no, you're redefining and reframing again. I'm not interested in speaking to bad faith actors. It's a waste of time. Please disengage.Originally Posted by Singu
no, you're redefining and reframing again. I'm not interested in speaking to bad faith actors. It's a waste of time. Please disengage.
The women weren't even allowed to serve as a soldier, you fucking idiot, let alone vote.
They weren't shamed for not fulfilling a gender role, they were shamed for not being supportive of the war.
the support expected of those men during a war effort typically involved them enlisting in the armed forces. That was a role traditionally expected of able-bodied men. So yes, in being shamed for refusing to fulfill that role, they were being shamed for failure to live up to certain expectations placed on their sex.
There's no reason to keep tossing out the ad hominems, you're only making yourself look like the unreasonable brute here. this is what, the second or third time in this thread you've resorted to name-calling?
"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." -Cicero
"Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident." -anonymous
The first-wave feminists dealt with fucking suffrage, they didn't deal with the kind of social gender equality that you have after second-wave feminism.
Deny misandry. At all costs. It's not real and has never been, apparently! And if it is, men alone are to blame!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I never disputed what the first wavers were dealing with. To recap, a statement was made that feminists do not shame men. Generally suffragettes and suffragists are considered to part of feminist history, so I thought the white feather campaign was a clear example that disproved the claim that feminists don't shame men. Now if you want to make the argument that suffragettes and suffragists were not actually feminists, then while I think it would be an example of the no true scotsman fallacy, I am willing to concede the argument to you, because at this point I'm tired of your re-framing and insults, as it's clear you're acting in bad faith and just want to be right at all costs.
You can have this win so you can feel superior and look smart on the internet. Congratulations.
There's nothing wrong with the act of shaming itself. If your claim is that "Wow, these feminists didn't support non-traditional gender roles, what hypocrites!", then yeah, since even the idea of social gender equality didn't even exist back then.
Nope, that's not my claim.
Although....if you want to take that tangent...
You are wrong, the idea of gender equality does predate that period, actually.
-Ancient Egypt was not totally egalitarian but compared to other ancient societies, ancient Egyptian women enjoyed unprecedented equality at the time. Women could manage farms and businesses, often held administrative titles, were allowed as equals in court under some circumstances, and are even recorded as practicing medicine alongside male doctors.
-The Book of the City of Ladies, written in the 15th century, advocated for equality in education and other spheres of European society, citing famous women from before who had defied expectations and prescribed sex roles.
-Female taxpayers were eligible to be elected to public office for a time in 18th century Sweden. Sweden also allowed women to hold work licenses in trades and guilds around the same time. Sweden prohibited men from selling their wives' property without their consent as well. Go, 18th century Sweden!
-The Quakers had some idea and practice of gender equality in the 18th century, though it didn't exactly looke like what feminists of today might consider equality. They believed each sex should have oversight of the opposite sex--whereas today it seems feminists tend to find only one direction of oversight acceptable and justified. Google Joseph Meacham. Fascinating stuff. The Shakers practiced gender equality in their leadership far before the 1900s. The Quakers and Shakers were pretty awesome for fundamentalists. Many advocated for abolition of slavery well before abolitionism gained wider support. Meanwhile Suffragettes and Suffragists have a more spotty track record when it comes to the issue of rights for blacks in 19th century America. Some made no secret of being white supremacists, while others were allied with black liberation movements.
-There's also archeological evidence suggesting the possibility of shield maidens existing in the ranks of Viking warriors. It's been debated whether women found in graves dressed in warrior gear for burial were dressed so in a purely ceremonial manner or whether these were honored warriors who had fought alongside male Vikings. I'd like to believe the latter because it sounds badass. Not to mention some first nations tribes were more egalitarian in their leadership. Typically the more peaceful tribes who enjoyed less threat of conquest by stronger tribes were more likely to establish balanced societies with some matriarchal traits in their leadership. Though historical records of pre-Colombian society in the Americas are notoriously spotty and we have to be careful in making such assumptions of their structure.
-It's also speculated that ancient celtic societies may have been more egalitarian in practice, before being conquered or absorbed into invading societies. This may have influenced early Irish laws and customs, some of which were quite progressive in comparison to other cultures of the European dark ages. Women and men could hold property separately under Brehon Law, for instance.
