adaptation lowered the standard of safety, but it enabled the less-capable female soldiers to pass basic training. In an actual battle situation, such women would be endangering the lives of their fellow soldiers -- both male and female -- if they attempted to exercise such a basic task as throwing a grenade.
2. Women never asked to be drafted. Feminist organizations -- thinking that they represent all women -- asked for women to be subject to the draft. I'm going to assume that you can't produce credible polling data that demonstrate that the desires of women in general were in harmony with the feminists in this matter of equal military draft obligations. Prove me wrong if you think you can.
Preliminarily, John Dias, nothing in your comments addresses my main point -- that is, that if this "ability to ensure one's own survival" (as YOU define it) is the prerequisite to having the full panoply of civil rights, then the overwhelming majority of men are not entitled to civil rights, since the overwhelming majority of men are incapable of ensuring their own survival according to the criteria that you've suggested. Furthermore, taken to its logical conclusion, your theory would mean that men are to be subordinated to women who are more capable than they are to survive -- again, according to your criteria; and that men's political and legal entitlements would decrease with age, due to waning physical strength. In other words, if your comments are taken at face value, they simply don't support the proposition that authority is to be assigned on the basis of gender, and that women are to be deprived of legal identity and civil rights simply for being women.
The bigger problem with your argument, however, is that the criteria that you set for being in authority or being relegated to the status of property are wholly arbitrary. Why should those who have greater physical strength and endurance be the only ones with rights? Because they supposedly can ensure their own survival? I wouldn't be so sure.
To begin with, even in a primitive world with simple tools, physical strength means nothing in the absence of intellect -- and intellect is spectacularly good at compensating for physical weakness. Therefore, I don't see why a muscular idiot should rule over a frail genius.
More importantly, we don't live in a primitive world -- we live in a world where wars are increasingly technological, and physical strength is becoming less and less crucial. You may have the biceps the size of basketballs, but they won't ensure your survival in a technologically advanced world unless flabby intellectuals, who can't bench press for more than a few minutes, provide you with the technology that WILL ensure your survival. Your vaunted ability to survive in harsh climactic conditions is mostly attributable to modern medical science. In the Middle Ages, the number one killer of soldiers was dysentery, followed by other communicable diseases and exhaustion, with warfare being a distant third. Your ability to throw a grenade won't ensure your survival or anyone else's survival, if people, including women, most of whom can't throw grenades properly, won't keep coming up with new antibiotics to treat a variety of infections that may kill you. Perhaps it's those with the strongest brains, rather than those with the biggest muscles, that should lord over everyone else? Let's say, we'll limit the right to vote to people with PhD's and those with an IQ of at least 150.
History also shows that at least over the last 500 years or so, wars consistently have been won by those NOT with the bravest soldiers or the most brilliant generals, but by those who have the most materiel. So perhaps everyone should be submissive to merchants, since their generation of wealth ultimately makes all the stuff that supplies militaries?
All these are rhetorical questions. Substantive Due Process means that all human beings enjoy equal rights, not subject to arbitrary categories, and it is a principle in which I deeply believe. But asking these questions does demonstrate that it's not such an easy thing, determining what it takes to ensure one's survival. Ultimately, it's an interconnected world, and there isn't one person out there, man or woman, who can single-handedly ensure his or her own survival. And thus, it is a false criterion. Inalienable rights, remember?
@Amused:
You're not debating in an intellectually honest manner, and simultaneously you are accusing me of doing exactly that to you. That's a typical rhetorical tactic that I have seen feminists employ, and it is meant to put their opponents on the defensive. It's actually quite manipulative in my opinion. I won't dignify your accusatory rhetoric with a response until you practice debating in a logical, non-manipulative manner.
But I will offer this clarification of my own statements. Civil rights are bestowed by government policy, which stems from State authority. Patriarchal authority is not derived from the State (despite the fact that feminists claim that the State is an extension of patriarchal values). Some feminists have gone so far as to acknowledge the reality that patriarchal values are insulated from State control so long as intact families exist. And so this idea that I'm making a comment on civil rights is completely missing the point in my view. Within a family in which authority relationships are defined by common beliefs, reinforced through the family itself and other cultural institutions, authority need not be enforced through the barrel of a police officer's gun. It is enforced merely by the provider of the means of survival establishing his value to his family by repeatedly demonstrating the uniqueness of his provision and protection. This creates a cocoon of material and physical security within which nurturing and comfort can be provided. What disrupts the delicate harmony of this arrangement -- thousands of years old and tried and tested -- is the intervention of the State, manufacturing excuses to intrude into the private lives of people who choose to live this way. What you paint as civil rights are really just the excuse for the State to lord it over the population and impose various obligations on them. This phenomenon of government's heavy hand has only intensified under feminism, resulting in grave injustices that feminism has attempted to justify.
No further debate by me with you will occur from this point onward, until I have confidence that you will not engage in further attempts to assassinate my character and until you start to engage my arguments solely on their merits.
Amused: History also shows that at least over the last 500 years or so, wars consistently have been won by those NOT with the bravest soldiers or the most brilliant generals, but by those who have the most materiel.
This is not true, USA lost the war against Vietnam, which had significantly less materials than the USA.
Today every corner of Vietnam is fully controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Okay, insert feminist to that statement I made.
Feminist women did demand to be drafted, they were told no.
Post a Comment