I Was Banned From an MRA Site
127 Comments Published by Lisa Kansas September 24th, 2008 in Punkass!, Douchebag on FeminismWhat I really need to go with that is, like, a Wanted! Dead or Alive! poster. I thought about whipping one up but ultimately decided against it–I’m not a good enough PhotoShopper to get the slavering fangs to look realistic, as it turns out.
Where is this coming from? My recent brief interest in Glenn Sacks, a professional concern troll who is apparently one of the favored few anti-feminists of two of my favorite feminist bloggers, Amanda at Pandagon and Hugo Schwyzer. Certainly I’ve heard of him before–he even made a brief appearance at our site a while back–and had glanced over one or two of his writings in the past, but after witnessing all the love flowing in his direction in a recent Hugo post, I decided that maybe I hadn’t really spent enough time and effort trying to make a mental connection. So, I spent an hour or two thumbing through his site today, and came to the conclusion that I haven’t been missing anything after all. No, really. Is he a good writer? Mos’ definitely. Is all of what he has to say total bullshit? Not at all. So why my (admittedly not overwhelming) distaste, rapidly faltering into disinterest?
Several reasons. One, thumbing through somebody’s blog gives you a kind of moving-picture impression of their most frequently used words and phrases–great for pattern recognition, even if that isn’t your conscious goal (as it wasn’t mine). I just couldn’t help but noticing after a rather startlingly brief period of time:
Feminists have a bad habit of conflating voluntary sexual relations with rape
Many divorcing fathers innocently expect sympathy from feminists
Of course, some day it would be nice to see a feminist sympathize with the devaluing of young and/or “invisible” low social status men
Modern extreme feminism…[has] always been in the interests only of the elite of women
Feminists are part of the problem
Feminists ignore credible men’s advocates and instead quote some obscure loony in order to discredit all of us
It is, in my mind, more evidence that modern feminists can always, always find some fault with men whose politics or views they don’t like
I try hard to be fair to feminists and to not impugn their motives
Misguided feminists do occasionally acknowledge the problems men face in our society
I started to get sick of the word “feminist,” and I am one! But the obsession clearly runs deep–these examples got pulled quite randomly from not too many pages into my Sacks-surfing foray. We have here at PunkAss a fine feminist blog, as you all know, but somehow not only do “men’s rights activists” not get obsessively blamed for every personal issue we here have with society, they hardly ever even come up. Oh, well, that’s not a fair comparison, though–feminism as a practiced theory is a lot more mainstream than “men’s rights” activism. A fairer comparison would be, how often do we here target “the patriarchy?” “The Patriarchy” is quite a mainstream concept in feminist subculture. So I did a search of our site which spit out the following results: 12 blog posts that mention “the patriarchy” in the last four months, 2 of which were a joke in the blog post title (for instance, violet entitles her post about computer self-repair “Somehow I’m Sure the Patriarchy Is to Blame!” = 1 mention of the word “patriarchy.”). Back to Glenn–how many of his blog posts in the past four months have mentioned “feminists?” Not wanting to laborously count ‘em up for all four months, I can say that he beat out 12 in the month of September alone.
Say you knew nothing of feminism and you went to his blog and caught the above random snippets–what would you think “feminism” was all about? If you toddled over to the dictionary and flipped it open to the definition of “feminism,” you wouldn’t find anything at all that agreed with what Glenn Sacks had to say about it, which would force you to conclude that either (a) the dictionary was written by feminists or (b) Glenn Sacks is either genuinely mistaken or outright lying about feminists. Erm, while I am sure there is an MRA out there somewhere who does, indeed, believe that the Feminist Conspiracy (tm!) has taken over the dictionaries too, I would hope that the rest of us aren’t quite that conspiracy-driven. If I want to put the nicest and most generous construction on the situation, it would be that Glenn, not having ever been a woman, is like many people who, if they themselves have never been in a particular situation, can’t quite believe that it’s as crappy as those who are in it say it is. I have a difficult time believing that this is due to a lack of intelligence, unless he regularly uses a ghost-writer; the writing itself is too clear, grammatically correct and just generally well-expressed for that. I could conclude instead that it is due to an utterly absorbed self-focus that excludes the possibility of anyone else having a genuine experience he, himself, cannot imagine having. I do try to stay away from “conspiracy theories” myself, you know, and I don’t know him personally in the slightest, so I will stop there with speculation as to the whys and continue on.
A second reason is his commenters. He has an interesting disclaimer on his website:
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters’ views are those of the posters alone–Glenn’s views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.
We don’t have one of those. Neither do Amanda or Hugo. Nor does Feminsting or Shakesville, to name two other feminist blogsites Glenn mentions. Why would he feel the need to distance himself from his commenters? It reminded me of an incident not TOO long past, when I made the innocent misstep of writing a blog about a conservative Australian commentator of whom I’d never heard named Tim Blair. Apparently, this guy gets so excited when he’s mentioned that he actually not only keeps track of such mentions but also posts a blog highlighting said blogger’s site where he is mentioned. I found myself suddenly, um, notorious. (An interesting experience, not unlike the time when I was 23 and went to a nightclub that, unbeknownst to me, catered to the over-35 business crowd. Well, the sense of undesired and intense scrunity lasting for hours was eerily reminiscent, anyway.) It didn’t last, but the following exchange in the (rather lengthy!) comments section of my blog post springs to mind:
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan)Now relax, honey. Mean old Timmy didn’t mean anything by it.
It’s funny that when Conservatives write in a humorous fashion, it’s generally to make fun of Libs words and actions. Libs write humor when it comes to things like Robert Novak or Tony Snow (or Tim Blair) being diagnosed with cancer. Ha ha…right libs?
Expand your horizons beyond the Huff Po, Daily Kos and MyDD and read P.J. O’Rourke’s All the Trouble in the World or Eat the Rich and compare that to every lib author. P.J. is light years ahead and I guarantee even your closed “progressive” mind will allow you to laugh out loud, something most libs do rarely unless it’s a joke about Reagan in hell or someone nicknaming the current president McChimpyhaliburton or something clever like that.
Lisa: I almost never read HuffPo or Daily Kos and I’ve never read MyDD–if you’re interested in what I do read, feel free to check out the blogrolls on the upper left of the home page. I have periodically perused the sad efforts of conservative wingnuts to be “humorous;” given that said “humor” generally requires thinking that putting down some subset of humanity defined by a specific race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is just screamingly hilarious, it just ain’t my cup of tea.
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan): Lisa, name one major or even semi-major Conservative blog that puts down or jokes of ones sexual orientation, ethnic makeup or gender. Hell, I’d be the first to out them for the racist, misogynistic, gay-baiting scumbags they are.
Confessions (another commenter): i notice you’ve omitted racial overtones. i am assuming an oversight, and am linking this from our very own man in question timmy blair.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1954733.htm
Scott (fervent Tim Blair fan): About what I expected, Confessions. I said to point to a specific blogger who espouses racist, misogynistic or other low-life type sentiments. Instead you point me to Media Watch and condemn Blair for comments made by readers.
I remember that exchange because I remember thinking, It’s funny how many of a specific breed of blogger, and their associates, feel the need to make this distinction…then an old quote sprang to mind: “By their friends ye shall know them.” Or, if a lot of unrelated people who you don’t know personally of a certain mindset just love you to death, is it really possible that their shared mindset has nothing to do with you or what you espouse at all? So, here’s the shared mindset that just loves Glenn Sacks:
So that would mean whoring around to catch a rich man to marry, like straight women do, or leaching onto a man for drinks and dinners, like straight women do – they call it “dating’ – or expecting a man to go out and do all the dangerous and dirty work in life so she can sit at home on her ass complaining to her spoiled friends about how unfulfilled she is in her marriage, like straight women do. Yeah, maybe she’ll turn from her evil ways and start to act all moral like that.
From Gary McCoy in Parade magazine. Thanks to Rick, a reader, for sending it.
I won’t speak for everyone, but the following is how I see it. If men indeed have a higher sex drive than women (as suggested by Baumeister, Catanese, and Vohs. 2001. Personality and social psychology review. volume 5. 242-273), then this sexual disparity will lead to different (and equally negative) experiences for both men and women. While women may be prone to endure too much unwanted sexual attention, men may also be prone to endure too much unwanted sexual rejection.
However, I do think women dressing provocatively should be convicted of sexual harassment every bit as much as a man for saying something sexual.
I could do this all night, but I’m disinclined to. The examples are extraordinarily numerous. The point being, these are the guys that love Glenn, that feel Glenn speaks for them, that religiously read his articles and vigorously support him. What does that say about Glenn?
To reconnect this post to the original title, I was banned from an MRA site some years back. I had ended up on the site in the first place during my very first foray into the feminist blogosphere by a guy who said he thought, for a feminist, I had an open and logical mind (oh, those lovely backhanded compliments! gotta love ‘em) and he suggested I stop by this particular site. I was intrigued; I felt I knew absolutely nothing (and I was right) about how men who felt disadvantaged by society due to their gender thought and since I was invited by one of the site’s participants, I figured I couldn’t count as a troll. I posted there for, um, I think less than two years but more than one year (it’s been a long time, sorry!). And then I was banned.
The reason this pops to mind is the following Sacksism, which caught my eye while I was perusing the site:
November 9th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks
Background: Last month feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Jeff Fecke of Shakespeare’s Sister vehemently attacked me over comments about the domestic violence issue I had made in an interview. Now feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and his compatriot Melissa McEwan are on the attack again, with Jeff’s new piece The Tune’s the Same, Only the Words Have Changed. My response was Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again, this Time over ‘Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry–a New DV Wheel’.
Apparently either feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and/or his compatriot Melissa McEwan have banned Lee, a dissenter, from their site. (The screen shot pictured is lousy but it says at the top “Banned by the webmaster. Your comments will not be added.”)
It is common practice for feminist bloggers to ban men’s rights/fathers’ rights blog commenters, which reflects the weaknesses in many of their arguments. By contrast, feminist blog posters are given wide latitude on my site.
I can’t speak for Glenn’s site, but the MRA site I visited appeared pretty mainstream; I actually recognized a few commenters on Glenn’s site by their distinctive handles from those good ol’ days. I was not banned from the site for breaking any of the stated rules (of which there were many, and specific) that would result in banning; I was not banned for making either personal attacks or even general ones. I was not banned for obnoxiousness or obscenties or chronic thread derailing or any other sort of behavior one might expect to legitimately get banned for. I was banned, frankly, because the site creator just absolutely hated my freakin’ guts.
Why? I don’t really know. His hatred was not shared by many of the other regular commenters and at least one of the other site moderators, some of whom I actually developed fairly warm and mutually respectful relationships with. What he did was create a new set of rules for me, and me only; he said, that to remain on the site, I would have to do two things: (1) I would have to search out every comment I ever made on every single post on the site and answer, in researched detail, any dispute anyone had raised with me in that comment and (2) apologize to everyone on the blog, publicly and loudly, for my feminist beliefs.
No, I’m not kidding! 
I did my best to fulfill requirement #1–actually with some help from the guys, since they were well aware that I got about fifty times the comments of anyone else (as you do, when you’re the dissenting voice) and frankly couldn’t find and didn’t even have time enough to respond to every single comment spanning the previous year or more. I refused to comply with #2, and was even defended by several regular commenters, as they noted that absolutely no one else, including other periodic feminist posters, was required ever to do this and it certainly wasn’t in the rules. The site creator held firm, though, and I was banned. I admit–I missed the stimulation of such different points of view, with the guys I’d managed to develop enough of a rapport with that we’d moved on from pointless dogma exchanges to actual viewpoint-stretching conversations, that I tried to sneak back on a few months later–shameful! I blush. But apparently I’m not a very successful sneak, or possibly I forgot to change my IP address, and I was found out. Oh well…
So all these things conflated together to motivate me to investigate Teh Sacks, and my final report is presented above for your enjoyment. If anybody out there has some key factor I may have missed in my evaluation, I’m always open to re-evaluation, but as it stands, I see no reason to deliberately inflict concern trolls upon myself, nor to hand out cookies when they periodically throw a bone of acknowledging common human decency or the fact that they agree that stopped clocks are right twice a day, etc. Lisa KS out.
Which MRA site were banned from???
Meh, Glenn Sacks. The man actually believes in, and preaches, about Parental Alienation Syndrome. You know, that “syndrome” that causes women to “lie” about father’s being abusive just because they are “spiteful bitches”. I mean, it couldn’t be that there really is abuse occurring and that the man has no business being anywhere near the kids or the woman for that matter. PAS has thankfully been recognized for the crap science that it is. The man who originated the idea of PAS has been implicated as a pedophile through his writings. He apparently basically claimed that pedophilia is perfectly normal, that children want to have sex with adults, and the only harm that is caused by pedophilia is through societies treatment of it as an aberration.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html
My personal take on MRAs: I’d wager a considerable amount of dough that at least 60% of those creatures are either rapists, child molesters, or batterers. Or any combination of the three.
I would believe that children wanted to have sex with adults: I would also believe that children don’t know what the fuck they want or if it’s good for them. Children want to, in general, please adults. If an adult told, or even implied, that sleeping with him/her would please them, than the child would “want” to.
That’s sick.
“I would believe that children wanted to have sex with adults”
I’ve personally never met a single sexual abuse survivor who said that they ever wanted to have sex with their abuser. I have met some who said that they sometimes enjoyed being physically stimulated by their abuser (but not actually penetrated), which makes sense. But even though they experienced sexual pleasure, they did not “want” it or psychologically enjoy it. The argument that children want to have sex with adults is an argument that abusers use to attempt to justify their actions…the same as men who say the same about women enjoying being raped.
coz you didn’t mention which site it was in your post.
Mmm…I’m not sure this is such a good idea…but okay: It was a site called Stand Your Ground.
You were banned from a blog. Big deal.
I’ve been banned from ‘feminist’ blogs who don’t want the truth in their comment areas. You see, there are many ‘feminist’ blogs doing the work of radical feminists, and some don’t even know it. Feminism no longer stands for equality.