-Not to mention many powerful and influential female monarchs who played important roles in the evolution of Europe from the age of feudalism to the age of nation states. Female monarchs were actually more likely to start wars than male monarchs. This isn't to say they were worse, but rather that they could be just as "tough" and that strong women who governed were respected and followed as much as their strong male counterparts. I am sure weaker female monarchs were probably manipulated by their advisors, but then that was also the case with weaker male monarchs.
The narrative that frustrated 50s housewives like Betty Friedan were somehow the first people to dream of or attempt gender equality (seems like a typically anglo-centric viewpoint that simply ignores non-western, pre-modern culture) is simply false.
And no, I'm not saying these exceptions to oppressive patriarchal conditions are proof that women weren't oppressed at other times and places throughout history, but it does bring into question your claim that "the idea of social gender equality didn't even exist back then [in WWI]." It obviously had existed for a long time and at various places, stages and to varying degrees of success had been implemented.
Last edited by perpetuus; 07-25-2019 at 05:07 PM.
I don't know, tbh the matter with the first suffragettes is more complex than what we're making of it. We can label some episodes however we wish, but at the risk of making wrong assumptions and wrong conclusions. Understanding the situation is more work, but essential if we want to put things in their proper context.
What I find revealing about the "white feather" protest is that women were participating actively in the public matters, for the first time. Their entire campaign revolved around the right for women to vote, and this meant to participate actively in the public sphere, that's always been a male-centered sphere of life. Yes, there are always exceptions, there've always been, but they are exceptions. Women through history weren't involved in the public life.
To participate in the public life doesn't necessarily mean to take the most proper decisions and support the right causes, and there have been feminists contemporary to the suffragettes that were in support of peace. But wherever they stood, they, for the first time, wanted ad felt the need to address their public sentiments, which concerned the nation altogether, and not just "the cowards who don't want to honor our country".
You could call that behavior bigot now, reactionary, but I wouldn't call it "misandrist", as I wouldn't call "misogynist" a man who were to express their shameful opinion about abort, or about how a woman gotta look... free speech comprehends these liberties too. But where free speech doesn't work is when we denigrate, diminish, attack someone's biological or cultural identity. Further, free speech has a particular license in the political things. Satire is one of the tools of a sane democracy, and it's often far from the politically correct.
BTW, for these reasons, I can't label the White Feather Protest as "misandrist", or I would have to call every politician that engaged in war the same.
Actually, there are many cases were women are favored over men, for example in the legal roundabouts of divorce, children custody, psychological assistance, free entries in the clubs, free drinks... you can call all these behaviors "misandrist" if you like, but calling something with the wrong term doesn't transform the reality of the matter.
There's a reason why the society we live has been called "patriarchal" and not "misogynist", because the second term is unjust to most men who treat women respectfully and that just stick to what has been taught them since kids. A misogynist is someone who hates the women-species, considers them inferior, abuses them, verbally or practically. A misogynist is not a man who shames a woman for abandoning her kid, that's just someone with his own opinions, perhaps bigot and ignorant, perhaps not.
The term of comparison here is high, for misogyny has very low dips to be reached, and I'd just be glad that those levels are not applied to anyone else. It's not a matter of "who has it worse", but it's about recognizing where the problem really is.
Now, yes, there are misandrist women, a case is the woman portrayed by Charlize Theron in Monster; a pathological case. I'm sure there are even misandrist feminists. But before accusing them, ask yourself why they hate what they do. You'll see that most often their hate is in response of a patronizing, abusive male attitude that they've had to succumb to. And, in most cases, the same excuses can't be applied to men.
@ooothis last part: "But before accusing them, ask yourself why they hate what they do. You'll see that most often their hate is in response of a patronizing, abusive male attitude that they've had to succumb to. And, in most cases, the same excuses can't be applied to men."
While it's most definitely going to be true in some circumstances, I find this mindset is all too frequently used to downplay instances of "toxic femininity". "Oh well with all the hate she probably (I mean, I assume) dealt with, can't really blame her"
"Oh, she chopped his dick off? I mean, he was probably beating her or something." "Oh she fucked her student who was a minor? How did he manage to seduce/manipulate her into sex?" "She held a hot iron to his face? Let me guess, he was a wife beater?"
