What 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.
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.