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.

Zingerella wrote:
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.

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.

Your medical concerns are unlikely to be dismissed as “just hormones,” if they happen to pertain to your reproductive organs.

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”?

You’re unlikely to be told you have to wear high heels to work.

Another complete reversal of reality. Women’s professional dress code is much more lax than men’s these days.

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.

Yes, in fact I am never asked that. It is assumed I won’t.

Lisa wrote:
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:

“–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.“

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.

Quin wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.