To cite a common word in feminist spheres, it is problematic, the default assumption that a man must be the cause when a woman acts in some heinous manner. All too often our culture reacts in this manner. Now, you can chalk it up to old patriarchal ideas that are outdated, yet still influence us into seeing men as primarily the actors and women primarily the acted upon, and I'd agree on that point, but it boggles me that feminists often make a big deal about wanting to get rid of those old modes of thinking, yet all too often revert to those modes themselves when it suits their narrative. This is partly what I was alluding to earlier when noting the relationship between chivalry and feminism. I don't think they're mindsets at odds with one another, I think they operate hand-in-hand. I get it, "not all feminists" are like that, but unfortunately it's something I see too often to dismiss as an attitude held by just a few fringe radfems. Shit, some of the most prominent feminist spokespersons like Emma Watson make no secret of wanting to retain chivalry. I think ideas of chivalry inform a lot of the thinking in the current victim culture, TBH. Tradcons and feminists really aren't all that different when you consider their attitudes toward men as utilities, servants, and primary actors, versus their attitudes toward women as the acted upon, the fairer sex, the perpetual damsel in distress. People speak of blindness to privilege and this is certainly a thing, but blindness to male disposability is far less spoken of.Our culture has always loved to encourage heroism in men. Note the word Hero shares a common origin in Greek with the word Servant.
Anyone who truly considers themself an egalitarian or feminist, I would ask, when making assumptions or drawing conclusions about men or women, always run a thought exercise of flipping the genders. When doing so, does the statement suddenly strike you as problematic or a little sexist? If so, why? If you have to dig back decades or centuries past living memory to find justification for the attitude(s) or statement(s) in question, then you're digging too far back and most likely have just encountered a double standard.
Last edited by perpetuus; 07-26-2019 at 12:06 PM.
I wish I could love this post, or like it a hundred times, but unfortunately I'm limited to only pressing the like button once. I find it a bit odd how all acts of misandry or injustices that men in particular face, people still somehow manage turn it around and blame men themselves as a whole for it. It seems like the idea of 'the patriarchy' or overall 'toxic masculinity' is so deeply ingrained that people are unable to think outside of such predetermined worldviews. It's a total mess of self-fulfilling prophecies and false dilemmas.
EDIT: By this post I'm not denying that the patriarchy is still a real thing in some cultures (particularly Muslim cultures or other strongly religious cultures e.g. not my home country Sweden or a large portion of the West), same goes for 'toxic masculinity'.
Some women hate men, but is it a big deal? Can't they just be avoided? It hasn't been man-hating women instituting the draft or predominately dealing with child custody battles, right? Maybe they've helped write a few crappy sitcoms that laugh at husbands, at most. I guess the fact that there are men who look stupid on TV shows means it's a significant part of public consciousness?
I'd say they've done more than make a few sitcoms.
The Duluth Model is one good place to start.
Look into legislation/policy supported or pushed by organizations like NOW as well. For instance a push against shared parenting as an outcome in family courts.
Also look into Earl Silverman, the man who attempted to start a shelter for abused men in Canada after being denied entry into a number of women-only DV shelters. At every step of the way feminist organizations in Canada fought to try to shut him down and prevent any funding. He ended up having to set up a shelter in his basement. Eventually he hung himself in his garage.
Also see British feminist move to exacerbate the gender sentencing gap by advocating for house arrest only for female convicts. That's a push against equality, no matter how you choose to frame it.
Yeah. Activists can influence things.
There's obviously no such thing as "male disposability". If anything, women are more likely to sacrifice themselves for men than the other way around. There's also no real such thing as "misandry".
And horses don't exist. Oh, and the Holocaust never happened, apparently. My conclusion from reading your posts is that you're so deeply embedded in ideology that there's just no reasoning with you.
Lol, sounds like the other way around. You're like creationists who will keep making the same points, even though it's completely fiction.
This is why MRA will never take off, because it's simply not true and they're just making shit up.
Cheers to you my good sir.
EDIT: I'm not a MRA btw, I just think some nuance would be appreciated is all.
Wow, you're right.
That's why women are 10 times more likely to die at work, comprising over 90 % of workplace fatalities.
Also why men and children were allowed on the lifeboats first on the Titanic. It's why whenever there's an evacuation during a crisis, people tend to shout "men and children first!"
It's why women usually walk downstairs to check on that strange noise coming from the back door while their husbands huddle under the sheets waiting.
It's why men are more likely to engage in violence indirectly, known as violence by proxy, encouraging their girlfriends or wives to "woman up" and kick some ass in defense of their honor.