I’m an egalitarian. It is very easy for me to see the hijacking of the women’s movement by radicals. I don’t understand how so many women are blind. Even Erin Pizzey, the founder of the very first abuse shelter says she’s disgusted by this.
Glenn is an egalitarian too. He is not against feminism as it was meant to be. He’s against the same type I’m against. Unfortunately there are so many radicals in positions of power, it’s hard to separate the two.
One radical feminist in the UK is trying to pass a law allowing women to premeditate the murder of their husbands if the man had argued with her more than she thought was tolerable. At the same time she wants to make it illegal for men to kill their wives if they find them in bed with another man. Yes, she even spells this all out with gender. How is this about equality???
Women in the US can claim fear that male partners might one day harm them, with absolutely no basis in reality. These women use this tool to get sole custody of children. Sixty to eighty percent of all domestic violence allegations are found to be unnecessary or false.
I personally know male victims of domestic violence and false allegations. So does Glenn. People like myself and Glenn are trying to educate people on the truth. We’re champions of the truth. Myself, I want innocent women to see what they say they’re standing for!
U.S. State Department Behind International Child Abduction Scandal
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/14/us-state-department-behind-international-child-abduction-scandal/
The Truth About Equal Custody And VAWA
http://www.teristoddard.org/wordpress/?page_id=7
teri
“You were banned from a blog. Big deal.”
Glenn thinks so–he says it shows weakness in the banner’s arguments. Are you agreeing with that?
“One radical feminist in the UK is trying to pass a law allowing women to premeditate the murder of their husbands if the man had argued with her more than she thought was tolerable.”
“At the same time she wants to make it illegal for men to kill their wives if they find them in bed with another man.”
Erm, that SHOULD be illegal. Don’t you think?
“How is this about equality???”
I haven’t got a clue. You’re the one who brought this weird shit up. For the mainstream feminist equality goals, NOW has a good snapshot: “An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; achieving economic equality for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women’s health issues; supporting civil rights for all and opposing racism; opposing bigotry against lesbians and gays; and ending violence against women. ” Always glad to point people towards the light.
“I personally know male victims of domestic violence and false allegations. So does Glenn.”
I personally know female victims of domestic violence and false allegations. So do a lot of other people. Shall we all line our anecdotes up in two opposing rows and let them have at each other? Or is there some other reason you bring them up?
Believe me, I have no love for Glenn Sacks. But credit where credit is due—he’s campaigning against legislation that could lead to the disabling and death of many teenage girls, so he’s not 100% bad.
“I’ve been banned from ‘feminist’ blogs who don’t want the truth in their comment areas.”
When someone claims to know “The Truth”….it’s always my cue to stop listening. Truth is relative. None of us – feminist or not – has any monopoly on truth.
So who were you at Stand Your Ground??
Well, dude, I may tell you, if you tell me why the intense interest in the details.
When I use the word truth I do it with conviction. I can provide proof. I am a champion of the truth.
Here you go: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=719007&p=1
Believe me, I was shocked when I first read posts by angry men blaming feminists for their problems. I thought, “oh there they go again, conspiracy theorists…” In fact, I argued with fellow parental rights activists about this for over 2 years.
then I saw it with my own eyes. I heard it with my own ears. It took everything I had not to stand up and shout, “they’re lying!”
I testified in 2005 in Sacramento for AB1305, the CA shared parenting bill. Your friends in NOW, the people who SAY they support equality, they testified AGAINST it. They lied, under oath. So did the domestic violence “pros.”
It’s all about money (funding) and control for them. they ignore proven facts and keep spreading myths, lies and debunked “facts.” they’ve stopped all but a couple of states from passing these bills, even though 86% of the population support them.
As far as Stand Your Ground, the other day I was getting hell for reporting Sarah Palin’s lies and shortcomings. A couple of people over there are very grumpy. lol But when I was the PR person for John Murtari, a man who risked death for his son and parental rights, I was respected greatly. I haven’t been writing much lately so they probably don’t know who I am.
You need to realize many of those sites have readers who have lost everything, because of a bitter ex – their house, car, job, kids, mental health, happiness, hope – all they have left is anger. It’s a self-protection. I know of some guys who allowed themselves to feel the pain, then they killed themselves. Mostly, these men miss their kids. They’re broken-hearted.
It’s a shame that people who read what the angry men write think that’s what the fathers rights movement is all about. It isn’t. I know. I’ve been smack dab in the middle of it for 6 years.
It’s actually a family rights movement now, for equal parental rights and a federal family rights act to protect cps families too.
I’m curious to see what feminists do when noncustodial moms hit the 50% mark. we’re just about at 25% now. one of these days they’ll realize equal rights for all fit parents is the only way to go.
Because your story rings a bell.
I just can’t the remember the details.
“One radical feminist in the UK is trying to pass a law allowing women to premeditate the murder of their husbands if the man had argued with her more than she thought was tolerable.”
Mr Stoddard is being either very ignorant or very disingenous with this statement.
There are efforts currently being made in the UK to change the rules about provocation as a defence in murder cases. A defence of provocation cannot get you off a murder charge completely (unlike, say, a defence of self-defence) but it can reduce the murder conviction to one of manslaughter.
However, the defence of provocation only allows for in-the-moment, extreme acts of provocation. It does not allow for the slow-burn provocation of, say, years of violence and abuse. This is a problem that has been discussed in legal circles for many years. This is the issue currently up for a change.
So no, it doesn’t “allow” women to commit premeditated murder – it might, at most, have a murder conviction changed to manslaughter. Nor does it “allow” such a thing where the “man has argued with her more than she thought tolerable”. I guess , though, that that statement accurately illuminates what Mt Stoddard thinks comprises domestic abuse.
“I am a champion of the truth.”
Color me skeptical.
“One radical feminist in the UK is trying to pass a law allowing women to premeditate the murder of their husbands if the man had argued with her more than she thought was tolerable.”
That isn’t what the article you posted states at all. What it does state is closer to what Katherine stated, “There are efforts currently being made in the UK to change the rules about provocation as a defence in murder cases. A defence of provocation cannot get you off a murder charge completely (unlike, say, a defence of self-defence) but it can reduce the murder conviction to one of manslaughter.”
Champion of truth, indeed.
Oh sigh, in the hopes that this is not somehow gonna open up a very old can of worms…my username was “lkanneg.”
I’m torn on the issue of just an outright assumption of 50/50 custody…the number I’m recalling is over 80% of divorcing couples with kids never need to go to court over custody. When a couple does, it usually means there are serious problems, and I think it’s a mistake to assume that a flat insistence of 50/50 custody would in any way be the fix. For instance, I can think back to my own childhood, where my father had absolutely no interest or desire whatsoever to have any custody of me and did not, indeed, even show up to the divorce hearing…til he realized he was going to have to pay child support and yes my mother was going to insist on her pathetic $100 a month for me, so a year later, took my mother to court demanding custody. Luckily for me the judge informed him that as he had had no interest in me before, it was highly suspicious that he’d suddenly developed one now–I can only think how awful my life would have been had I abruptly had to spend at least 50% of my childhood with my father. The occasional visits I had with him did enough damage, thanks–and they were occasional solely due to his wishes. I’m not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but it’s hard to avoid knowing that, had there been a 50/50 presumption of custody when I was a kid, I’d have suffered mightily for it. I actually have 50/50 legal and physical custody with my ex-husband and always have, and it’s worked out quite well for us and for the kids. But that’s because of who we are, particularly. It simply isn’t always that way. Every disputed case needs to be looked at individually, for the sake of the children. Period, is my opinion.
I don’t get the graph in the cartoon. I mean, I’m not one of them mather-maticians, but shouldn’t shoes and jewelry be on the same x-axis? Or is the quantity of shoes inversely proportional to the quantity of jewelry? In the latter case, don’t Evil Bitches(tm) value both with enough fervor that it shouldn’t matter which way the pendulum swings?
Please pardon my question; I realize it’s not my place to question the inherent superior mathematics skills of put-upon menfolk.
The truth is only 5%, or less, of divorcing couples are high conflict. The reason most average people don’t fight in family court is because the men learn right from the start what they want doesn’t matter. I’ve seen this with my own eyes too.
If the woman has filed false allegations she gets free legal aid and he gets nothing. (Did you read my articles I posted?) If both or neither have attorneys, she’ll win. Why would most men waste their time? Don’t believe me? Ask all the divorced and unmarried fathers you know. Ask family law attorneys.
fyi- 1/4 of marriages involve abuse. 1/2 of those are mutual. of those who are one-sided, 70% of the time it is the WOMAN who is the perpetrator!
I know men who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many years just trying to get equal time with their kids. The system is not made to settle these things. It profits off their problems.
Okay, I should have added other articles along with that one. It was late. There’s another one with that woman quoted. I’ll have to find it. She makes it very clear what her agenda is. She is a radical, like many leaders in the women’s movement.
I’ve seen the wording they used when the mothers movement first started. They no longer honor those words. Now it’s all about ME, ME, ME.
I was told today that NOW removed the clause about equality from their charter back in the 80’s. I’ll be checking that out.
We do not fight for mandatory 50/50. We want it to be the default if one parent is trying to stop it without cause. As it is now, the parent who says there is too much conflict is the one who gets the kids! They reward lying.
And studies now show that joint custody reduces conflict!
Ladies, I know it’s PC to fight for women’s rights. But I have to ask. Do any of you have sons? Because if you do, it would be wise to listen to what I’m saying. One day it could be your son who’s been false accused, who loses his kids forever. You could be a grandmother grieving for her grandkids. I’ve met many people in that position.
When I first started it was just dads. Then we added grandparents and noncustodial moms. The system doesn’t really care who it destroys. we need due process in family court! I learned todfay that in sacramento they don’t even have court reporters anymore. no recordings. no one takes notes. add that to the fact judges have immunity. it’s a mess.
Katherine,
Yes, I was telling the truth. They treat verbal abuse as if it was physical. And with no evidence needed, who decides between normal arguing and verbal abuse? The dead guy won’t be able to defend himself.
Have you ever looked closely at domestic violence laws? I have. Here in California it even includes the word “bother.” For instance, if a teen couple are dating then have an ugly break up. If that boy goes to that girl’s neighborhood within a year of breaking up, she can potentially have him arrested for “bothering” her. I swear. Read it yourself.
The UK law did in fact mention verbal abuse, not just physical. DV laws have gone WAY too far. I know a man who was arrested for waving at his kids as they passed his house on their way to school. I know some who were bleeding and bruised as they were arrested for the abuse that was done to them.
Yes, I know women who’ve been abused too. My point was that we need equal services for men, and we don’t have them. Men have very few places they can go with their kids.
teri
Anyone who uses the phrase “PC” to cast doubt on something I know I can easily disregard.
LOL–Karley, when I saw the cartoon, my first thought was, “But what is the significance of an inverse relationship between jewelry and shoes?”
“And with no evidence needed, who decides between normal arguing and verbal abuse? The dead guy won’t be able to defend himself.”
Oh please, what world are you living in? With no evidence needed? What the hell are you talking about? You think no evidence is needed in a murder trial? You think no evidence is needed when someone is claiming a defence against murder. Ho ho.
Who decides? The jury, you idiot. On the basis of evidence.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
For example:
This is, technically speaking, not true. Rather, it is a complete fiction. The text of the actual proposal states,
Note the lack of gendered language. Note also that the provocation defense does not result in acquittal, but at best provides a reduction to manslaughter (UK law doesn’t draw a distinction between first and second-degree murder).
Of course, the underlying reason this legislation is being proposed is that the current law is, at best, stretched by the courts to produce reasonable outcomes, since the provocation defense as currently constructed applies better to stabbing someone at a bar because you’re pissed than stabbing your partner because you’re afraid for your life. And it happens that women find themselves more often in the latter situation, and men in the former. Draw from that what you will.
Speaking of which.
[ citation needed ]
Violet, for the win!
Lisa & Co.–I’ve posted a response to this blog post on my blog at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2790 . –GS
Glenn has that disclaimer up because that’s the basic truth of the “commentosphere”. We long ago decided that bloggers were not responsible for what commenters post (apart from taking down threats, privacy violation, etc.) And yet, in contrast to what happens at many feminist sites, Glenn’s commenters’ posts are often used to paint negative images of Glenn.
We’ve seen loose cannons and extremists at many sites, whether that’s Eschaton, Pandagon, I Blame The Patriarchy, LGM, or wherever. Glenn’s disclaimer, that you make a point about is a point that has been made by Atrios and many others.
We’ve seen those extremists at feminists sites, and in fact, the moderation policies of many feminists sites explicitly encourage that behavior, in order to make a safe environment for women to write in. May I cast stones at Amanda and Shakesville and others by pointing out the comments of Ginmar and others similar to her? That’s why Glenn has his disclaimer.
You were banned at at MRA site, but it wasn’t Glenn’s. Don’t you think you should make that clear in your post and title? Ostensibly, your post is about Glenn Sacks, and yet your title is about an incident that occurred elsewhere.
If you want to take Glenn down, take down what he writes. I applaud you for reading him for an hour, but why not point to specific posts that he writes, and express your displeasure with his language, logic, or sentiments in each of those posts?
If you really want to take Glenn on, take down his most prominent claim, which is that his major upset is that NOW and many feminist groups lobby for sole custody laws in an era in which a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody would be better for women, men, and their children.
I’ve heard from feminists that the courts are biased against women. And I’ve heard from fathers the courts are biased against fathers. NOW lobbies for sole custody laws. Fathers’ Groups lobby for shared custody. There is much to examine there from a feminist standpoint.
Oh sigh. Incoming…?
Oh sigh. Incoming…?
It’s okay for you to read a blogger for an hour, write some derogatory stuff about that person, and unreasonable to expect him or his readers to respond?
Is that how the “fact checking” we’ve come to expect from the internet is expected to work?
I do encourage you to take Glenn up on his invitation, and occasionally author a blog post on his blog. I don’t see that fostering of conversation offerred too often (ever?) at our various feminist sites.
Lisa,
What can be more equal than 50/50 parenting?
Take your defense of the status quo for custody above, where the vested interests get to judge a man’s fitness to parent, and go back 100 years and read arguments why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Tyranny is tyranny.
I don’t like your post very much. I would like it better without some of the disingenous conflation (including, as already mentioned, between Glen and the title.)
“A fairer comparison would be, how often do we here target “the patriarchy?”
- This is implicit in feminism. If you take a feminist viewpoint you target patriarchy.
Of course it must be rare to use the specific term because there isn’t a such thing as a “patriarch” any more. I guess you could point at the pope over there in europe, but churches with their recruiting problems are voluntary membership now. The pope’s just another rich fuck.
“Patriarchs” who accidentally reveal their magical man-powers to oppress women (say, through a non-PC remark) quickly find themselves socially outcast. It’s embarrassing for the power structure because it’s bad for business.
Nowadays there’s just a bunch of capitalists using shifting categories to divide and distract… when it’s really about rich and poor.
The modern feminist concept of the “patriarchy” conflates “rich” with “men”, playing their game and screwing working class people even more. In a word, bourgeois.
Ann Coulter for president?
Glen’s point of view transcends left and right. A lot of the commenters on his site take a fairly righty point of view, because that’s the only place their true personal experiences and justified complaints of being screwed don’t get shouted down by the PC bourgeois. Also a lot of the people who comment are the angriest fraction. That’s why it’s good to have a disclaimer. Feminist sites that were mentioned don’t need one because they already control the discourse socially.
The feminist discourse with it’s concept of patriarchy, denies the individual and their personal experiences- there is no conspiracy of men using “male privilege” to get out of jail or whatever. Glen is telling the individual stories that contradict the dominating feminist discourse. To deny those stories, they have to compensate for the cognitive dissonance by conflating, using false statistics and lying.
I have no doubt that there’s plenty of well-intentioned feminists around. They’re just not the ones who dominate the discourse. They also don’t do a damn thing for working class people- they don’t give a shit. That’s why so many working class people voted for Bush. That’s the way rich people like it, keeping people divided is good for business.
Lisa welcome to Glenn’s World. It is similar to Wayne’s World except Glenn is the semi-sane one (save his rants about junk sceince PAS) and it is his followers who are the “out of this worlders.” The “followers” will attack anyone who has a differing opinion and do so in any manner that they can. I know because I have been under attack numerous times. I have also posted to other forums in which these commenters have posted and have been attacked there as well. Parade published an article in July of this year about mandatory shared parenting and I spent days trying to state my position of not equal rights for parents but best interest of the children standards, yet I was attacked from all sides. I was told to go perform a certain sex act – quite possibly that was why I “lost” my husband (the poster suggested I do this in order to keep my husband). I was accused of being more than one person because other pro-child posters came to my defense. I was told I was a closet lesbian whien in fact I am not. Others were attacked in trying to defend me as well. This has happened in all of the MRA blogs I have encountered. In fact when a feminist blog links to a male’s blog, the MRA’s go to the feminist blog and attack over there. It is never ending. I have been a reader of Glenn’s blog for many years and can point out numerous instances of Glenn having less than stellar bordering on chauvinistic behavior (look for his article about the beauty queen and a few posts before that he made a comment to his own post about what he would do if his wife should catch him lookking at another woman, it leaves a slightly bitter taste in one’s mouth).
I see some of his posters are now here namely terri Stoddard. Terri is a woman who unfortunately is not very well informed. She takes quotes off of Glenn’s website and magically they are the gospel. Or she pulls them off of an MRA site and the same is true. As a mother who was abused by my child’s father, I have been warned about “Teri”. I have also been warned about several other MRA/FR supporters such as Glenn Sacks, Dean Tong, Jeffrey Leving and many more. Now I have a therapy
When my ex decides to abuse me or our child in some fashion, I now go to Glenn’s website and post in order to relieve the frustration I feel. I cannot “win” any argument/debate with my ex because in his opinion I am a piece of garbage and never right. But I can be anonymous on Sack’s website (at least until he decides to release my info) and debate with some of those on his site. I can get out all I need to as if it were my ex, my child does not suffer due to hearing her parents disagree, and I get the added benefit of taking some not so bright individuals and stirring up the pot. This may seem a little callous, but these men put themselves and their sometimes not so bright posts on the internet for all to view and comment, so I will do just that if I feel the need 
I always have enjoyed a good debate and picturing these men getting the undies in a bunch has made me giggle a time or two.
I typed that response directly as a response to Glenn’s comment, Jerry–yours hadn’t come out of moderation yet so I hadn’t seen it when I typed that. I have no problem with responses as long as they are courteous. I don’t rejoice in an influx of boring, loudmouthed trolls–would you? Last time I was visited by the offended masses, most of ‘em were of that variety. I don’t mind visitors of the other variety, though. We’ll see what I end up with.
Oh my. I see we have four stuck in moderation right now. It’s possible they aren’t all for me, but I guess we’ll see. They may have been written at any time before or during my writing and posting these two comments, so pardon the possible apparent response dissonance. I will go be a good moderator now and pass them through the queue.
Jerry–if Glenn merely had one or two “loose cannons,” it wouldn’t have been a strike against him from my point of view. However, a large number of Glenn’s posters say ridiculous, misogynist things–not just a few, which is pretty obviously why Glenn has to distance himself from what his commenters say while sites like Pandagon and Feministing do not, as their “loose cannons” are indeed small in number. But the fact that he seems to be trying to imply that he is at odds in his opinion with such a large number of his regular commenters…without ever actually having to BE at odds with them by getting rid of them but then hiding behind the skirts of a disclaimer..? Meh.
I am in the process of developing my personal feelings about initial presumption of custody. I assure you that while NOW as an organization may (does, as far as I know) have an official statement about what their opinion is, it’s no more accurate to say that most feminists agree with all NOW’s official positions on everything as it would be to say that all Republicans agree with the Republican National Committee’s official positions on everything–most feminists aren’t even members of NOW. I agree, I’ve heard both anecdotes and stats that show bias in one gendered direction or the other. I have two personal conflicting situations that have prevented me from being able to take a hard stand one way or the other, which is that (a) had there been such a presumption when I was a kid, I’d be a much more damaged person than I am now and (b) I have shared custody with my children’s father and it’s worked out very well for all of us. Right now, my opinion is that there should be no presumption at all–parents should work it out for themselves when they can (and at least 80% or more of the time, they can) and if they can’t, it should be looked at in court on a case-by-case basis, still with no initial presumption. I may change my stance in future, though–as I said, I’m still developing it.
Perry, In a perfect world, I would absolutely agree with you. There are lots of things, like prostitution for example, that I’d support in a perfect world that I don’t support in the actual one we live in. If everybody was equally suited to being a good parent, an initial presumption of 50/50 custody would be a no-brainer.
But they’re not. As I mention to a few others above, from my personal life alone I have two glaring examples of (a) a man who tried to get 50/50 shared custody for his daughter who was utterly unfit to have it and (b) a man who was utterly fit for 50/50 shared custody and has done a wonderful job raising his two sons. So, the fact is, there shouldn’t be a presumption of custody. Period, in my opinion. I don’t think that women are automatically better at parenting, that’s for sure. I can’t find where NOW advocates that, though I think I found some citations where they advocate for the primary caregiver being the one who has the sole presumption of custody. (It isn’t really their doing that that’s usually women, is it?) I don’t agree with that, but then, since I’m also not agreeing with an initial presumption of joint custody, likely I’m pleasing no one.
Heh. Pat, you may not like my post, but I feel kinda fond of you for saying “The pope’s just another rich fuck.” Not that I necessarily think so–I don’t know much about the Pope’s finances, for instance–but I admire anyone who has the balls to say so. Most people are far too programmed by society and early childhood training to at least simulate at all times respect for religious leaders, quite regardless of whether or not they’re even of that religion (see: Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa).
One thing feminists need to do is outreach more to the more disadvantaged woman–not in a blanket condescending way, but a REAL way that includes their experiences. I think a lot of our more upper-class feminists would be really surprised at what they found and what they’d hear from those ladies.
New Friend: “I was told to go perform a certain sex act – quite possibly that was why I “lost” my husband (the poster suggested I do this in order to keep my husband). I was accused of being more than one person because other pro-child posters came to my defense. I was told I was a closet lesbian whien in fact I am not. Others were attacked in trying to defend me as well. This has happened in all of the MRA blogs I have encountered.”
Oh gee, you remind me of the good ol’ days on the MRA site I used to post on!
Yeah…you know, there’s a lot of stuff I don’t blog about, even when I really want to. The recent brouhaha about Bristol Palin, for instance. I was a teen mom myself…but I can’t really say anything about it ’cause I don’t want my older son to read certain things that I’m sure it isn’t necessary for him to know, ditto about some events that occurred while I was married to his father (for both boys on that one). They have a great relationship with their dad and he is really a good dad. So it stops my mouth up. Maybe I should find a site where I can anonymously comment.
Yeah, I appreciate anyone who tells the stories of poor and working class people even if they’re not on my “side”. Too bad a lot of those stories get half-told and distorted to make them into pawns. Here’s an example. Single motherhood is a pretty charged issue but the blame for “deadbeat dads” always goes on the laziness and selfishness of men- when the vast majority of them are people who are caught in a double-bind by being poor. There’s the expectation to perform when they’re deprived of resources to perform. They’re dead-broke, beat-dead dads. I can’t tell you how many times I read about the “mountains of unpaid child support” as if it has nothing to do with the broken social safety net in this country. It’s incredibly rare to find some guy with tons of money who’s just too selfish to pay child support. “Deadbeat dad” is as much of a myth as “welfare queen”. Yet, these supposedly liberal people use it to beat poor men up even more, and use poor women as pawns. That’s not liberal at all. Arrgh!
People who feel screwed will overcompensate by playing the macho stereotypes and using the non PC language. I wish there was a lot less of it. I just understand that a lot of those people have real reasons. Still, anyone who insults someone personally with sex talk to win a debate is an asshole. I’ll say so if I see it.
Jerry–if Glenn merely had one or two “loose cannons,” it wouldn’t have been a strike against him from my point of view. However, a large number of Glenn’s posters say ridiculous, misogynist things–not just a few, which is pretty obviously why Glenn has to distance himself from what his commenters say while sites like Pandagon and Feministing do not, as their “loose cannons” are indeed small in number. But the fact that he seems to be trying to imply that he is at odds in his opinion with such a large number of his regular commenters…without ever actually having to BE at odds with them by getting rid of them but then hiding behind the skirts of a disclaimer..? Meh.
You’re bucking the consensus of the blogosphere — which is that the blog owner is not responsible for the commenters. You’re also conflating all sorts of issues: the different amounts of traffic and different numbers of commenters at the various sites. You’re counting the people who for whatever reason post there quite frequently, but not counting the people who agree, and don’t always comment. You’re also not counting the numbers of times that people that make obnoxious remarks are told to stop by others in the forums. You have done no scientific study of the commenters, “the numbers” is really is just your feelings.
Glenn makes his points clear. There is plenty to disagree with and attack him on those points, and if you have a strong argument to make, there is no need to attack him because several of his posters have extreme views.
Ginmar and her friends make her points clear too, and there is lots of misandry posted in the comments at feministe, feministing, pandagon, etc.
I find your attitude toward NOW interesting, and slightly at odds with what I understand to be your position regarding Glenn and the dictionary definition of feminism. Are they feminist, or aren’t they, and if they are, how do their positions match up with what’s in the dictionary, and why isn’t it okay for Glenn to discuss feminism in terms of the behaviors and policies he sees enacted on the ground?
Regarding a rebuttable presumption of shared custody. It wouldn’t hurt for you to read Sacks’ position on this. It’s a presumption, because that is what he believes (I do too) research shows is best for the kids and the parents, and what is inline with what we in 2008 believe are the capabilities of men and women. It’s a presumption because lots of the energy from the divorce wars is spent determining custody, by making joint custody a presumption we can redirect that energy to parenting the kids. It’s a presumption, because the courts are littered with cases where the judge’s biases ended up screwing the mother, or the father, or the kids, or both. In the absence of a presumption, you’re leaving it to the bias of the judge, and encouraging him to act in the direction of his biases. It’s a rebuttable presumption to acknowledge that while lots of the fights are just obnoxious divorce fights, some of the fights are real and needed to protect the kids.
If you read Sacks on this, and address what he actually writes, and his positions and research, I think you’ll actually do a lot for the conversation. As I said before, there’s a lot there to consider from a feminist perspective. And you may even learn a few things about feminism along the way, such as, many of the second wave feminists considered joint custody to be what they were fighting for, not sole custody.
I don’t trust GS at all but I am fairly certain he would not do something as rash as releasing ip information to his commenters. I would hope not anyway. And if it happens well it happens and I will deal with it through law enforcment. As far as legal presumption of 50/50 custody – where I live they have that. They also have exceptions for dv. I had a no-contact RO, changed to no violent contact RO which less than 2 weeks later was changed back to a no-contact RO due to threats made to harm me and my family. There was witness testimony to some of the dv allegations, there were witnesses not allowed to testify for one reason or other and in total I was given approximately 1 hour to make my case as to why I should be allowed to be primary. He was given 3.5 hours. Court started that day at 8:00am approx (give or take a few minutes) ended around noon for 1 hour lunch, resumed about 1- 1:15 and ended at about 2:45. My side started about 15 minutes after recess. His was all morning and after the break. This happens quite frequently in family law cases (especially in states with presumed 50/50, shared parenting, friendly parent or joint custody laws). Friendly parent states are rough because on one hand you are supposed to protect your child from abuse and on the other hand you are not allowed to withold the child from the other parent. As a protective parent you are stuck in a catch 22.
http://www.parade.com/opencms/nocms/viewCommentList?contentPath=/articles/editions/2008/edition_07-06-2008/Intelligence_Report&pageNumber=18
If you scroll down a few posts to “For all the whining Jen and Susan have done” you will see one instance (the sex act one) that I am discussing. And this was not even an NRA forum – this is a regular newspaper insert – Parade magazine. The comments on here got so bad that Parade shut the coments off. They still remain online though
There are other comments in the 47 pages of comments on this site. It ended up being a posting fest to see who could post the most dv murders/mother initiated child abuse murders and father initiated child abuse murders. Totally useless 
And there was evidence of the MRA’s trying to cheat the poll through macro votes and disabling cookies and more.
Right now they have two posts on Glenn’s site. One is about the recent Collins case (mom fled the country to protect the chidlren) and another nameless mom/grandmother who is concerned for her son and his child. Glenn has requested somebody/anybody to truly investigate the Collins case so that the father’s side can be aired, yet in the unnamed mom/grandma case, we are not supposed to/allowed to question why the mom in that case has an RO or why the man was arrested. It is simply because there is a dv industry and automatically the man is innocent. Collins is an oddity and they do not believe her simply because they found 2 comments on a newspaper article that says she is lying.
One day I hope to start a blog (when I get time)
about some of the more popular MRA sites (including Glenn’s) to be able to point out there conflicting statements. They swear they want equal rights for all, yet you see the conflicting statements rampant throughout the blogs.
This post highlights the principle problem with most blogs on the internet, we get a breakdown of the amount of time that glen mentions feminists, a disclaimer he posts on his pages and an account of a banning from some unnamed MRA blog.
Great. Mental diarrhoea straight from this persons brain to your eyes without the bother of editing in between.
But there was a slightly more pernicious message between the supercilious filler and that is exemplified by the following passage:
“I could do this all night, but I’m disinclined to. The examples are extraordinarily numerous. The point being, these are the guys that love Glenn, that feel Glenn speaks for them, that religiously read his articles and vigorously support him. What does that say about Glenn?”
I have this to say to Lisa Kansas:
To dismiss the reasoned body of work of a man who, in my experience, tries to be reasonable and fair at all times and to instead judge him by the cherry picked comments of the people who read his blog is nothing more than intellectual thuggery.
“They’re dead-broke, beat-dead dads. ”
Being one of those single mothers with a “deadbeat dad”, I can tell you that it is very much not anywhere near as simple as you are stating. The father of my children is poor, that is correct. HOWEVER, he is not poor because he is oppressed. He’s a perfectly healthy white man. The only reason he is poor is because he has made the conscious decision to be poor. He IS lazy and selfish. Before we split, he actually told me once, “You’d better not ever leave me because I’m NEVER going to pay child support.” He doesn’t pay child support because he’s vindictive, not because he can’t. This has also been the case of many other single mothers and the biological fathers I know. It’s also been my experience that this is the attitude of many MRAs and the like. Men who don’t pay child support overwhelmingly don’t pay because they don’t WANT to pay.
“People who feel screwed will overcompensate by playing the macho stereotypes and using the non PC language. I wish there was a lot less of it. I just understand that a lot of those people have real reasons.”
There is no “real reason” for being a macho asshole. Ever.
Lisa,
How about pay equity? Should that be a presumption of equal pay for equal work? What if the criteria was what is best for the stockholders?
Sounds ludricous doesn’t it. When you protect female privelege that is how bad it sounds to men.
Maybe its not a good example because children are much more important than stockholders in any company but the point is bias of any sort, especially gender bias, should be unacceptable.
A lot of research shows the benefits of having a father in a child’s life. For both girls and boys. Look at the stats for single parent homes and juvenile crime, teenage pregnancy, school performance and much more. There is a strong positive correlation with having male nurtuting for kids.
I am very sorry for the situation with your father. There are also many men who could tell you stories about mothers with poor parenting skills. On the whole I think most modern men can step up to the plate and be good parents. Right now we are behind the curve in how the system views us though.
“Mom gets the kids” is leftover thinking from the Patriarchy. Which was , still is, a system that hurts both sexes. Its not part of the formula for true equality. How long will women try to hold onto this outdated privelege through male -demonization? A presumption that men are not morally inferior is not a lot to ask for.
Reasonable men have supported many of the equal rights women have earned over the last 40 years. If feminists continue to let radicals dictate the agenda for gender relations you can expect to lose that support. Play fair and we all can continue to advance down the road to greater freedom for all. But we have reached a crossroads where women now have more rights than men in important areas.
Take the leadership role and show us how rights get balanced in an ideal way. We’ll respect you more for it and advances can continue.
“You were banned at at MRA site, but it wasn’t Glenn’s. Don’t you think you should make that clear in your post and title? Ostensibly, your post is about Glenn Sacks, and yet your title is about an incident that occurred elsewhere.”
Jerry,
She did make it perfectly clear that the site she was banned from wasn’t Glenn’s. It’s right there in the post:
“To reconnect this post to the original title, I was banned from an MRA site some years back. I had ended up on the site in the first place during my very first foray into the feminist blogosphere by a guy who said he thought, for a feminist, I had an open and logical mind (oh, those lovely backhanded compliments! gotta love ‘em) and he suggested I stop by this particular site. I was intrigued; I felt I knew absolutely nothing (and I was right) about how men who felt disadvantaged by society due to their gender thought and since I was invited by one of the site’s participants, I figured I couldn’t count as a troll. I posted there for, um, I think less than two years but more than one year (it’s been a long time, sorry!). And then I was banned.”
It’s quite clear that she isn’t referring to Glenn.
Lisa,
I’m a reasonably regular reader at Glenn’s site and I leave comments from time to time too.
Others, above, have pointed out the unfairness of your conflating Glenn’s comments with those of his readership so I’ll merely “hear hear” the comments of ArgusEyes and Jerry that precede mine.
I, like Glenn himself and many of his readers, have no problem with supporting feminism as a philosophy that seeks to establish equality between the sexes. I believe that the ‘oppression’ that women faced through history, at least as interpreted by many feminist writers, is often exagerated and overblown but, nevertheless, I am absolutely of the view that social inequalities should be eradicated to the best of our abilities. Just over half of our population were left disenfranchised and, especially as the father of two daughters, I’d never support the clock turning back.
However, if you judge a movement based on its writing and leadership then feminism, as practised today, has very little to do with equality and an awful lot to do with acquiring and securing power, whatever the cost.
Just as many of the western countries, since 9/11, have sacrificed precious and hard-won liberties in the name of a ’safer’ society, so too have feminised politicians freely sacrificed the civil liberties of men in pursuit of the ‘fairer’ society. Of course, we’re demonstrably LESS safe than we were before the Government was given free rein on its paranoia, just as we’ve now lost sight of fairness and equality in our family law.
If you want evidence of this, then you don’t need to look far or very hard (although removing the pink specs helps). Compare the DoJ sentencing stats between men and women for the same crimes. Take a look at the real effects of VAWA as it’s practised by law enforcement agencies. Consider the implications for the civil rights of those male CITIZENS seeking to marry abroad if/when the IVAWA gets passed. Think through the inevitable consequence of granting uncontested RO’s during divorces (especially when there are no penalties enforced for abusing them).
Those are just a few of the issues that spring immediately to mind. Most “mens rights” activists just want what you “feminists” purport to want – ie true equality and a fair shake in law.
As a final note, I think it would be great if you’d take up Glenn’s offer of a semi-regular posting spot. Most of the ‘dissident feminists’ that have posted in that slot have been from men that haven’t really taken a good grip on the subject matter. A lot of the harsher comments stemmed from how poorly thought-through their posts were – a problem, I’m sure, that you’d avoid.
Faith,
She did make the point (about the title not referring to Glenn’s site) it’s true. However what’s also true is that that clarification doesn’t appear for more than 9 lengthy paragraphs (with quote boxes inserted liberally in between).
A casual / disinterested reader wouldn’t get that far and, given that the average persons’ attention span only slightly exceeds that of a goldfish, I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of those ‘reading’ the post would click away with the ‘wrong’ impression.
As for your comments about your ex, I am very sorry that you married such a worthless POS. I know a few divorced dads and all of them work bloody hard to support their kids.
I also know that their contribution has stayed the same on getting remarried (or often gotten higher due to their new wife’s salary being taken into account) whereas any change in cicumstance for their ex-wife (ie in one case marrying a millionaire) hasn’t affected the payout by one penny.
Haha. Suuuuure, trust the word of an angry woman posting on a feminist blog speaking for her ex.
Of course men who don’t pay you money are lazy and selfish. Reversal: Get a job and stop expecting a free ride from other people. If you want to be one of those 80% of women who freely initiate divorces… after shopping for the wealthiest man you can sucker into providing for you… so you get the female freedom to stay home or have a career (that you then complain doesn’t pay as much as it does for men expected to be the breadwinners and the scapegoats)… pay the price.
Or we could stop putting the highest social responsibilities on the poorest individuals, and start doing as other civilized nations do and build a social safety net. So you can have the freedoms you expect, and kids and men don’t get screwed by your expectations and by individual human failing.
People become “macho assholes” under pressure, when backed into corners, when choices are taken away. It’s a perfectly “real reason” that YOU help create.
Are black men the worst fathers in america because they’re lazy and selfish too?
It’s telling that you mention “healthy white man”. White. All he has to do is cash in his whitey card and Bill Gates will send him big checks, right? Can we get one of those for the homeless man sleeping outside my front door right now?
There have always been screwed white men. Even when slavery existed and women couldn’t vote. In this century we had the Okies and the dust bowl refugees. The century before we had indentured laborers from europe who had higher death rates than slaves. It’s all part of the shell game of shifting categories inside capitalism. Who wins: rich people- who loses: poor people- whatever category they are.
Katherine Sep 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“And with no evidence needed, who decides between normal arguing and verbal abuse? The dead guy won’t be able to defend himself.”
Oh please, what world are you living in? With no evidence needed? What the hell are you talking about? You think no evidence is needed in a murder trial? You think no evidence is needed when someone is claiming a defence against murder. Ho ho.
Who decides? The jury, you idiot. On the basis of evidence.
—————————-
Hellooooooooooooooo????
Mary Winkler? She shot her husband in the back while he slept, yanked out the phone cord and let him bleed to death!
There was never any evidence of DV. Even her daughter said that her dad was a good man who never yelled at or hit anybody.
The simple fact is that much of society (particularly judges) have a burning need to “rush in” and “save” a damsel in distress–even when that damsel is actually a monster.
As far as family courts are concerned, Obviously Teri is right that the POTENTIAL for abuse is huge, simply because the courts are SECRET COURTS (like Stalinist courts during the great purge).
All with the mantra “it’s for the children”. Their is also no system of judicial review as there is with other courts–it’s a recipe for injustices, and since women have several powerful vocal advocacy groups to protect them against injustice logic would follow it’s mainly men who are the victims of this injustice–particularly poverty stricken minority men.
If I remember correctly 3 dads have committed suicide on courthouse steps do to the incredible injustices heaped upon them by those courts.
If this had been mothers it would be blazoned on every channel every 5 minutes until it was in your dreams.
“Haha. Suuuuure, trust the word of an angry woman posting on a feminist blog speaking for her ex.”
Uh, who said anything about being angry?
“Reversal: Get a job and stop expecting a free ride from other people. If you want to be one of those 80% of women who freely initiate divorces… after shopping for the wealthiest man you can sucker into providing for you… so you get the female freedom to stay home or have a career (that you then complain doesn’t pay as much as it does for men expected to be the breadwinners and the scapegoats)… pay the price.”
Who says I don’t have a job? Did I say I didn’t have a job? And I also never said anything about being married. I also said the father of my children is poor. He is not wealthy.
“People become “macho assholes” under pressure, when backed into corners, when choices are taken away. It’s a perfectly “real reason” that YOU help create.”
Nope, I’m afraid it isn’t. Men are responsible for their behavior. No one else is. Men -decide- to be macho assholes.
“It’s telling that you mention “healthy white man”. White. All he has to do is cash in his whitey card and Bill Gates will send him big checks, right? Can we get one of those for the homeless man sleeping outside my front door right now?”
Yea, the poor poor oppressed white man. Poor whitey.
Who is the one angry here?
“A lot of research shows the benefits of having a father in a child’s life. For both girls and boys. Look at the stats for single parent homes and juvenile crime, teenage pregnancy, school performance and much more. There is a strong positive correlation with having male nurtuting for kids.”
The problem in these homes is not that Daddy isn’t there. The problem is that Daddy’s money isn’t there. It is poverty that breeds crime and dysfunction, not fatherlessness. Children raised by single mothers in financially stable households do every bit as well as those who are raised in two parent households. The solution then is to insure that all children are raised in financially stable households, not two parent ones.
“A casual / disinterested reader wouldn’t get that far and, given that the average persons’ attention span only slightly exceeds that of a goldfish,”
Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused. It’s not Lisa’s fault if someone only reads part of her post.
“As for your comments about your ex, I am very sorry that you married such a worthless POS. I know a few divorced dads and all of them work bloody hard to support their kids.”
Thank you. I didn’t marry him, however. I’m not a big fan of heterosexual marriage. Never have married. Never will marry.
“Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused.”
Ahem…”Then they’d have no one to blame BUT themselves for being confused.
One other thing: Even though I am also poor as dirt, I could give a fiddler’s fart if he pays child support (I’m also not on welfare, btw). He is not involved in the children’s lives. This was HIS choice. He DECIDED to not be involved after we split. I only expect him to pay child support if he is actually going to be involved. I was just throwing out the FACT that what Pat is saying is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Pat: Prime example of why I typically avoid MRA’s like the plague itself.
Faith,
“Daddy’s money”, nice……
So men can be reduced to just a paycheck? What if Daddy wants something for his money like being able to see his kids?
Its not just poverty that causes the social problems. Can you cite some research on poverty being the only cause of the problems?
“So men can be reduced to just a paycheck? What if Daddy wants something for his money like being able to see his kids?”
If women are financially empowered, they don’t need Daddy’s money to support their kids. The solution, if men don’t want to be reduced to wallets:
Support any and all efforts to financially empower women, and in particular, single mothers.
“Its not just poverty that causes the social problems. Can you cite some research on poverty being the only cause of the problems?”
No, it isn’t just poverty. But the fact that children raised by single mothers who are financially stable do just as well as those raised by two parents shows that fatherlessness does not, in and of itself, cause dysfunction.
“Conspiracy” is a misnomer. Conspiracies involve some kind of secrecy, and in this case there is no secrecy at all. Feminists are openly triumphant about having monopolized the humanities, and it just so happens that it is humanists who compose dictionaries. Whoever would dare put the true definition of feminism in a dictionary would soon watch his career follow that of Larry Summers. While we are at it, the true definition is: women’s group egoism, political expression of it, and a belief system that provides moral justification for it.
Jerry, I have no trouble whatsoever bucking the consensus of anybody, much less something as nebulously bordered as “the blogosphere,” but in this case I’m not. I’m not holding Glenn responsible for his commenters; I am merely pointing out that he clearly resonates with them.
Is NOW a feminist organization? Yes. Many of their positions match up with what is in the dictionary. Are all NOW members feminist? Yes. Are all feminists NOW members? Not by a long shot. For Glenn to use “NOW members” and “feminists” interchangeably uses the same flawed logic as using the words “squares” and “rectangles” interchangeably, though it is certainly true that all squares are indeed rectangles.
I still support the absence of a presumption, though I can understand that judge’s bias, in whatever direction it might be, is a problem, though unfortunately it’s hardly only a problem in the narrow field of child custody. Perhaps we could switch to juries, in the hope that multiple biases might cancel each other out? That’s the solution for other types of cases.
Support efforts to empower women financially – hell yeah!
And in return how about a little bit of a two way street and show some support for men in parenting rights, that isnt asking for too much is it?
Perry, Stockholders are holding stock in a company by choice; they get to research it first and then have absolute autonomy over who they choose, and they are fully mentally and emotionally developed. If children got to research and pick their parents out in advance and were fully mentally and emotionally developed, then an initial presumption of 50/50 custody would work out with complete justice. However, none of that’s the case, obviously.
I certainly agree that there should be absolutely no presumption based on the gender of any parent, though.
I agree that having a good father in a child’s life is an undeniable benefit. However, I assure you that having a bad father is much worse than having no father at all in a child’s life–a male presence, in of itself, is not magic nor beneficial. It must be a positive presence to reap the benefits you describe.
James H,
You say: “However, if you judge a movement based on its writing and leadership then feminism, as practised today, has very little to do with equality and an awful lot to do with acquiring and securing power, whatever the cost.”
I’m sorry, I don’t see it that way–I see it as a strong push to ensure women have equal rights with men.
I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy. I’m intimately familiar with the effect VAWA has had on local law enforcement agencies, as my kids’ dad is a cop, and really I have to report it’s been positive on that level. I lack familiarity with it at the judicial level, unfortunately. As far as the whole mail-order bride thing goes, I have no problem whatsoever with having it policed more heavily, both for the benefit of the prospective brides and grooms–the situation lends itself heavily to people getting used on both sides of the divide. I haven’t seen any legislation that seeks to harm men with good intentions and a noncriminal background seeking mail-order brides; do you know of any?
I might re Glenn–I haven’t had a chance to scope out the “Feminist Dissident” stuff yet to see it.
Lisa,
I assume you believe that the reverse of what you just said also holds true. Having a bad mother is worse than having no mother. But men in this case are the ones JUDGED by others. That needs to change. That’s why 50/50 as a starting point makes sense.
Or keep your parenting priveleges and we’ll keep our economic ones. Or we’ll fight for ours and not support any more gains for you. Or we can work together.
Perry–I agree that having a bad mother is worse than having no mother, but I disagree that we should start out with the assumption that both parents are not only equally good but that either of them are good at all. Frankly, the fact that they were unable to set aside their personal issues enough to decide custody between themselves out of court points already towards one or both not being good parents. I believe 0/0 should be the starting point, and the onus should be on each parent to clearly state (a) what custody they want and (b) why they should be granted it.
I read Glenn Sacks and Alas, a blog on a consistent basis. I am looking for the balance between the demands of feminism for equality and the legitimate concerns of abuse by the law against men.
My brother divorced a woman approximately 20 years ago. He is just now completing payment of his child support. In the beginning of the split, in a matter of six months, his exwife decided that she no longer wanted to be married. There was no abuse, the finances were fine, she just was tired of him. The first concession was for my brother to sleep in the guest room in the basement of his own house. Eventually his exwife moved a boyfriend into the house and my brother had to leave. The exwife initiated divorce proceedings and the courts allowed visitation. This is visitation of his own children who he did not abuse and in fact who love him dearly. The government dictates to the supportive, nonabusive father when he is allowed to visit his own children. Child support payments were set up by the state. A free audit is available to the exwife. My brother would have to pay for a private company to audit the account. The child support agency frequently miscalculated the payments all in the favor of the exwife. When the 15 year old daughter got tired of the boyfriend and moved in with my brother, who is after all her own father, the exwife summoned a sheriffs officer and they went to my brothers home and demanded that the daughter return with them. When the house was sold my brother was cheated out of $40,000 of equity by the exwife who claimed she could not find suitable housing without the equity. She had perfectly suitable housing when my brother was paying the mortgage. 20 days prior to one childs 18th birthday the exwife drags my brother to court seeking custody of the 17 year old claiming that she cannot afford child support. It got to the point in which my brother didn’t want the money at all in an effort to avoid contact with an exceptionally vindictive woman. She was vindictive because she knew that that law and the courts were on her side. No questions about whether my brother can afford child support have ever been entertained in a court of law.
It is one thing for a person male or female to be a pig. It is another thing entirely for the justice system and family court to support the abusive actions of one party at the expense of the other. I do not approach this thing from an ideological perspective. I look as far as my brother’s experience, which I fear is all to common and ask a simple, neutral question: is this what feminists call equality? Is it really too much to petition that men are treated with some degree of decency when the exwife throws him out of his own house?
0/0 could be a level playing field, thanks & peace
I believe 0/0 should be the starting point, and the onus should be on each parent to clearly state (a) what custody they want and (b) why they should be granted it.
I don’t have a lot of faith in our system anymore. 0/0 is more fair than leaving biases in place, but becareful what you ask for, my guess is that 0/0 where the parents don’t have any presumptive ability to parent or have custody gets CPS and the Courts way more involved than they should be. CPS has shown itself to be a very flawed organization.
Perhaps 0/0 can put the fear into both parents to get them to actually cooperate.
0/0 seemingly does nothing to reduce court costs. One thing poor women and men need in an era of no fault divorce is an inexpensive way to determine custody. The problem with the current system is that presumption and “bias” is used to reduce court costs. But what happens for many couples is that they become horribly indebted by lenghtly, hurtful, unneccessary custody fights. 0/0 adds to that, unless the fear of letting CPS intrude everywhere gets people to compromise earlier (as perhaps they should)
You are swinging from the hip here. Glenn has been thinking and writing of these issues for many years, and he discusses research relating to best outcomes for the kids, as well as court costs.
Even if you end up disagreeing, if you read what Glenn has written and the sources he points to, you may help yourself understand all the various issues involved.
Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!
“I’m intimately familiar with the effect VAWA has had on local law enforcement agencies, as my kids’ dad is a cop, and really I have to report it’s been positive on that level.”
Positive for whom? Mandatory arrest policies, combined with the ‘primary aggressor*’ doctrine, means that it’s overwhelmingly the man that’ll be arrested and removed from the house regardless of innocence or guilt. As this is an easy first step to getting an RO (uncontested, no evidence needed or wanted) and thence to establishing primary custody of the kids, it’s an easy situation for an ill-intentioned ex-partner to engineer.
*(in practice ‘primary aggressor’ is actually translated into ‘who’s the biggest/tallest person in the room(?)’ regardless of who actually kicked the fight off or who is inflicting the worst damage)
Ask your husband how many times he’s had to remove a guy from a scene where his gut instinct tells him it was the woman being the aggressor. If he’s being honest (with himself as well as you) then I think you’ll get a surprise.
As for IVAWA, it’s a large and unconstitutional sledgehammer being applied to a cashew nut. The criminals who actually traffic in prostitutes/abused women (and the numbers are tiny, even if the situation itself is undeniably tragic) will just laugh at IVAWA, in much the same way as they already laugh at the kidnapping and anti-slavery measures that are already established under the law.
The only people IVAWA targets are the lonely old men and misinformed second-wifers who think a Thai bride might actually honour their wedding vows. They will face a massive intrusion into their private lives not because they’ve done anything wrong, but rather because they’ve had the temerity to look a little further afield for a partner. If it was YOUR civil rights that were being so casually trampled on would you be so complacent?
Faith:
““Then they’d have no one to blame for themselves for being confused.”
Ahem…”Then they’d have no one to blame BUT themselves for being confused”"
Thanks SO much for the correction. I thought only we ‘menz’ were guilty of being patronising. I’ll make sure, in future, to minutely inspect every single one of your comments for the slightest error and pick you up on it….
..or not. I think I managed to outgrow that phase before leaving school.
As for
“The problem in these homes is not that Daddy isn’t there. The problem is that Daddy’s money isn’t there. It is poverty that breeds crime and dysfunction, not fatherlessness. Children raised by single mothers in financially stable households do every bit as well as those who are raised in two parent households”
Not in the studies I’ve read they don’t. Statistically you’re dead wrong. Fathers have a massive impact on the lives of their children, an impact which has nothing to do with their income level (or that of the family after divorce) and everything to do with how involved they are with raising their children.
A child’s: IQ; attainment level at school; health; longevity of life; reported ‘happiness;’ social mobility and citizenship (ie they’re less likely to break the law etc) are all positively impacted by a father being on the scene AND involved with their life. Large scale studies (and plain common sense) have shown this as indisputable.
I would never ‘diss’ a single mother (although I am appalled by the single mother ‘by choice’ trend, due to the sheer selfishness of ‘their’ choice) but the fact is that their children will not do as well in life as if those same children had an active and involved father.
I am sure that that applies equally, btw, to children without an active and invoved mother, but I’ve not seen any large-scale studies that have examined that.
Faith:
My turn to ‘Ahem’ and apologise for my misguided comment (above) on your correction.
On re-reading the thread I’ve realised you’re correcting your own error, not picking up on one of mine.
Perhaps I need to go BACK to my school (or perhaps just wind my neck in slightly)!
Roger–anecdotes are great in the sense that they illustrate an existing problem in a way that’s often a good motivator for the individual, but they aren’t too useful for basing one’s judgment of what may be a trend of existing problems. For instance, my best friend’s sister lost custody of her children to her abusive husband in the courts–does that mean that that happens all the time? I couldn’t say so based on her experiences, though I can say that since it did happen, clearly it does happen and should be investigated.
James H:
Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!”
Oh, well, that totally changes my mindset.
(sigh) come back when you have something substantial to say, eh?
“Thanks SO much for the correction. I thought only we ‘menz’ were guilty of being patronising. I’ll make sure, in future, to minutely inspect every single one of your comments for the slightest error and pick you up on it….”
Um, what? You thought that was patronizing. Huh???
“Not in the studies I’ve read they don’t. Statistically you’re dead wrong. Fathers have a massive impact on the lives of their children, an impact which has nothing to do with their income level (or that of the family after divorce) and everything to do with how involved they are with raising their children.
A child’s: IQ; attainment level at school; health; longevity of life; reported ‘happiness;’ social mobility and citizenship (ie they’re less likely to break the law etc) are all positively impacted by a father being on the scene AND involved with their life. Large scale studies (and plain common sense) have shown this as indisputable.”
Yes, studies show that father’s being involved has an impact on the health of children. But the matter is WHY. The answer has far more to do with income than anything at all to do with the father himself.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/singpar.htm
There have been other studies that have shown this as well. If I find them, I will return with them.
“Lisa:
“I agree that men are sentenced more heavily for the same crimes than women–but that isn’t the fault of feminists, that is a remnant of the patriarchy, and feminism seeks to dismantle the patriarchy”
Uh-huh. And Turkeys would vote for Christmas (given the chance) too!”
Oh, well, that totally changes my mindset. (sigh) come back when you have something substantial to say, eh?”
It may have been a flippant way of making my point, but if you can point to one single policy from NOW or any other influential feminist group that admits to the disparity AND suggests removing the sentencing gap then I’ll happily donate my Xmas turkey to a homeless shelter this year.
On the contrary, I have read policy statements and noted the words of several fem-friendly politicians espousing the view that female criminals shouldn’t serve jail sentences for anything bar murder as the poor dears must have been led into their lives of crime by some evil man or other. Even murder can be excused – look at Mary Winkler.
“dismantling the patriarchy” only seems to be on the agenda when it disfavours women. Feminism of NOW’s kind is the most hypocritical and self-serving political creed in the mainstream.
And Faith – I already apologised for my mistake, and I will also come back with links (assuming Lisa is happy to keep this thread going).
If you’re referring to SYG, you must be lkanneg, and if so, then I would attest to nearly every word of this post, quite frankly. I found Lisa to be very interested in debating issues, but only with those people or arguments that interested her (for SHAME Lisa!
), and given the volume she got, I can’t see how she could try to argue them all down at once, and she’s pretty damn good at debate…. that was a compliment.
So, regrettably, and even though Lisa does truly have her head up her ass on many issues, I risk the wrath of my fellow MRA’s when I extend whatever apology I can…I frankly had no idea what happened to you.
The post at GS’s blog is how I got here, and I was specifically motivated to come here because I have mentioned you repeatedly in the past and one Michael Claymore asked:
“Apparently this woman was posting on Stand Your Ground as ilkanneg at the same time as factory- what I really want to know is what factory thinks of his old buddy.”
So, my reaction.
I think you’re mischaracterizing Glenn considerably (he really despises a lot of what I say…I’ve been scolded (and he’s been on the side of “right” many times upon reflection). He also has restrictions he allows in terms of topic I disagree with, but respect his right to do so. Other than that, he seems like a passionate advocate for equality.
Where MRA’s and feminists differ is in the definition of equality, you know that. We believe in equal treatment/opportunity, feminists believe in equality of outcome…..er, unless it means boosting men (custody).
Good to find out what happened to you. I’ll make sure I poke logic at you once in a while.
Oh, and the the MRA’s who figure they can tell me who I can respect and who I can’t (based on Ideology of all things), let me say this.
Lisa is hot.
omg…scuse me while I step out of feminist mode for a sec here…
{{{{FACTORY!!!}}}} long time no see!! share my luv wherever you think it might be welcome back amongst the guys if you get a chance…
…head up my ass…I do NOT, thank you.
Nor am I hot. Do not believe this scuzzy MRA nutjob. See, here’s me:
Not even remotely hot.
On a serious note, sooo many ppl defending Glenn’s fairness…maybe I should try reading through his site AGAIN…I just didn’t get that vibe before, honestly.
The point to the disclaimer (aside from Glenn being a lawyer) is that while he does not restrict speech (aside from a few things), he also finds quite a few of us repulsive. I have had a few choice words sent my way (something about being extremist or woman-hating, not sure which and both have a measure of truth to them), but he usually lets my posts through.
I say usually because his spam blocker has my most recent post hung up.
As always, lisa, your comments and opinions are more than welcome. It’s SO much fun showing you where your argument sucks, then poking you in the eye.
I personally would LOVE it if you would inject a little rigor into some of the debates. Between you, me and the entire world, there’s a lot of “sound and fury, signifying nothing” going on over there right now.
I can only speak for myself of course, as some there really seem to hate your guts (all the more reason to go in my opinion).
As to the looks, I am sure it’s been a while, so I’ll tone it down.
Let’s just say it has something to do with willingness, bending, a couch, and a New York minute.
James H–NOW doesn’t support the heavier sentencing of men–agreed they don’t agitate against it specifically,, but then, MRAs don’t agitate against things that hurt women specifically either–they’re focused on men, just like NOW is focused on women. Being upset about that, in either direction, makes about as much sense as being upset at pediatricians for “discriminating against adult health!” because they choose to focus their efforts on children.
Many feminists can and do address prison conditions as a whole and fight against the heaviest sentencing of all, that against men of color. And as I said, feminists in general and NOW in particular do agitate against the patriarchy in general, which is the cause of the gender disparity in sentencing in the first place–based as it is on the patriarchial conviction that women aren’t much of a step above children in terms of the threat they pose and their control over their own actions. An equal rights amendment, such as the one NOW supports, could go a long way towards the specific legal address of the heavier sentencing that men sometimes receive.
That’s a pretty obvious one Lisa. NOW argues that the opposite is true, completely in the face of reality.
NOW argues that women receive heavier sentencing than men for the crimes where DoJ stats show that men receive heavier sentencing? Hadn’t seen that–links pls.
Oh Jeezus, here we go again with the wild-Google_chases. Nah.
NOW argues that the legal system is biased against women, yet in no area can women be shown to be disparately negatively affected by sentencing, arrest rates, conviction rates…pretty much any “justice” metric you can come by.
To illustrate the difference between MRA’S (see, I can keep it on topic) and feminists in this matter….
Feminists tend to see this as proof that men are evil. MRA’s see this as proof that women get off easier for crimes.
Mind you, there haven’t been a lot of men getting PROBATION for murdering their spouse in their sleep. Of course, women murdering their spouses is SO RARE, as to merit little to no attention.
Right?
Because then we’d have to admit that women are abusers and murderers and criminals too, and furthermore without the usual “society/men/whatever made her do it” excuses.
Sometimes I think I’m more of a “feminist” than you are……and THAT is serious irony.
You gotta provide factage for your assertations about NOW and women and the legal system, Factory, or you know I won’t buy it.
As for the rest of what you say, I can’t argue with most of it, except perhaps in degree. S’matter of fact, I agree with most of it.
Let’s do it this way. Keep my argument in the back of your head, and if you seem to find evidence out there in your daily life that backs it up (say, a news item, or a new law, or whatever)…if something makes you think “Hey, Factory has a point”, do me the favour of giving the point some credence. That’s all I ask.
If you find yourself wondering what it would be like consummating that whole “New York Minute” idea…call me immediately.
Incidentally, I suggest you click on my name and watch a couple videos before you publicly state you agree with most of what I say…
Hey, I was just agreeing with what you said in your comment, not everything you’ve ever said in your whole LIFE!
Oh come on now. You can admit it. I make sense sometimes.
Other times, I rant, but I blame that on the demon alcohol (among others). But you have never really poked any holes in my arguments, nothwithstanding the “Citations please” thingy you love. (It’s cute)
I’m just saying you haven’t had much interaction with me recently…you may dislike what I’ve become….(ominous music plays)
At any rate, I can genuinely say I’ve missed arguing with you. I hope you want to keep in touch.
Oh, I do! Please stop by PAB anytime and also feel free to make free with the email. Honestly, I’d love to swing back by SYG too, but…I was banned, dude. So I can’t, unless Dr. E relents. Which I kinda don’t see him doing.
I haven’t been by there in quite a while actually. In fact, many of the more prolific posters frequent Glenn’s blog right now. There actually are quite a few really smart dudes there, it just takes an interesting argument to bring them out.
So far, all the “Feminist Dissident” articles amounted to “Why are MRA’s so mean?” bullshit. If anyone had some MEAT to throw, the lions would definitely come out.
Personally, I think there’s a lot of dialogue that needs to happen. I don’t think it’ll happen if they refuse to engage. I’m also of the mind that men are increasingly coming of the mind that women simply aren’t worth the effort/risk they represent. And it ain’t men that are going to lose on that one, since most men are quite used to going months between sexual encounters….
As you know, I have 2 daughters. I want them to be happy, and I want them to have a chance at a good relationship. Feminism made things the way they are. I aim to change it. One obstinate feminist at a time if I have to.
How do I provide an email without doing so to everybody?
Go to the “Contact” section of PunkAssBlog and email me!
“lisa10dc@gmail.com,” since it’s there for all to see.
Urk. I already told Glen I wasn’t gonna do the “Feminist Dissident” thing. But you tempt me. Hmm. If you think others would be interested…I might reconsider (unless he’s chosen to withdraw the offer since I said ‘no,’ of course).
I know I’m all kinds of late to this party but I did see and wanted to address this:
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters’ views are those of the posters alone–Glenn’s views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.
The reason he puts that up is because in the past Glenn himself has been attacked but the attacker’s “proof” would be only the words of people commenting on his site. How would you feel if I made a post about your blog saying that you are incorrect in your views but the only references I made were about the people that post on your blog but none of your own actual words? Pretty unfair. If you’re gonna try to discredit me then how about having the courage to quote what I say. Sorry if that came off as an attack.
The feminist discourse with it’s concept of patriarchy, denies the individual and their personal experiences- there is no conspiracy of men using “male privilege” to get out of jail or whatever. Glen is telling the individual stories that contradict the dominating feminist discourse. To deny those stories, they have to compensate for the cognitive dissonance by conflating, using false statistics and lying.
Excellent point. All too often I see feminists trying to lump all men together with the ones at the top as we all are out to get all women and that is simply not true. And is just what the term patriarchy as turned into. If such feminists would quit trying to hold all men responsible for all the problems that all women suffer then we would all be better off.
“Hmm. If you think others would be interested…I might reconsider.”
I cant speak for the others, but i would certainly like to see that.
Nelson Muntz aka Michael Claymore
I can’t testify to Glenn’s character in ‘real’ life, having never met him, but he does seem to be consistently fair.
He’ll pull comments that make personal attacks on people and invite you to “get back to the point in hand.” I know this from first hand as I once strayed over his boundaries (I know, shocker right?!)
I would echo Factory’s (and my own earlier) request that you post on Glenn’s site. You have a sense of humour, an engaging writing style and a willingness to keep up a dialogue. You also know your material which, even if I disagree with a lot of your points, would be a HUGE step up from the calibre of guest writing he’s had in that spot.
You’ll inevitably get a lot of brick-bats, but there’s enough of us that hang around his site that try to discuss points without hurling insults to compensate for those (I hope).
As for disparities in jail sentencing, you may be correct that equal rights legislation would go some way to addressing the imbalance but I am very sceptical. It’s all too easy for judges, even appeal court judges, to bow to political pressure and adopt an overly PC attitude. They do it now, and I can’t see how another piece of legislation will remedy things in practice. No too cases are EXACTLY the same, and that allows plenty of ‘wriggle-room’ for judges to apply biased sentencing to cases.
Mary Winkler (I know, that name again) is a good case in point.
No husband, having shot his wife in the back whilst sleeping, ripped out the phone cord to stop her dialling for help and then watched her bleed to death in front of him (before fleeing over a State border with his kids and a load of shells for his shotgun) would have got the time of day on Oprah. They wouldn’t have had a gentle regime of a few months in prison followed by a short stay at a psych hospital. They DEFINITELY wouldn’t have then got custody of their kids back from the maternal grandparents.
Did NOW ever suggest that sentencing, such as that given in her case, is an issue needing correction? On the contrary, leading figures in the organisation were quoted in support of her and set about blackening the good name of her husband and jumping to all sorts of (completely unsupported) conclusions about him that were all roundly refuted by their eldest daughter.
Don’t like the MW comparison? Then how about the sentencing that Debrah LeFavre (and other female teachers ad nauseum) received for raping a boy in her care? How many times do male teachers get to declare they were “in love” or “at a difficult point in their life” or “got confused as to the boundaries in their job” or blah, blah, blah and get away with a few weeks of community service and a slap on the hand?
Try bringing that up on (most) other feminist sites, and a depressing number of comments will come back either stating that men/boys can’t be raped (so that’s all right then), or that it’s “payback” for all the years of “abuse” women have suffered at the hands of men (….) or that the boys “wanted it really” (!!!!!). And those are the polite replies.
When NOW, its sister organisations and the rank-and-file activists start to seriously talk about equality (and mean it) then I’ll start to support their efforts. At the moment though, way too much of their brand of ‘equality’ smells like that of ‘Animal Farm’ and, stretching the analogy, men have 4 legs.
Can you explain how is patriarchy the cause of the gender disparity in sentencing that disadvantages men? You claim a connection exists, but I don’t see any, and I find its existence extremely unlikely. You know, with all the defining of patriarchy as a setup that prioritizes men’s this, men’s that, and men’s other thing at the expense of women’s this, that, and other thing, the claim that patriarchy is the cause of a systemic male disadvantage sounds outright silly.
The Patriarchy is a heirarchical pyramid with various smaller groups of entitled people (mostly white male, but with some exceptions) standing astride many larger groups of less entitled people, who stand atop even larger groups of unentitled people. Fight against the Patriarchy, and you’re fighting for the common man just as much as you are for the common woman.
By the way, do all you guys only ever like to talk about one thing, and one thing only? Cuz there’s many other more recent posts on this blog where you could spread the love.
(Lisa– just trying to use Sabotabby’s pest control method– remember how all those gun nuts we had for a while ran away screaming when she started inviting them to comment about Aboriginal genocide and stuff like that?)
By the way, all this talk in other threads of “sarcasm” vs “sneering”– that was CLEARLY sneering on my part. Please accept my apologies, gentlemen– it’s not a very nice to imply that our guests are pests. It’s just that there are SO MANY of you! I don’t know how Lisa handles it all.
Men Alliance – Waging War on Global Feminism
The Marriage Strike
The Marriage Strike is a decision to avoid marriage made by young men in the western world, for fear of the financial and personal implications of divorce. Divorced men in the western world today face an Anti-Male bias in the family court system, in areas such as child custody, excessive child support payments, and unfair division of the property which is overwhelmingly in favour of women. Combined with the ever rising probability of getting divorced, Marriage has become an unattractive option for young men in the western world today.
The Marriage Strike is nothing but the aggregate result of millions of rational decisions made by young male individuals to avoid marriage and the risks involved. Decades of feminist aggressive lobbing and feminist propaganda in the media has made divorce a nightmare for men. The risk of losing everything you have – your children, your house, your assets, and sometimes even your freedom, has scared men away from tying the knot. It is very common today to hear women complaining that “There are no good men left” or that “Men are childish and afraid to commit”. Well ladies – not childish – just rational. Had things been the other ways around, it is very probable that women would be the ones who declare a Marriage Strike, and men would be the ones who complain.
Unlike traditional labor unions strikes, the Marriage Strike is rather a silent one. In order to participate in the strike you need not carry a sign or gather in the street shouting slogans. All you have to do is avoid getting married. This is perhaps why so few people are actually aware of the Marriage Strike, although the Marriage Strike is social process that is happening under their noses and is causing a fundamental change in western society as we know it.
In fact, many of the participants of the Marriage Strike are actually unaware to the fact that they contribute their share to it. While the number of young men who are avoiding marriage as a political as well as a personal decision in reaction to feminism. Apparently the personal has become political, and not only for women this time. Men today are raising their voice loud and clear against feminism, and the ultimate expression of their anger towards feminists and the damage they have inflicted on the whole western society is participating and promoting the Marriage Strike.
The Marriage Strike is closely linked to the feminist movement. In fact, the Marriage Strike is the result of a decades-long feminist attack on the traditional concept of family. Perceiving the family as the tool to oppress women in the hands of the “evil patriarchy”, feminists have declared war on the family as a whole. It is so sad that a small group of angry feminist women has been so successful in creating such a mess that ended up hurting so many good men and women. Men and women should naturally be together, assuming that the government is leaving its filthy hands outside people’s personal lives.
The Goal of the Marriage Strike is to put an impossible pressure on decision makers that will end up reversing the feminist policies integrated into family courts, laws, police enforcement and welfare systems, the education system, and more. The current situation simply cannot go on. Men are sick of everything that is going on and are going to play hardball, after years of being off-guard and letting feminists take over western-world governmental systems. The Marriage Strike will go on until the feminist policies are reversed, or western society collapses altogether, losing its most basic building block – the family. The war against feminism starts here.
Interesting definition, but I was asking Lisa to support a specific claim about the existence of a causative link between what she understands by the term ‘patriarchy’ and the pervasive criminal sentencing disparity to the disadvantage of men.
If her definition happens to be the same as yours, then I must say with regret that my curiosity is not satisfied (or my dimwittedness is not enlightened, pick your choice) by the definition alone. I still fail to see a causative link.
Your description only contains one rather reserved assessment of the entitlement distribution among the sexes: namely that among the tiny minority that inhabits the very top of the ‘pyramid’, the entitlement appears to be concentrated in the hands of men. Nothing is said about the sexentitlement relationship anywhere below the top, and what is said about the very top leads to the prediction that top-status men should be treated more leniently rather than more harshly in criminal sentencing, relative to top-status women (that is if we also assume that impunity is actually a manifestation of entitlement and privilege, rather than something completely unrelated to those or even inversely correlated). To be honest, I have no data specifically about criminal sentencing of men and women of the highest status, so I cannot verify this prediction, but even if it is verified positively, it wouldn’t explain why the opposite is the case in the society as a whole.
I’m not going to get into how any of it ties into criminal sentencing, because frankly I don’t know enough to give an informed opinion at the moment; but one thing I should clarify about my definition of Patriarchy-as-heirarchy (which, as far as I know, is not very controversial) is that people get oppressed by each other all up and down the pyramid, not just from the top level. But, at the end of the day, if you look at the bigger picture, it’s women who get it the worst and most often.
I shouldn’t speak for Lisa, but maybe this post of hers will give you some insight. (To tide you over, since it will probably be another 20 comments or so from you guys until she has another chance to respond.)
Dear Tom Leykis, Cut-And-Paste Artist: been there, done that.
I disagree. To look at the bigger picture is not to look at individual factors that variously contribute to the quality of life, because any choice of such factors can be biased. There are however certain observables that directly convey information about weighted accumulated influence of all factors, properly accounting for all the synergy, cancelling-out, cross-cutting, and other subtle interactions among co-acting factors. I suppose you know what observables I have in mind. Life expectancy, suicide rates – that’s the big picture to me. If you want to convince me that women have it worse “at the end of the day”, you will have to show me some overall measures of the quality of life that render such image. Actual weight of any individual factor such as wages or representation in elected bodies will depend on the weighted input from many other factors. These can be recursively disputed to no end, producing tons of advocacy research and enabling entire phyla of -isms to evolve in the process, all without bringing us any closer to the truth. If at the end of a day thus spent you stand your ground and I run out of stamina, while men still live 8 years shorter and commit sucide 5 times as often (data for my country), it just means that our choice of factors to focus on was a waste of our intellectual resources.
I read her post. This is how she defines “oppresion hierarchy” there:
The problem is that the criminal sentencing disparity is a counterexample to this statement about the hierarchy. Poor nonwhite boys on average receive longer sentences for comparable crimes than poor nonwhite girls, poor nonwhite men than poor nonwhite women, etc. The disparity is bigger among the poor than among the rich, bigger among nonwhites than among whites. As far as sentencing justice is concerned, men have it worse at all times of day. This is why I find it hard to see the sentencing disparity as an example of ‘patriarchy’ in action, if patriarchy is defined as above.
Quin:
“By the way, do all you guys only ever like to talk about one thing, and one thing only? Cuz there’s many other more recent posts on this blog where you could spread the love.
(Lisa– just trying to use Sabotabby’s pest control method– remember how all those gun nuts we had for a while ran away screaming when she started inviting them to comment about Aboriginal genocide and stuff like that?)”
I can’t speak for the others, but this ‘pest’ (thanks btw) would be quite happy to talk about Aboriginal genocide and “stuff” like that until the cows come home.
I’ve (so far) chosen not to comment on your last few posts about the VP debate etc because I find little there that I’d refute and not much of a fresh angle to apply. Sorry that you’re not feeling “the love,” but I’m sure you’ll survive the lack of affirmation.
Perhaps you’d like to post about the slaughter of Native American tribes by your not-so-distant ancestors (assuming, of course, that you’re third or fourth generation American)? I’ve found a lot of Americans quite touchy (and frankly pretty ill informed and firmly in denial) on the subject.
It would certainly distract me from chortling at your “fight against the Patriarchy, and you’re fighting for the common man just as much as you are for the common woman” comment.
Wow some actual talk about patriarchy. Most of the time such turn quickly turns in personal attacks and assertions that men are “blinded by their privilege”. A lot of people that try to assert that all men have it better than all women because of male privilege are usually refusing to acknowledge how much class comes into play.
According to some I have male privilege which grants me power over women. Since I am only 27 years old I obvioulsy didn’t create this structure but for some reason I’m being blamed for it (not to be confused with telling me I should take an active part in dismantling it) and I am being lumped in with the elite at the top. Gender is not the only (nor is it the strongest) factor when it comes to the heirarchy. Yes there are more men that women. Yes there are more whites than nonwhites. The one binding factor isn’t gender but class. But for some odd reason gender is the enemy?
Basta!:
The problem is that the criminal sentencing disparity is a counterexample to this statement about the hierarchy. Poor nonwhite boys on average receive longer sentences for comparable crimes than poor nonwhite girls, poor nonwhite men than poor nonwhite women, etc. The disparity is bigger among the poor than among the rich, bigger among nonwhites than among whites. As far as sentencing justice is concerned, men have it worse at all times of day. This is why I find it hard to see the sentencing disparity as an example of ‘patriarchy’ in action, if patriarchy is defined as above.
And despite the fact poor nonwhite boys get the worst of sentencing we are supposed to believe that there is some form of male privilege that gives them power over females?
Are there problems that plague women? Yes? Were some of them caused by men? Yes? Were they caused by all men (past and present)? No. Do all men have power over all women? No. Sorry for the rambling…
James H, once again, Lisa has already delivered, at least in a fashion. But really, there are so many injustices in this beautiful sickening world of ours, I’m sure you could easily find something none of us have ever blogged about before if you keep on naming them. But seriously, if there’s something you think we’re not writing enough about, please feel to write about it on your own blog and invite us over!
Basta, I was just popping in to invite you all to stretch your legs and have a look around. Sorry, I didn’t mean to lead you along, but I’m not really interested in joining the discussion in here right now — despite being a man myself, Men’s Rights really isn’t my bag.
The fact that men in general have lower life expectancy and so forth is an interesting lens to look at things through. If you’re going to look at it that way, then also please remember the studies which show that people with a lot of money tend to be happier and more relaxed. I think it’s a reasonable supposition that the stresses that cause lower life expectancy and suicide and so forth tend to be caused by oppression. Which usually comes from institutions… which are usually controlled by (and I hope you can see where I’m going with this)… other men. Thus, even if your argument is right, and men (on the whole) really are suffering more than women (on the whole)… it’s still a Patriarchy. Because “The Patriarchy” doesn’t get its name from who is on the bottom (even if it’s men)– it gets it from who is on top.
I’ll say this about the Patriarchy, though: if women ever somehow magically took over all the powerful positions from men, it would probably become an oppressive Matriarchy in nothing flat. Man, woman, it doesn’t matter– oppressive heirarchies are part of human nature (we are animals, after all, and animals come pre-programmed in many ways). So really, perhaps the MRAs and the Feminists should all team up together, and just take on “The Heirarchy”.
Because even though it’s part of our animal nature to naturally fall into oppressive heirarchies, it’s also part of our animal nature to join in cooperative social groups that sometimes thwart our pure animal natures– even the nasty bits, like the natural oppressions that come with power and entitlement. If we manage to survive for long enough, who knows, there may be hope for us all yet.
“So really, perhaps the MRAs and the Feminists should all team up together, and just take on “The Heirarchy”.
Because even though it’s part of our animal nature to naturally fall into oppressive heirarchies, it’s also part of our animal nature to join in cooperative social groups that sometimes thwart our pure animal natures– even the nasty bits, like the natural oppressions that come with power and entitlement. If we manage to survive for long enough, who knows, there may be hope for us all yet. ”
That’s awesome. Won’t happen and is madly idealistic, but still, it’s awesome that you say it.
Basta, I did elaborate on how the patriarchy is the root cause of heavier sentencing for men, in the same quote that you pulled from my comment–here’s the complete quote:
“And as I said, feminists in general and NOW in particular do agitate against the patriarchy in general, which is the cause of the gender disparity in sentencing in the first place–based as it is on the patriarchial conviction that women aren’t much of a step above children in terms of the threat they pose and their control over their own actions.“
First they say I’m too cynical, then they say I’m too idealistic…
Well, see, that’s why I thought it was so awesome that you said the idealistic thing because usually you’re the Voice of Doom.
Danny, I don’t think we’re quite communicating what we mean when we talk about the patriarchy:
Gender is not the enemy of feminists. The patriarchy is not men. The patriarchy is a structure—a set of social systems and power dynamics—that on average grants men greater access to choice and more privilege than women.
Patriarchy does not exist independenly of other hierarchies. So, we also have a class structure that priviliges those who have material and social capital, giving them greater access to choice and priviliging them over people with less access to social and material capital. We have a racist social order that priviliges white people over people of colour. We have a heterocentric society that priviliges the straight experience over the queer one and gives straight people greater access to choice than queer people. All of these hierarchies overlap and intersect.
This means that you, as a male, have access to certain types of privilege that I, as a woman, don’t: it’s unlikely that anyone’s going to casually offer to rape you after class, for example. Your medical concerns are unlikely to be dismissed as “just hormones,” if they happen to pertain to your reproductive organs. You’re unlikely to be told you have to wear high heels to work. You’re less likely to have people ask you whether you’re going to give up your career to have a baby, as if this were an either/or question.
As a white woman, I benefit from certain types of privilege that my friends who aren’t white don’t necessarily experience: I grew up seeing people who looked like me on TV and in the educational materials I was exposed to. Nobody asks me where I’m from. I feel annoyed but not unsafe if the police pull me over on the street. Nobody assumes members of my family are criminals. People don’t touch my hair without asking.I didn’t ask for this privilege, but I got it. I can’t be blamed for what other people do to other people. I just have to accept that even though I don’t want to be treated differently, I am, and try to break down the privilege, so that we all have access to it. It doesn’t help anyone if I deny that my experience is different in a way that’s shaped by my whiteness.
The problem with my white privilege isn’t that my skin pigmentation is the enemy. It’s that society has a lot of racist tendencies. The problem with your male privilege isn’t your gender—it’s the privilege, which you didn’t ask for and may not want. Feminism isn’t about blaming men for benefitting from male privilege. We do ask men to recognize that they benefit from it, and to help to redistribute privilege and power more equitably.
Lisa says:
Urk. I already told Glen I wasn’t gonna do the “Feminist Dissident” thing. But you tempt me. Hmm. If you think others would be interested…I might reconsider (unless he’s chosen to withdraw the offer since I said ‘no,’ of course). ”
Factory replies:
Actually that would be most appreciated. So far the posts have been of stunningly low quality, focusing mainly on attitudes and why MRA’s are such bastards. So far not one post has taken a feminist viewpoint on any of the issues that we disagree on (or does that mean that feminists don’t disagree things are unjust, they just think men DESERVE it?).
At any rate, I’m beginning to think you feminist types are intellectually bankrupt, only able to spout Dogma and talking points, completely unable to think for yourselves.
I am not alone in wanting to be proven wrong in that regard. There is a lot feminism has to offer to the “debate”….you guys just have to accept the fact that there’s another side now….
Incidentally, I am catching a bit of flack from some of the guys (Glenn simply has a problem with my take on the FemDiss series (garbage output, GREAT idea)), but screw èm if they can`t have some integrity.
C`mon Lisa….write something cool so I can shoot it full of holes.
Please?
Patriarchy theory, in it’s totality, is utter bullshit.
Zingerella,
Thank you for taking the time to provide a more detailed explanation of what you mean by patriarchy. Let me begin by saying that while you directly acknowledge that the patriarchy is not meant to directly imply men, I do not believe that every feminist has gotten the memo… either that or they don’t truly understand what it means, or they do not share your definition of the word.
I say this not as a criticism of your definition, but so you can more easily understand why it can be confusing to others. There appears to be no standard usage in place, and by virtue of the “pat” prefix, many who utilize the word just apply it to men in general as a result men are made out to be the enemy.
Surely you can understand why that would be off putting and not the best way to engage others in conversation. I have tried before to pin down a definition for the term and have always run into conflicting usage, it usually occurs by virtue of someone using the word patriarchy and the words man or men completely interchangeably. If men aren’t the enemy, then not enough feminists seem to understand this point.
All that being said, I believe that you are looking at things too much from one side. It is often difficult to put oneself into another person’s shoes, but I ask you to try for a moment as I offer counter points to what you have said here:
“This means that you, as a male, have access to certain types of privilege that I, as a woman, don’t: it’s unlikely that anyone’s going to casually offer to rape you after class, for example. Your medical concerns are unlikely to be dismissed as “just hormones,” if they happen to pertain to your reproductive organs. You’re unlikely to be told you have to wear high heels to work. You’re less likely to have people ask you whether you’re going to give up your career to have a baby, as if this were an either/or question.”
I agree with you that men are regarded differently by society; I do not agree however that somehow the deck is stacked against women. It is all context and situation sensitive, in some scenarios women come out on top and in others men come out on top. Let me use your statement above as a template:
As a woman you have access to certain types of privileges that I, as a man do not. It is unlikely that anyone will jump in and rescue me if I am being physically assaulted in public, if a choice is to be made over who to save women trump men (i.e. “women and children first”). Your physical suffering is sympathized with in the event that you are injured whereas men need to just tough it out and “walk it off”, no emotional response is acceptable. You’re unlikely to be told that you need to keep your hair short for work. You’re less likely to have people look at you as a bum if you choose to stay home and care for your children.
See my point?… For each and every privilege that you bring up for being a man, I can offer a counter privilege for being a woman. Acting like men are living the high life while women get the shaft really isn’t reflective of reality.
In all honesty, if you could wake up tomorrow and have the privileges of a man while giving up the privileges of a woman, would you do it?
You might be inclined to say yes, but I suggest that you look into a book called self made man written by a woman who decided to dress up like a man and see a bit of life from the other side. Needless to say, I’m pretty sure she came away from the experience not thinking that men had everything so great. Keep in mind that if things were so wonderful as a man she could have continued the charade as long as she liked… she doesn’t go to the trouble anymore.
Another interesting example includes online personas. Studies have shown disparate treatment offered to people who portray themselves as women versus men whereby the female persona’s tend to be offered more help and more freebies. This is so well known that many men who play massively multiplayer online games will purposefully select female avatars because other male players will just give them things. Women who use male avatars instantly notice that they are treated more harshly by those around them and people are less empathetic with them, less likely to just be nice to them. It is really quite interesting actually and sheds light onto how social privilege actually functions.
Men are privileged in that they are considered to be able to handle themselves, and are disadvantaged when it appears they need help. Women are privileged in that society in general is looking out to help them, but are disadvantaged in that they are not always deemed to be self reliant.
It is all related and is really two sides of the same coin. To suggest that men get social benefits more than women really isn’t accurate… it depends entirely upon the situation being considered.
It isn’t really the same as race based privilidges as those are the result of entirely different social forces.
Danny: Feminism is rather thinly veiled Marxism, so I’m sure class-ist connections have not escaped their notice. In fact, you bolster their arguments in a fashion. It’s the basis of the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, or PHMT, argument.
Patriarchies in the manner described by feminists has never existed in our society.
Never.
In fact, I’ll go one further and say that not only is Patriarchy theory crap, but it’s simply a justification for treating men like shit.
Problem is, it’s coming back to bite women in the ass huge. Misogyny wasn’t really ever a problem before (meaning not many men either hated, OR feared women – the definition of misogyny). Feminism has CREATED huge swaths of men that wouldn’t normally be misogynistic, but are after the manner in which they’re treated/received/whatever.
As to the Marriage Strike thing….. all I can say is feminism has never made any kind of a secret of their desire to destroy the family. This plays quite nicely into that agenda. The real surprise is that many women have even noticed.
Oops, kept reading…..Quin trotted out the PHMT argument for you. There it is. Read it and weep.
Zingerella Zings: “Gender is not the enemy of feminists. The patriarchy is not men. The patriarchy is a structure—a set of social systems and power dynamics—that on average grants men greater access to choice and more privilege than women. ”
Factory is fascinated: Could you please explain to me where exactly men have greater choice (perhaps defining choice would be a good start), and where men have more privelige (please keep in mind, this is a MUCH different concept from “When you look at the priveleged, they’re mostly men”…I’m asking you to take the opposite starting point…average Joe).
Now THAT would be a great FemDiss topic.
Factory sez: “Incidentally, I am catching a bit of flack from some of the guys (Glenn simply has a problem with my take on the FemDiss series (garbage output, GREAT idea)), but screw èm if they can`t have some integrity.”
Lisa sez: “What flack? Should I seriously go over there and post something? I don’t even know if Glenn wants to re-extend his offer!”
Updated to add: For some reason, I can’t get on Glenn’s site at all…stupid internet. Well, once I can, I will go ahead and see what the lay of the land is.
Hey Lisa,
Just a few things. The first is that according to Factory you can hold your own pretty well in a debate. That is high praise in my book and as such I am somewhat disappointed that you didn’t take more of an opportunity to engage people in discussion over by GS’s Blog before. That being said, I think it is easy for people to get off on the wrong foot… so while my first impression of you wasn’t exactly stellar based upon how you approached things over there, I’m also not going to be inflexible in my opinion when someone who knows you far better than I do is fairly adamant about the fact that you’re worth talking to and offer an interesting perspective.
I would like to similarly urge you to also be careful about letting your first impressions of others become your permanent impression of them. I’ve been reading and commenting on Glenn’s site for a long time now and the truth is that most of the people who post there are actually really reasonable, most are very logical, and all have a unique way of looking at things. Everyone has their own little hot-button issues, and on occasion discussions can get slightly contentious, but everyone gets a chance to speak their mind which I think is a good thing.
While you’ve already expressed a desire not to construct a “feminist dissident” post, I’d wager a guess that if you changed your mind Glenn wouldn’t slam the door in your face and would probably welcome anything you had to say. There are probably many people who would like the opportunity to discuss things with you… there are probably also those who would just like to argue with you. Odds are your perspective is very different from the majority perspective over there… but from what Factory has indicated that is something you are very used to dealing with.
I’m not going to say that if you did choose to write something that you would be met by an enthusiastic parade… but you would definitely get a response, the “feminist dissident” posts tend to get lots of attention very quickly. The community also really seems to appreciate it when the person making the initial post responds to critiques and counter points, but it isn’t a requirement (they will just complain if you don’t, as you quite aptly said though, being a voice of dissent tends to garner much more attention than when you are in agreement with the majority). I don’t think people would even expect you to cover everything… even just an honest attempt would impress many people I think. Again though, not all of those critiques and counter points are necessarily going to be issued in a completely polite or civil manner… but many of them will be, so you can always choose to just ignore the less polite responses if there are any.
Whatever you ultimately decide to do (i.e. compose a “feminist dissident” article, just engage in conversation, or forget the site even exists) the only advice I would like to offer is that suggesting that the people you are conversing with are trolls as part of your introduction is a sure fire way to set things off on the wrong foot.
That was actually my main problem with how you handled things and I stand by that assessment. That doesn’t mean I’d ignore you if you have compelling points to bring to the table. Since you and Factory are friends and Factory has some criticisms of the topics discussed in the feminist dissident articles thus far, maybe he can offer you some suggestions of topics to talk about. That way two birds can be killed with one stone, the first being that you’d get a chance to express yourself to people who do not necessarily share your point of view (assuming that sort of thing is appealing to you), and the second being that Factory will get to see a topic discussed that he believes is substantial and worthy of debate.
Anyway, that is my two cents, take it for what it is worth.
In my defense, Jason, we have been visited by folks from Glenn’s site once before, when Antigone (another of our posters here) wrote an article about one of Glenn’s posts and he posted a link to it. They did not stop by to have constructive debate, let’s put it that way–I expected to get a similar avalanche. Also, I had an experience with another person’s blog that I wrote a negative review of (way more negative than my review of Glenn’s though, to be fair) and his supporters popped over and trolled like there was no tomorrow. But I did throw out the possibility that it wouldn’t happen (more like wishful thinking!).
I understand, everyone formulates opinions based upon their experience with others. Since you’ve had some negative experiences before it isn’t totally outlandish for you to have had some expectation of a negative response. My only criticism is that it probably would have been wiser to keep that expectation to yourself and let the cards fall where they may… then AFTER if you received an “avalanche of trolls” you’d be justified to make a comment like that. I am a big proponent of people being innocent until proven guilty and your comment really felt like you were declaring everyone there of being guilty before anyone even said/did anything.
One thing to keep in mind is that LOTS of people post over on GS’s blog. The group is a heterogeneous mixture of people from many different backgrounds and Glenn is VERY lenient about letting people just say what is on their mind (more lenient than I would be to be honest). He does have a couple of rules, but even those aren’t enforced all the time unfortunately. In his defense though, he can’t really be expected to police the activities of hundreds of people… it would become a full time job and he’s got more important things to do, so enforcement probably isn’t what it should be.
I’ve had disagreements with people over there on various topics (usually unrelated to MRA/Feminist issues) and haven’t always been pleased with how the discussion developed… but I have always felt enriched by the difference in perspective so long as it was offered in a fair and reasonable manner. As a matter of fact, Factory and I do not exactly see eye to eye when it comes to climate change (I don’t see eye to eye with some others on Glenn’s blog when it comes to that issue either). That being said, I still hold his opinion in high regard which is what prompted me to reconsider my stance when it came to you. I figured that if what he said was true (and I had no reason to disbelieve him) then you were probably worth a second chance.
What I always try to keep in mind is that it is exceedingly easy to label someone a troll or a trouble maker simple because they disagree with you. In many peoples experience when dealing with feminists online (note I only refer to online interactions here) any dissent at all instantly marks you for all manner of labels… troll is actually the least offensive of the bunch. I believe that those who perpetuate this sort of behavior actually do a serious disservice when it comes to ANY gender based discussions where the goal is to be inclusive. It sets up bad blood and foments discord to an unnecessary extent. Just to let you know, I’ve been banned from a feminist website before merely for expressing my opinion in a manner no different than how I am writing to you now. My story isn’t exactly unique either. So I understand why you would be off put by being banned from an MRA website even when you haven’t said anything offensive.
As I said previously, some posters are interested in constructive debate (I feel that most fall into this category, but I am obviously biased)… and other posters are merely interested in arguing because they have an ax to grind (most times there are justifiable reasons why they feel angry at the system though). If you opt to engage in discussion with us you are probably going to have to deal with both groups to one extent or another.
I realize that you moderate your posts so I only get to see the ones that pass your criteria, but James H, Factory, Jerry and John D are all names I instantly recognize here and they are just a small fraction of the reasonable posters who write on Glenn’s blog. ArgusEyes I do not recognize from Glenn’s blog (if he posts there he probably uses a different name) but he has put together some great youtube videos and in my opinion has demonstrated a consistent devotion toward well reasoned debate and careful consideration of the facts (I’m actually a really big fan of his work and I highly recommend you watching his videos… Factory’s are good too, so since you’ve known him longer you should probably watch those first.)
Believe me, I understand that you didn’t use that as an introduction for no reason at all… what I am trying to say however is that just because someone is bitten by a dog when they are a child does not give them sufficient reason to use a cattle prod on every other canine they run into as an adult “just in case”. As I said in response to you in the thread where you made the statement, it was a “self defensive preemptive strike”… I simply don’t like it when people employ that kind of strategy.
Lisa, it might do you some good to understand that the men’s movement started out quite quiet. The anger you see is a direct result of being ignored and marginalized.
I know, feminists can’t see how a MAN (of all things) could be marginalized.
But that’s just cause most of you are ridiculously self-centered.
Oh yeah, and send the pic. I used to be pretty good at Photoshop…..being a photographer and all..
Yes, I can see where you are going with this, but I cannot see what your purpose of going there could be. Well, actually I can see a possible purpose, but it is so evil that I don’t believe it could be yours.
The evil purpose I can see is to make men appear undeserving of society’s solidarity and compassion (and advocacy, and government programs) by lumping them together with their oppressors. This works either by moral tainting or just by the “fools have only themselves to blame” logic, where men are shown as fools because they oppress “themselves”. But hey, who am I preachig to? A feminist-leaning person certainly doesn’t need to be elucidated on how victim blaming works.
Mea culpa for not taking my nystagmus medication that day, but your explanation is still dubious. It looks like an ad-hoc. I can only agree that women are not perceived as posing a significant threat, but this is because women are seen as civilized and spiritually developed while men are seen as savages, not because women are treated like children. History provides long score of such unequal sentencing practices that have both expressed and maintained privilege of one group over another. A serf in Poland before 19th century would be capitally punished for killing either a noble or another serf (and for a host of minor offences too), while a noble would only pay a fine for killing a serf.
Another problem for your theoretical explanation is child custody. If women were truly deemed “not much of a step above children in terms of their control of their own actions”, we could predict that those who never fail to emphasize the best interest of the child, and how much maturity and responsibility it takes to be a good parent, would be rather disinclined to grant child custody even to divorcing women, let alone Mary Winkler. This prediction fails spectacularly.
This is just a statistical consequence of the fact that women are orders of magnitude more sexually desired by men than vice versa (and yes, there are cultural factors to it, not just biology). A certain percentage of those who are sexually interested in us will be nasty, but a man can live his entire life without encountering a single such specimen, while at least some women encounter them daily, simply because they are a thousand or so times more desired. The primary difference here is the difference of wantedness, and this difference gives women immense personal power. While it would be a stretch of the definition to call it privilege, it is certainly a bonus. The inconvenience of having to deal with the nasty ones is just a little tax you pay for it.
This is as far from the truth as it gets. If you could take a walk around the city and calculate the ratio of pink to blue ribbons on billboards… well that’s a big if because you can’t divide by zero. All the breast/crevical cancer awareness marches, all the funding the related medical research receives, six different BC awareness brochures and none about prostate cancer available at the drugstore across the street, on the table by the blood pressure meter – is that how society dismisses women’s reproductive health as “just hormones”?
Another complete reversal of reality. Women’s professional dress code is much more lax than men’s these days.
Yes, in fact I am never asked that. It is assumed I won’t.
Feminism isn’t about blaming men for benefitting from male privilege.
On the large scale of feminism that may be the case but the fact is some feminists think that just because I have male privilege when I am wronged by the system I suddenly only have my gender to blame. The problem with the men that dominate the top isn’t that fact that they are men, it’s the fact that they are greedy, corrupt, and abuse their power. Is their male privilege? Yes. Did I help create it? No. Should it eliminated? Yes. Does being told that I don’t have any legitimate gripes because I share gender with most of the people at the top make sense. Hell no.
And one last thing. Disagreeing with feminists on the concept of privilege does not automatically mean the dissenters are “blinded by their privilege.”
Lisa sez: “What flack? Should I seriously go over there and post something? I don’t even know if Glenn wants to re-extend his offer!”
I’m certain he will and I also firmly believe that he will not hold your previous decline against you (although I can’t say the same for his commenters). While he is only one MRA he is a good example of just allowing dissenting opinions. I’ve seen plenty of feminists sites that they literally don’t want to hear dissenting opinions because they’ve already decided they’ve heard it all before. And that attitude is exactly where those bingo cards and troll lists come from. Frankly speaking there are a lot of feminists out there that are so arrogant that they think their views are above and beyond question.
“This means that you, as a male, have access to certain types of privilege that I, as a woman, don’t: it’s unlikely that anyone’s going to casually offer to rape you after class, for example. Your medical concerns are unlikely to be dismissed as “just hormones,” if they happen to pertain to your reproductive organs. You’re unlikely to be told you have to wear high heels to work. You’re less likely to have people ask you whether you’re going to give up your career to have a baby, as if this were an either/or question.”
The way Jason and BASTA! address those points makes one thing shiningly clear. When women are pointing out “male privilege” they are doing so by completely refusing to acknowledge the privileges that women have over men. And to make things more interesting when those privileges are pointed out feminists will link to Feminism 101 where they “prove” that the unfair advantages women have over men are not privileges but just “benevolent sexism”. And speaking of that site I have a question. If feminism are trying to target men then why do they feel the need to redefine the concepts of sexism and privilege so that it is ALWAYS men being privileged over women and men committing sexism against women. This all from a site that at one time held (and probably still do hold) the belief that women cannot commit sexism against men.