when the status quo frustrates.

Things That Are Different and Things That Are the Same

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

The wild-eyed woman-hating that apparently characterized this year’s crop of Superbowl ads got me thinking–what do people who make a point of denying that wild-eyed woman-hating really exists in America have to say about it..? Nothing, as far as I could tell–and I don’t blame them; there isn’t much they could say, though I speculated that maybe one or two would capitalize on it as a much-needed backlash against all dem bitchez! or possibly note that the characterization of men as mindless Neanderthals that frequently accompanies ads denigrating women is pretty insulting to men, too.

But in the midst of my aimless perusal of Men’s Rights-type sites, I stumbled across this article: 10 Lies Men Tell Themselves in Order to Stay in Abusive Relationships with their Wives or Girlfriends. I was struck by how very many of the Lies Men Tell Themselves appeared to be very similar, if not identical, to the Lies Women Tell Themselves in Order to Stay In Abusive Relationships. Perhaps not a dazzling revelation–abuse is abuse, regardless of the demographics of the abuser and abusee–but then, that’s also too simplistic of a statement to make. Some forms of abuse really don’t happen much without pre-existing factors that facilitate them; for example, while both parent-on-child and child-on-parent physical abuse does occur, it occurs far more often in the former case due to size disparity, economic imbalance, psychological dominance overwhelmingly in favor of the parent, etc. etc.

(more…)

Don’t do it, don’t look, don’t do it, don’t look–!

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

…well, I couldn’t help myself. I heard about this on the radio today:

George Sodini finally got the attention he wanted. After years of hoping women would take notice of him, Sodini allegedly entered a Pennsylvania health club Tuesday night and murdered three women in cold blood before turning a gun on himself.

Investigators need not puzzle over the motives for Sodini’s rampage; the 48-year-old suspected killer spelled them out in blood-chilling detail in an online diary.

“These are the rambling messages of a likely psychotic” and display characteristics of a man who has been “severely depressed for a long time,” forensic psychologist Naftali Berrill said of Sodini’s writing.

The image that emerges from his blog is that of a loner — a psychopath, routinely rejected by women who spent a year casing the gym and plotting his revenge on the “the young girls here [that] look so beautiful as to not be human, very edible.”

–and I really couldn’t help it–I thought to myself, I wonder what the good old Men’s Rights Activists think about that, hmm? I bet I can guess! But No, surely not!–not even those guys would excuse someone like this. So, after some internal squabbling, I gritted my teeth and nipped over to the foremost of MRAs, whose site I have not visited in a good seven months at least–Mr. Sacks.

Happily, neither Glenn nor the other dude who has apparently taken over much of his blogging activities seems to want to touch this one with a ten-foot pole. That was a genuine relief, and inclined me to think I was perhaps being overly hasty and judgmental in my assumptions regarding any general MRA opinion on the matter. With a somewhat lighter heart I typed in “George Sodini MRA” into Google and hit Search!–

Yeah, that wide-eyed optimism didn’t last too long. Very first hit?

George Sodini is an MRA hero!

Amanda already talked about the blog this was culled from, so I won’t reinvent her wheel. I did scroll down the comments, though, and plucked out the following gems for your indigestion:

George Sodini is an MRA hero as much a reason to learn game. Finally a mass murderer writes a relatively coherent manifesto. Could be better, but at least it is implied that feminism is to blame and he is taking a last stand. I had been waiting for this (almost thinking I had to do it myself) and I am impressed. Kudos.

Arpagus, whose own blog links to the Men’s Activism News Network, among other things

One thing that might help prevent future incidents of this sort is repealing IMBRA, the federal law that essentially put the mail order bride industry out of business.

–Peter, who is probably too stupid to have a blog

I think every man DOES deserve to get laid.

For every nerdy, smelly, fat, or otherwise socially undesirable man out there, there is an equally unattractive woman walking around. (more than one actually because there are more women than men on the planet)

The problem is, our feminized society has given every woman the power to hold out for higher quality men than they deserve.

This creates an imbalance that leads to tragedies like the one in PA.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Newton’s 3rd Law)

If empowered women keep applying pressure, they will create an explosion.

A.J. Travis, whose entire blog consists of (a) how to finely tune a woman’s 1-10 hotness rating to suit your personal life goals before you decide which one to like, devour or whatever and (b) a detailed dwelling on the flaws of the “9″ woman versus the flaws of the “6″ woman

Every man knows they have to EARN respect.

They DESERVE to get laid.

A decent looking man who earns a good living and does not abuse women DESERVES to get laid. Period.

The fact that so many do not, is a crime.

And in a just society, all crimes are eventually punished.

–More A.J. Travis, who I’m starting to really hope lives nowhere near me, especially since there is one non-woman post on his blog and it’s about guns

Have you guys noticed a trend in fat women? Some of the ones I have spoken to actually believe they can get alpha cock. They don’t want to hook up with beta men either. This is a troubling development.

–Game in BK, and nope, no clue what this has to remotely do with the thread, but I just had to reproduce his comment here ’cause can you believe that someone’s really that moronic..? LOL!

…and it goes on, and on, and on…there are a few dissenting voices in there, but mostly they’re drowned out by the angry horde.

Note to anyone who feels e-n-t-i-t-l-e-d to any type of use of my body for any reason whatsoever: No, You Aren’t. Get Over It. And if violence committed against my person of any description based upon this feeling of entitlement seems even remotely justifiable to you, you had probably better commit it like George Sodini did, with a distance weapon and without warning and resulting in me getting killed dead. ‘Cause otherwise, you’ll find out that I have an equally enthusiastic belief in and comfort level with extreme violence in cases of self-defense, and I do tend to hold a grudge.

‘Nuff said.

Anal Sex, Rape and What They Mean to Your Average Straight Man

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

(No, Lisa’s preferences in regards to anal sex or lack thereof are not a theme that is going to be explored in this blog post. If harassed about it, I will briefly state my preference, but hopefully nobody will so far miss the whole point of this post that they will be motivated to ask.)

I got to thinking on this topic today after a brief hop over to Feminsting’s community blogsite where I saw an article entitled “Feminist Critique of Hetero Male Culture Causes Mass MRA Hysteria.” I wasn’t too intrigued by the header there, I’ll admit, because most feminist critiques of anything to do with men and sexuality send most MRAs over the edge of rationality–in other words, well okay but so..? but I was also waiting for about 5 million work emails to finish printing out on my feeble home printer and I had time to kill. So I read it, and followed the embedded link to the original blog post by the author on her own website and read that too.

It wasn’t a bad article, even if the author had to start out with the tired old refrain of “when I was a little girl I was really more like a little boy! because 99% of little girls, unlike me, were all about Barbies and gossip and hated physical activity of any sort–!” I do get tired of that one. It certainly does incline me to agree that the female writers who regularly prop up this stereotype did, indeed, have zero little girlfriends growing up or they’d know better than that. But then, if they acknowledged that to be true, they might have to reconsider why they didn’t actually have more little girlfriends, eh..? I’m sure it’s much more pleasant to imagine that one didn’t because one was simply too guyishly cool for all those little pink rainbow wussies! rather than it being, perhaps, for some other less self-congratulatory reason.

But moving on to the actual point she was trying to make–she certainly got it right about the prevalence of men using being on the receiving end of anal sex as a euphemism for a miserable situation. However, I think she rather missed the boat on why. Men also, just as frequently if not more so, use being raped in the same euphemistic fashion. So, when men are talking about being fucked up the ass by their boss, or the government, or their ex-wife’s lawyer, they’re not actually referring to the mechanics of anal sex–they’re referring to being raped. Since women don’t rape men (yes, I know they do, but bear with me), men are simply using the phrase “fucked up the ass” synonymously with “getting raped.”

That whole idea did strike me as interesting, though–because men also use “rape” euphemistically, with themselves as the main actor, to describe how they absolutely defeated some other person or persons in competition (the competition can be either formal, as in a softball game, or informal, as in getting the best parking space at Wal-Mart). However, they do not ever (that I’ve witnessed) describe themselves as “fucking someone else up the ass” in that way. So the distinction is made, and the distinction seems pretty clear-cut in cause to me. It is homophobic, specifically male-homophobic, and all of a piece with how the most common thing I hear out of pre-pubescent and pubescent boys’ mouths as an insult exchanged with other boys (and since I have a twelve-year-old son and a seventeen-year-old son, I get to hear a lot of this kind of exchange) is, “You’re gay.”

Men, therefore, who use all these euphemisms, have a clear grasp of the essentials–only women and faggots, ie, persons with status less than the standard issue heterosexual man, get fucked up the ass. To be fucked up the ass is to have your human status reduced. If something happens to you that reduces your status in the eyes of others, you have been fucked up the ass. If you soundly defeat another man, you have reduced his status to that of a woman–you have raped him–but you don’t quite want to say that you fucked him up the ass, as he is male like you, because that would make you a faggot and reduce your status too.

This is why we have the seeming paradox of these men fearing rape more than any other crime that could be committed against them, with the possible exception of castration, yet having no issues at all regularly blowing off and otherwise dismissing the rape of women by men, with the sometimes-exception of the rape of a prepubescent woman or a virgin. For them, rape is psychologically devastating because it makes you a homo, and physically painful because while pussies are clearly designed for dicks, assholes aren’t. They accept that rape might also be psychologically damaging because a girl child’s brain probably hasn’t fully accepted adult concepts yet and a virgin is probably saving herself for some special man, and physically damaging because a child’s vagina isn’t quite done developing to full readiness for a man’s penis and because they can imagine that the rupture of the physical membrane that is the hymen could be painful. However, once a female has begun to menstruate and no longer possesses a hymen, her getting fucked in the vagina is totally natural both physically and psychologically–it’s how we were all designed, right?–so it really can’t be considered anything nearly as psychologically or physically devastating as a man getting raped anally by another man. And it doesn’t reduce a pubescent, non-virgin female’s status–she’s already not a virgin, which is the only status boost she could possibly stack onto her pre-existing undeniable femaleness, and once that’s gone, she has no more to lose.

An interesting conundrum that this can present for men who find that they really enjoy receiving anal stimulation–I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with one (I won’t say which one). He asked me, very hesitantly and shame-faced, after the first time we really made a point of trying it out, if I thought that that meant he had homosexual urges. I said, I don’t think so–who do you want to be doing this to you? Me, or a man? You! he said, very definitely, and I said, Well, I think that’s what defines you as homosexual or not–who you’re doing whatever you’re doing with, not what exactly you happen to be doing. But men who want to perform anal sex on women don’t have this agonizing conflict–because, again, it is getting fucked that reduces your status and puts you in your place, not doing the fucking.

I used to wonder why men seemed to have so much trouble empathizing with most types of rapes, when a woman was the victim, or even why they en masse never seemed to take it seriously when a man was raped by a woman, yet clearly had no trouble at all wildly overempathizing with the horror that was a man getting raped by another man. This is the answer, and it’s a pretty sad one.

On an end note, though, I can’t help but preemptively sympathize with the author of the original Feministing community blog post–one of the very first responses to her article was the following, by a self-described “MRAman:”

If you don’t like butt sex you should just say so. Nobody would be surprised anyway, since everyone knows feminists are always opposed to things men like.

Sigh. Yes, that must be it…well, if I’m lucky, our periodic trollers won’t be around to read this particular blog post and visit me with such sage perceptions as well. Fingers crossed. :)

The Evolution of A Feminist; or, Don’t Like Feminists? Stop Helping Create Them.

Friday, November 21st, 2008

(Cross-posted from Glenn’s site. Note: Feminist-friendly moderation is in effect.)

Pat Robertson said it best: “”Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” More succinctly put, feminism is a favorite whipping girl. Feminism has become that magical word–”mainstream”–but that hasn’t made it popular or generally regarded in a positive light. And of all the folks out there that really hate feminists, men’s rights activists are probably among the most virulent and vocal about it.

The big difference between hating black people or Jews and hating feminist women–the difference espoused by people who hate the latter and not the former, say–is that black people or Jews are born that way. It isn’t a choice; being a feminist is a choice, a philosophy, not an ethnicity. Very true–but this argument leads to another, conspicuously not followed through upon by those who advocate it. As they say, feminist women are, indeed, not born feminist. But this does beg the question, doesn’t it..? –why do they become feminist?

(more…)

Heads Up, PunkAssers!

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

As many of you are no doubt aware, I have been writing the occasional article for Glenn Sacks. For reasons known only to himself, Glenn appears to be at least somewhat pleased by my poor efforts as a visiting “Feminist Dissident” on his site. (Whether or not his men’s rights activist audience is pleased by them, I cannot say. I’m not even going to speculate.)

To date, we haven’t had too much trouble. I have confined myself to a general introduction, lacking specifics that would have overly excited his crowd; two articles on child custody, which as I do not favor preferential treatement of the primary caregiver in custody battles, did not incite the residents to riot; and one article on legal paternity, which since I do favor allowing men legal rights in the case of unwilling biological parenthood protecting them from also being forced to engage in legal parenthood, similarly failed to provide a convenient lightning rod. (Caveat: I was dogpiled by the pro-life contingent.)

However, my days of, er, uneasy truce with Glenn’s readers may be over when Glenn posts my next article (which I am in the process of working on now). I am allowing myself to be drawn in by the possibility that the majority of these folks aren’t flat-out misogynists…well, that’s not entirely accurate–it would be more accurate to state that, while it’s tempting to believe that they are based upon their behavior and comments, I am uncomfortable simply making that assumption outright. To date, we have only focused on things that negatively impact some men at the hands of some women; it wouldn’t be fair to base an assessment on their feelings about women in general on how those discussions panned out. Therefore, I am proposing to write an article for Glenn about women in general and feminism specifically and why, perhaps, feminism is really not that uncommon among women, and see where that takes us.

Now, this will require me to actually write as if my target audience might be brought to care in a positive way about what I’m saying, or it won’t be a good article. This will have the unfortunate side effect of requiring me to open up a trifle, not something I enjoy doing with an audience that is much more likely to be jeering and unpleasant than thoughtful and constructive.

So, to make the whole situation more palatable to my subconscious, I have gotten Glenn to agree to let me cross-post the article in its entirety, not just the usual link to his site, where I know the audience will discuss what I’m going to say, whether or not they agree with it, in a thoughtful and constructive fashion that is relatively unlikely to involve personal attacks of any description.

I’m betting I’m gonna need that. So please, stay tuned! :)

Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog: Biological vs. Legal Fatherhood

Friday, November 7th, 2008

Here’s the link! Feel free to post comments here; feminist-friendly moderation of this thread is in effect.

Light bulbs, possibly an allegory.

Saturday, October 25th, 2008

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

The question is problematic, as it contains a number of coded assumptions that make it both inadequate and harmful as a means of developing social justice.

(more…)

Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog: Child Custody, Part Two

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Part Two of my two-part series on child custody after divorce is up over at Glenn Sacks’s “Feminist Dissident.” As before, to allow those who wish to examine Part Two from a feminist-friendly perspective to actually be able to do so in a constructive fashion, the fabulous violet and I will be heavily moderating any comments made about the article over here on this thread at PAB. (PS: If you were banned from the comment thread of Part One, you are not automatically banned from the comment thread of Part Two unless you repeat your Part One behavior.)

Forbidden: ad feminam statements and wild generalizations about what women believe or do and what feminists believe or do. Also, if I or the fabulous violet (or any other PAB moderator) ban you, that’s all she wrote, folks. Arguing about somebody else’s ban or about the fact that these particular threads are under any moderation scheme at all will only allow you the opportunity to share the solidarity of the Hypnotoad.

Allowed: reasoned, polite argument, based in accurate reporting of facts and people’s previous statements, and civil answers to direct questions.

Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog: Child Custody, Part One

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

Part One of my two-part series on child custody after divorce is up over at Glenn Sacks’s “Feminist Dissident;” I actually wrote it as one piece, but it was a trifle on the lengthy side so Glenn split it up into two parts. When Part Two comes out I will throw up a link to that as well; Glenn said he’d probably post it a few days after Part One. To allow those who wish to examine Part One from a pro-feminist/feminist-friendly perspective to actually be able to do so in a constructive fashion, the fabulous violet and I will be heavily moderating any comments made about the article over here on this thread at PAB.

As you’ll see, Part One is simply an in-depth look at what child custody requests are made by which genders and how often those are agreed to by the courts, and speculates as to why. Part Two will express my own opinions about how child custody should be assigned.

UPDATED! To Cross-Post, or Not to Cross-Post? that is the question.

Monday, October 13th, 2008

I just submitted my second article to Glenn Sacks for his “Feminist Dissident” feature–it’ll probably take him a few days to get it posted, so don’t run over looking for it now. What I was wondering, though, was if anybody is interested in seeing it (and future submissions) up here at PAB? I have no preference either way, so just let me know if you do!

UPDATE: Glenn and I talked on the phone and I agreed to not cross-post the article in its entirety over here–I will put up a new post when the article pops up on Glenn’s site with a brief summary as to topic and a link here. Also–I suspect Faith may not be the only one who might like to discuss the article without having to wade through a multiplicity of anti-feminist rhetoric and the periodic “women are giant oozing boogers” statements–so, if you’d like to explore the article’s topic from a feminist-friendly perspective, I can heavily moderate the comments on the article thread here at PAB to keep it that way. Let me know what you’d like to see!

Live From Glenn Sacks’s Blog

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

My “Feminist Dissident” post is up. Feel free to amble over and check it out.