It's why when a male and female couple are on trial for cooperating in criminal acts, the man is usually given a lighter sentence and will often play the 'unwilling' abettor or argue they were coerced into committing the criminal acts by the woman, and why the court will usually believe this defense regardless of evidence to the contrary.
It's why when Boko Haram burned girls alive, the media barely covered it, but when they later kidnapped boys, seemingly everyone, including the President and First Lady took photo ops holding signs reading "bring back our boys"
It's why the rape epidemic in Africa is usually covered disproportionately as a problem solely affecting male victims. Much attention is given to the male prisoners of war who are raped by their captors. Despite female prisoners being raped at the same rates and sometimes higher, they are overlooked by media outlets across the world, and often shamed or banished after returning to their homes.
Oh wait..
Citing laws or what courts do or a culture that encourages female weakness and grouping with children doesn't really strengthen the case that anti-male stuff is put forth by men-hating women, since this stuff is all cuz of men. Activists can influence them sometimes, I got that much. I haven't researched this that much, though.
Case in point re: what I wrote about earlier in this thread... it's so convenient how no matter what, there's always the men to blame! When in doubt, blame the patriarchy am I right??
It's not because of men, it's because of culture. This is the point that flies over so many people's heads. To believe women were always unwilling passengers or prisoners of our culture seems pretty sexist and reductionist, TBH. It places all of society's ills on the shoulders of one sex, and seems to come from some perception/ideology of males and females as separate tribes or species rather than co-progenitors of culture and civilization.
I didn't say that stuff was all put forth by man-hating women. I'm just highlighting the fact it happens in the first place and the fact there's obviously double standards in how we perceive it. Some of the reactions to uncomfortable truths in this thread are perfect examples of how people have a way of rationalizing this stuff away, and in one person's case (singu), outright denying any facts that conflict with their worldview.
I mean, okay, let's pretend they haven't had the power.
The trend throughout most of recorded history suggests that's a reductionist view of power. It's generally been a small elite class in power, wherein there were often male and female leaders. It was usually more males, but it really depends on which historical civilization you're examining. Your average family of peasants would probably laugh at our simplistic notion of patriarchy taught in gender studies courses, since basically the whole family held jack shit in the way of power and were all in the fields working their fingers to the bone to meet some Baron's or Baroness' quota before the winter set in. To say nothing of matriarchal societies that existed on occasion. There is no one single line of patriarchy that existed the way the popular narratives suggest.
Regardless of who "had the power", I find it troubling when people dismiss this stuff because "the menz had all the rights and all the power in the past". Smacks of a vindictive, retributive approach to dealing with any of these current issues.
I think it's real that women aren't inherently powerless and that they have influenced things, which is why I came in questioning, but so far I'm unconvinced that misandrists have created these widespread issues discussed here, and the tone was immediately angry.
Whether women sometimes held pretty equal power in random ancient cultures, idk, I'm not gonna bother looking into it. I just know about the last couple hundred years in mine. And it's not about revenge, lol, it's about knowing if it was misandrists doing stuff.
You can just as bring up another instance where women and children are killed first so the men could survive.
If people had removed all "ethics", then logically, the strongest male would sacrifice everyone else so he could survive. The ethical code of "chivalry" was introduced as a safeguard against this, so that males wouldn't kill each other and take everybody with them via Mutually Assured Destruction.
If we remove chivalry, then we'd go back to the rule of the jungle where the strongest male would be beating up all the other weaker males, which is the exact thing that the "MRAs" apparently don't want.
The MRAs are like Libertarians that are complaining about the "evil oppressive governments", the law, human rights, etc, when those are the very things that are protecting them so that they could even say those things to begin with. Just as the MRAs are complaining about "chivalry", when that's the very thing that keeps them from being beat over the head with a club.
Just as the Libertarians blame the leftists, liberals, etc, the MRAs blame the women and the feminists for creating chivalry, when it's actually created by men to protect themselves from their own selves.
Couple of points here.
First, there's no way our species would've survived if the bolded were our natural state as you seem to imply. Chivalry and similar codes of conduct likely developed out of social behaviors that were crucial to our species' survival. Also, due to homo sapiens' relative frailty, it was adaptation and cooperation that was more standard than your notion of some "every man for himself" law of the jungle. Early humans living in a wilderness full of giant mammoths, sabertooths and countless other deadly animals, would have learned pretty quickly that a cooperative approach was essential to their survival. Archeology and Anthropology generally seems to support this mode, rather than your simplistic narrative, though I'd be interested in any proof you can provide for your claims, since you haven't yet been able to back any of your claims with anything more than appeals to emotion.
Second, I never said feminists created chivalry. I merely argued they go hand-in-hand. One more instance of you putting words in others' mouths or misreading, then misrepresenting their statements and claims. It's getting really old, dude. No wants to argue with a troll who continues to try to strawman their opponents into submission.
Sure, the strongest male would leave a little bit of scraps for everyone else.
This is even happening in economics. The strongest and most powerful corporations are fucking over everyone else at the expense of them gaining more money and more power. It's the result of the neoliberals having removed all forms of economic "ethics". This is why people are now talking about bringing "ethics" to economics and capitalism, that is to say, we should do more to help the poor and the working class. This is analogous to the ethical code of chivalry.
Does a tone of anger bother you when people talk about gender issues?
Frankly, I'm pretty used to that tone. Once upon a time I was a feminist and had my share of feminist friends. I generally don't see an issue with "righteous anger". It is funny though, the double standard of some people who criticize MRAs and those sympathetic to them for being a bunch of angry men, whilst generally giving a pass to angry women. Perhaps it's just to be expected. Angry men do tend to be scarier than angry women.
I don't see that anger as inherently bad, assuming anger is channelled in a healthy manner toward encouraging people to consider different perspectives or work toward positive change.
Dismissing anger, or expecting people to suppress it, OTH, is a recipe for social illness.
you know this how?
Nah, i generally agree with you about anger. It can be constructive when it's channeled right, and even if it's not, it can be justified. It doesn't bother me in this case so much as signal that an attack is seen as forthcoming - and to be fair, I came in with skepticism and prepared for a potential argument, if not guns blazing.
maybe the problem here is just that, when supporting the same arguments, angry women are perceived as "crazy", while angry men are praised for their anger.. just confirming the age old divide..
Why Angry Men Are More Influential Than Angry Women
No doubt.
We respond more favorably to different emotional displays according to sex.
Seems we're more comfortable with emotions considered more "aggressive" or negative coming from men, and the opposite coming from women. Not sure why. Nothing wrong with pointing out these biases.
yes, but realize that it's a bias at play within what we're talking about.
I may be mistaken, but I believe it was @ashlesha who first mentioned anger. I haven't noticed anyone being angry in here, man or woman, except for me perhaps.
Chivalry is dead because capitalist societies tend towards atomisation. Feminism in capitalist society is opposed to chivalry because it exists downstream from bourgeois social relations.
Last edited by xerx; 07-28-2019 at 05:54 PM.
what I mean is that when women are rightfully angry for what they have to go through, they're labelled "misandrists". advancing all sorts of excuses for why what they do is wrong and pathetic and counter-productive to the female cause.
men who get angry for comparably minor offences, unrelated to a real gender discrimination, and often explainable by putting things in their context (is it so bad that a particular women organization doesn't welcome men in need? or that mothers are favored in child custody when they're usually the ones left to watch after the kids? that a party discriminated for centuries revendicates their rights? or that a woman shouts at a policeman when the same is done by everyone in every protest? ), should instead have the right to be taken for valid? why so?
I usually brush off all notions when it comes to people being representatives of their own gender. So I'm gonna continue to just laugh at every desperate attempts towards making me feel less manly just because I don't care of being the cuck of humanity (approval seeking, majority of people).
In general as long as people care it continues. PGTOW (people going their own way) FTW. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. The last phase is just around the corner.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
@ooo I don't label women as misandrists just for being angry over the unique injustices they face. But it was you who literally tried to justify hate for men: "most hate for men belongs to the feminist extremists (and I think, rightly so[…]" (post #51 in this thread).
Justified anger is one thing, hate is another - no matter what gender you are. By feeding hate the resistance is only going to grow stronger.
Ideally, everyone should be able to receive support no matter their gender.
Seriously…? You're telling me that on a case by case basis, women should be favoured over men when it comes to child custody just because other women are left to watch after the kids in other cases?
I don't think anyone here is speaking against that. Nice strawman though.
I don't know what you're referring to right now, but if someone complains over someone shouting at a policeman in a protest they just sound like a whingebag to me.
Lolll I'm all for ptgow, but does it involve resentful abstinence? I will support it either way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote