Um, What About The Men And Boys?
Obama has just signed an executive order creating a White House Council on Women and Girls. From AFP:
"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," Obama said.The council will meet regularly, he said, and will include Clinton, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder among other members, Obama said.
"I sign this order not just as a president, but as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father," Obama said.
He cited the example of his mother, Ann Dunham, who educated herself even while she worried about paying the bills and cared for Obama and his sister as a single parent.
Obama also recalled the example of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who worked hard in the corporate world, but then hit a glass ceiling and saw less qualified men get jobs ahead of her.
"I've seen Michelle, the rock of the Obama family, juggling work and parenting with more skill and grace than anybody that I know," he said.
I've heard horrific stories of men being denied access to their children after a divorce, of boys getting harsh punishments that are not applied by schools or the legal system to girls, and I've seen scholarship and fellowship programs for women and minorities where guys, especially white guys, can't get in.
We don't fight discrimination with discrimination -- and while I am not for "councils" of this kind to begin with, I'm disgusted that the president thinks it's a good thing to come out with a council for women and girls when there are vast problems men and boys are dealing with.
And come to think of it, life is tough. For all of us in various ways. Isn't the president himself supposed to be a council for ALL Americans? Now that we've got a black guy in The White House, can't we stop with the coddling groups and special rights and privileges for some?
Then again, if you really want to change things, to really improve life for a great number of people (especially children), how about coming up with a Council Against Single Motherhood, including rich, largely white women, who are selfish, me-first/children's needs second "single mothers by choice"?
goodonya' kid... we need more women to be asking these questions, because when guys ask them we get dismissed with "you're just whining..."
SwissArmyD at March 12, 2009 10:20 AM
You go, Amy, tell it like it is. :-)
Catherine at March 12, 2009 10:47 AM
Actions speak louder than words. The guy willingly & eagerly sat through 20 years of Jeremiah Wright's sermons, so where did anybody get the idea that Obama actually believes in justice for all, privilege for none? From some sappy speeches that somebody else wrote for him?
You & Dr Helen really stand out from the crowd on this issue. When you get your Web TV show off the ground, remember that there's a lot of red meat here.
Martin at March 12, 2009 10:55 AM
White House Council on Women and Girls
What's missing here? Oh, I know!
People of color! There, that's everyone!
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at March 12, 2009 11:18 AM
Thanks for writing this, Amy. It's nice to see some people objecting to the endless commissons on women and girls, when it's men and boys that are being shortchanged in modern society.
MIOnline at March 12, 2009 11:25 AM
Dead on with your post.
Ariel at March 12, 2009 11:27 AM
I also find it funny that Obama's pandering in this way, while he also wants to talk to those "moderate" Taliban members who don't exactly have the best women's rights track record in the world...
Kim at March 12, 2009 12:09 PM
(Apologies to our European and other friends here... us 'Muricans need to go off in the corner and have a private conversation for a moment.) Hey, I've got an idea! How about we all stop micro-Balkanizing each other and start regarding each other as simply Americans? I kind of think that was supposed to be the point back when this all started, y'know.
Cousin Dave at March 12, 2009 12:13 PM
One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who did not whine, nag, or bitch.
But it was a long time ago, and it was just that one day.
o.O
Flynne at March 12, 2009 12:17 PM
This sounds like a job for Barney Frank!
Jim Treacher at March 12, 2009 1:07 PM
Thank you Amy. Seriously. NPR's report on this this morning really upset me since it was filled with so many myths and half-truths.
I think it's important to end discrimination of all kinds, and I don't see how perpetuating myths, urban legends, and half-truths accomplishes anything other than hurt.
And as a father of two girls, rest assured I want nothing more than their success in the world, and I suspect most fathers feel the same way.
At the NPR report they listened to Obama's pick to head his council talk about how women are paid fractions of what a man earns, and talk about how important it is to use a percentage of the stimulus for jobs for women, and talk about how we need to make child care more affordable for women.
I'm away from my usual computer and sources at the moment, but the truth is:
a) any wage gap attributable to gender is about 5% now, according to two recent studies (and one discussed just a few days ago at Glenn Sacks' site and commissioned by the Dept. of Labor.)
b) According to the Boston Globe, last year, men lost over a million jobs, while women gained in employment. The employment situation sucks for everyone, but actually not so much in the industries that favor good jobs for women (health care, law, ...)
c) Child care should be made available, but at the same time we hear testimonies of all the jobs (home, childcare, work) that women are forced to endure at once, let's talk about the bias for sole custody of children that NOW and other feminists support. Perhaps if divorced mothers and fathers shared custody as default, so many single mothers wouldn't be in their labor predicament....
Anyway, thank you.
jerry at March 12, 2009 1:17 PM
This is the era of "Moby-Dick"; the hunt for the big white one is open. The whole mess is riding on the coattails of Obama since he got elected.
I think the current administration will do to capitalism and men's rights what the Bush Era did to Atheists and critical thinkers; it will be call to rally. In fact, it has already started; the sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has reached an all-time high.
I remember how Moby-Dick ends. I wonder if they will see it coming.
Toubrouk (Call me Ismael) at March 12, 2009 1:19 PM
a droplet of truth in a sea of deceit
i got on you pretty good half-a-dozen years ago, there, o advice goddess, but i see you haven't been afraid to learn in the intervening years
well done
ray
ray at March 12, 2009 1:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/12/um_what_about_t.html#comment-1638154">comment from ray"A sea of deceit" you got me on? Um, unlikely, since I'm not a liar, and I work very hard to dig up the truth and present it. People who are regulars here see that I admit when I'm wrong, and change my opinion on things when it's shown to me to be deficient in some way; for example, on the idea that it's okay to be a single mother if you have money and resources. Crid was the one who slapped me around on that one, and I started reading and reading, and now, when it comes to children and how vital dads are, and the need for intact, two-parent families, well, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.
I didn't need anybody's help to see the injustice against men -- and most disgustingly, often perpetrated by women in the name of "equality" and "justice." If you read some of the letters I get from guys who've been denied access to their children...there's a particular heartbreaking e-mail I got recently from a guy in Ohio. There are men out there who are desperate to be the dad their kids need and they're kept away by spiteful wives who use the courts to exact revenge...which, ultimately, works out to not just be revenge on the guy, but on the kid who is deprived of a dad, totally or to a great extent.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2009 1:43 PM
"Council Against Single Motherhood, including rich, largely white women, who are selfish, me-first/children's needs second "single mothers by choice"
Preach it, sister! What utter rot. Can we secede from "womenhood" somehow, those of us with brains and guts? I don't care to be associated with this crap.
momof3 at March 12, 2009 1:58 PM
Actually, it looks like Ray was saying that Amy's blog is a droplet of truth in a sea of deceit, not that her blog is a sea of deceit. So it looks like he's agreeing with Amy.
MIOnline at March 12, 2009 2:53 PM
Yeah... I don't know what point ray's trying to make, either.
(I wondered how long it was going to take for this new COWAG to show up in your blog... didn't they announce it yesterday?)
ahw at March 12, 2009 3:01 PM
Cousin Dave wrote: "One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who did not whine, nag, or bitch.
But it was a long time ago, and it was just that one day."
I understand where your feelings are coming from, Dave, because I come from the same place. But, there are some women who are not whining, nagging, or bitching -- and one of them has a blog you just wrote on!
The fact is, though, there is a long list of men's problems (e.g., disproportionately low life expectancy, routine loss of children, the draft, and routine genital mutilation, to cite just 4 of this long list), and any one of them would be considered the Number One Priority of the "Equal" Rights Movement -- if they affected women the way they affect men.
Equalist at March 12, 2009 5:13 PM
Actually, Flynne wrote the little "once upon a time" story, not Cousin Dave.
It's easy to get confused over who wrote what, but it's the person below the line who it the author of a comment.
MIOnline at March 12, 2009 7:20 PM
Well, I'm one woman who not only believes in equal selective service, I registered! We'll see what happens if my number ever comes up...
Am 7 months preggers with my first bot, who will NOT be getting his penis cut. Barbaric in the extreme!
momof3 at March 12, 2009 7:29 PM
Momof3,
You just redeemed yourself, as if you ever needed to, on two counts. Registered for the draft - well met, fellow citizen.
Jim at March 12, 2009 8:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/12/um_what_about_t.html#comment-1638178">comment from ahw(I wondered how long it was going to take for this new COWAG to show up in your blog... didn't they announce it yesterday?)
I spoke to two different classes yesterday at Uni High (usually I only do one), so I spent the morning preparing and the afternoon speaking...rare day off the Internet!
Curtis, your story is just terrible -- and it does seem actionable.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2009 8:28 PM
I believe all men are for feminism as we understood it. Not this the new world order version in disguise. The ride to get to the female American revolution controlling all resources has worked, but dang it ! It has cost us at least a third of our GDP and more in lives year on year to support it. It has also created a mindless legal system that Big Bro would be proud of. Most of our wealth is turned over to consumerism with shallow gratification. We ain't even inventing new things anymore even after all the hoopla. Mass created government employment through the ruse of child abuse, DV and worse have as a side issue created the most efficient ID systems, interlocked with the monetary, medical and legal systems on the planet. It has also created along the way a plethora of soft political eugenics programs. Yet it all still won't add up to zilch. How we claimed male types must hate ourselves for creating the female utopia, apart from those who never left the teet. By the numbers, output and anti critical thinking thanks to Big Ed we have much to fear in the future. We are locked in. I still can hear Kruschev's heel banging on the podium of congress, even now. He got us all, as he promised. Even as Brock Chisolm in his epiphany of socialistic utopian thinking of no more wars, set the new world order in motion, 'it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.'
AndrewEss at March 12, 2009 8:51 PM
AQuite frankly feminist are morons, they go on and on about a male privilage that doesnt exist but will if their efforts are sucssesful.
Imagine a truly feminist society whith only 1 man per 100 or 1000 women.
Men wouldnt have to do anything other than sleep eat and fuck, with so few men we would never have to work in the sewers or as garbage men, we would never have to do the dangerous work of construction or soldiering.
Does no one else see the irony in that if femminists get what they want men truly would become a privilaged sex?
No work, no responsibilites, no danger, non stop sex. I just love the irony
lujlp at March 12, 2009 9:14 PM
History is repleat with matriarchal type societies. Of note would be Sparta, this was a herodatan experiment to create a super fit race of state indentured war slaves. The results of that experiment would parallel what we have now, less the post industrial sophistospeake and acuriments. We would also parallel the female thinking that ensues, whether female or male at whatever level, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. Of interest would be population and gender demand control which was handed to the high priests of the time. Females would present the birthed child who was up and down voted based solely on gender requirements. The citizens were religiously orchestrated and entrusted to obey. Towards the latter years of that pseudo culture, females were materially driven and acquired rights to property and control of all familial assets including children. The males forever at some war campaign or other, placed faith in their wives and signed over complete control, after all it was a great idea. As the society faltered it became apparent that the men folk were scared of their women, who by an accusation of cowardice (Read our term DV) were subject to an immediate death penalty. Wife wanted you out of the way, death penalty, new boyfriend, death penalty. New whatever, death penalty. Males were so afraid of their own women they preferred their concubines or slave classes for fun to having a little coitus delecti with their own 'race'. In the end we could even speculate spartacus the leader of that culture preferred to die than go home to these females. The torment must have been pretty sad to put such men through. In the end as in Rome, the quality and baseness of females became pretty scary, As an army general quoted "Breed with our females for the sake of empire", the answer was inevitable. The end. Be careful what you ask for.
AndrewEss at March 12, 2009 9:53 PM
> when it comes to children and
> how vital dads are, and the
> need for intact, two-parent
> families, well, I'm just
> to the right of Dr. Laura.
Been meaning to talk you 'bout that, Ame-ster. Ame-a-saures. Alkonoid. Ame-afier. Big Red. Blog Goddess.
Last week I heard a few moments of a Dr. Laura call in the car at the end of a commute. I was punching through the radio stations, and only caught a brief fragment before the commercials, at which point it was time to park in the garage. (At that time of day it's between her or two incompetent radio talkers, Medved and Dobbs.) So most of the context of the call was lost. But Laura was verbally punishing one of her many single-mother callers. She asked who was going to raise the little boy, and the woman said she'd be doing it herself.
And Laura replied, with the brevity that comes from doing it for twenty years, 'no.' And then she said, and this is a direct quote: "Men teach boys to be men." Then she asked the question again, got a silly response, and eight seconds later we were in a commericial for lawn ornaments or something.
"Men teach boys to be men." I loved that wording. It's not just that it so clearly punctures the fantasies that badly-liberated women have about being undisputed masters of the intepersonal. It implicitly makes another point: When a mother's casually surrendered the choice of intimate masculine leadership for the growing man in her house, it's entirely possible (probable, even) that she'll get no determinative input on how these forces play out. Maybe the little boy will want to be like Mike. Maybe he'll want to be like Snoop. Maybe he'll want to be like Tyson. Or maybe the drug dealer on the corner, the only man he can count on sharing time with every day. The point is that in early times, boys figure out that women can't be trusted to lead the way. Certainly at puberty (if not well before), they know they're having an experience of the world that their mother has no familiarity with.
Or that their mothers have no familiarity with, if Cody has two mommies... Get the picture?
Women who think that darn it, they'll just have set the little bugger down and give him a good talking-to are pathetically deceived about human nature, including their own.
And I suspect this plays out with some symetry for girls who have two Daddies (or at least no Mommy.) It's a smaller concern, since poorly-socialized women are less likely to be violent offenders, but there's likely some diminished character at work in those hearts, too.
Women (perhaps including you, Amy) hate hearing this for a lot of reasons. As far as gays go, people are rolling with an insane amount of inertia anyway. But beyond that, as noted above, women just hate being told that there's something in the emotional realm that they won't be able to smother with their sheer, compassionate woman-tude.
It's like a man not wanting to ask for directions, but thirty thousand times as tragic. (Didja hear about that one teenager?)
You and Laura agree on many points, but don't understate your differences (a la "two-parent families"). Maybe it's because of her background in thoughtful Judaism, or maybe it's by the sheer, Paglia-style cussedness of her personality. But Laura courageously acknowledges that there are some eternal truths out there which just aren't pleasant, truths which demand that choices be made. And when someone has to be protected from unpleasantness, she thinks first of children.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 12, 2009 10:37 PM
Oh good! The crazy ranters have arrived :P
Max at March 12, 2009 11:08 PM
See also.
(Max, you're the arriviste. Snide comments are welcomed, often encouraged, but you oughta have the courage to explain what you actually disagree with. This will give you the illusion of masculine bearing.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 12, 2009 11:16 PM
(Morning-after regret: Two "sheer, X-ing X-es" in as many paragraphs. Sorry, ever'buddy)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 13, 2009 12:47 AM
>>The point is that in early times, boys figure out that women can't be trusted to lead the way.
Crid,
I wish you'd amplify here.
Which "early times" do you mean?
Jody Tresidder at March 13, 2009 6:33 AM
Flynne - "One day, long, long ago, there lived a woman who did not whine, nag, or bitch.
But it was a long time ago, and it was just that one day."
Not PC, but funny!
Crid - "Men teach boys to be men." - for a short time I ran an informal mena and boys club, with the aim of "reminding men how to be boys, showing boys how to be men." We did things like search for the source of a local river (which involved a lot of tree-climbing and falling in said river), climbing a hill to fly home-made kites, exploring caves. I brought my dog along, but not my bitch, because it was explicitly a boys' club. Always we had a fire and cooked sausages.
Norman at March 13, 2009 7:11 AM
>>Always we had a fire and cooked sausages.
But did you remember the napkins and the fruity barbecue sauce, Norman!
Jody Tresidder at March 13, 2009 7:36 AM
I am worried about the consecuences of ignoring the needs of men while protecting so much the needs of women.
This could cause social resentment, and the relations between men and women would forever be broken. I am 20 years old and I am in college. None of my friends, nor me thinks about the posibility of getting married in the future, divorce is scarry and men always losses in divorce.
Maybe the future of the family will be single mother homes only. On that point the american society will be in serious trouble.
Hulkmania at March 13, 2009 8:05 AM
"I am 20 years old and I am in college. None of my friends, nor me thinks about the posibility of getting married in the future, divorce is scarry and men always losses in divorce."
I wish I had had that insight when I was 20.
Steamer at March 13, 2009 8:30 AM
> Which "early times" do you mean?
Youth.
There's always a woman out there who wants to know the precise hour that a boy does this learning, so that she can bring in a "role model".
Grateful as we are to the Martins of the world for their service to young gentlemen, this kind of thinking is to be avoided. A few happy outings is not the same thing as loving fatherhood. Children watch those around them whenever they feel like it, and only then; they're notoriously unmanageable that way.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 13, 2009 8:58 AM
Maybe all these endlessly whining "victims", like these women complaining about how tough life is, should create a "Council for Life Being so Darned Unfair, Boo Hoo Hoo".
I hit a glass ceiling in my previous job too, due to office politics, but being a white male I didn't have "being a woman" to blame it on. So instead of crying all day, I resigned, got off my butt, worked hard and started my own business, which is now steadily growing and employing new people.
I laughed the other day when a female BBC interviewer, interviewing a highly successful Chinese businesswomen, earnestly issued the standard "expected" feminist-brainwashed anti-male propaganda question in our society (without no hint of irony at her own success as a female career-woman), "how did you cope with it being so tough as a woman trying to succeed in an industry dominated by men?" - well I guess the Chinese haven't been as brainwashed as us Westerners, because she looked puzzled for a moment, and then immediately said, with some bemusement, "On the contrary, I've found that I've had a massive advantage as a woman" - clearly not the answer the "journalist" was expecting or hoping for!
DavidJ at March 13, 2009 9:32 AM
AMEN, Amy.
Aside from the necessary male influence, another thing children (of either sex) in single-parent families don't get much chance to learn is how a relationship works, and how two people successfully navigate the difficult terrain of marriage and family.
BerthaMinerva at March 13, 2009 9:44 AM
lujlp... you ever seen "a boy and his dog"? It'd be like that... tied down to a table and sucked dry. true feministas hate men too much to allow us to live.
SwissArmyD at March 13, 2009 9:54 AM
"Does no one else see the irony in that if femminists get what they want men truly would become a privilaged sex?
No work, no responsibilites, no danger, non stop sex. I just love the irony"
Except that with the almost complete collapse of a military defense system (sorry, I just can't see women organising, creating and successfully running a modern powerful military all on their own, sacrificing their lives to do the dirty work of defense), society would be overrun and destroyed by enemies within a matter of months or years. The very civilization that *allows* modern women equality to exist and function, as an abstract concept within a society of abstracts - exists only as a small, flimsy "clearing in the forest", a small clearing of order carved out against the endless chaos just beyond its borders - carved out and sustained by *men*, quietly and uncomplainingly even while being vilified by those they defend. I wonder how long they'll continue to be willing to do that if they're continually vilified.
DavidJ at March 13, 2009 9:57 AM
SwissArmyD~ That depends on your definition of a feminist. The true controlling lesbian feminist simple transplants patriarchy and models itself the same. Patriarchy is synonymous with male, and forms a good template to place over their philosophy, indoctrination techniques and subtle formations of governmental policy. With that you have to couple older long term strategies of the CFR, the Club of Rome..yada..yah
AndrewEss at March 13, 2009 10:01 AM
AndrewEss... I use the term feminista sparingly, and only to mean the type that simply want to turn their perception of Men being in controll to Women being in control. They are not looking for equality, really.
I have no problem with feminists who seek to be equal. Only those who wish to punish me retroactively for every bad thing any man anywhere has ever done.
SwissArmyD at March 13, 2009 11:30 AM
SwissArmyD~Indeed, I was clarifying that we are reading the same lexicon. In my simplistic vain attempt also trying to kick up the level of speculative dogma as to the cause and the possible outcomes. Consumerism (read Religion) at a base level was always the forte of feminism and also the key, IMHO that was necessary to satisfy producing an indolent and effete populate. There are also global political strategies for wayward and undecided palliatives to doctrines of necessity. We males tend to resort to our natural state of preservation or turf protecting when confronted by confusion. This in turn leads to ego bashing, we should lament our own demise. As best described by the analogy, 'we couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery without some swaying of testerone and testicles. Try PowerKills by R.J. Rummel, on true world statesmanship and nationalistic psyops.
AndrewEss at March 13, 2009 12:11 PM
I must say I find all this "poor men" stuff a bit wet. It makes me uncomfortable.
Norman at March 13, 2009 2:01 PM
Norman ~ Was that a gynocratic oozing pleasurable wetness or you sharted. As the lone wolfe out there could you kindly illicit a few morsels of your wondrous thought patterns. Perhaps we may be able to relate to your timidity.
AndrewEss at March 13, 2009 2:09 PM
AndrewEss - it's not timidity. Or wondrous thought patterns! It's something like this: are we men or are we mice? For god's sake stop whining: either do something about it or put up with it, but don't whine.
WWJWD? (That's "What would John Wayne do?" Whatever else he was, he was manly.)
Norman at March 13, 2009 2:40 PM
Amy Alkon for President!
frankie at March 13, 2009 3:41 PM
No comment - Crid may be watching!
Norman at March 13, 2009 3:42 PM
So you have the 'I will hack at the branches and let those who are willing have a go at the trunk'. Many have hacked and failed, where have you been. Much of what is remiss are two fundamental morsels of capital interest. Two posts I placed earlier were the concept of a fundamental shift in statecraft, to one of ordered socializing. The second was methodology. As there is no healthy discussion or response. I will try and briefly state that gender polarizing politics is deliberate. Creating unnatural liaisons such as that with feminism and the state is beneficial to those with who own the agenda. Enforcing it required the judicial legal systems complicity. The black robed munchkins we have generated as a result are rewarded well for services rendered, no matter how articulate their latin speake is honed. Supplanting Administrative law and public policy overarching another form of religion (aka Constitutional belief) was masterful. This example of an article illustrates obfuscation by smoke and mirrors. To determine this we have to look at demographics. Not only do we have a lot of retiring baby boomers, we also have a lot of emancipated women (mothers), and by emancipation I mean those who are now child free. Who are now not subject to the transfer of wealth philosophy as practiced by child support. This is a tremendous number of people who need some form of occupational relief in government programs, along with them they bring those who are heavily influenced by feminist doctrines in Big Ed. Boyz and Girlz as a byproduct of effetist fatherless training are not the best material for future societies if there is one planned.
Thus we have an insurmountable cost to welfare in anything but name. Consumerism (aka Capitalism) as practiced here has a back end cost that is totally unfathomable and unpredictable. Whores both male and female who worship that god hopefully will fall foul with a rude awakening. While I speculate, we live in interesting times as to how the state intends to relive itself of that burden. Males will stand by on this issue. Confused as usual since their role is switched in favor of the states 'the women and children first' concept of chivalry or male morality is tested.
AndrewEss at March 13, 2009 3:57 PM
QED
Max at March 13, 2009 11:56 PM
> QED
Latin for "If you can't be clear, be especially vague and pretend you meant to be that way."
> I must say I find all this
> "poor men" stuff a bit wet.
Word. I can't find the strength to read the relevant comments in this stack.... But over at Cosh's, he finds just the right words while considering the Rihanna thing: "the heartbreakingly pathetic 'men's rights' grapevine".
Truth be told, after my divorce, I greatly enjoyed this book. There are many novel truths in there. After mulling them over for twenty minutes, I moved on to other topics.
Amy's post here reflects that clarity, but getting all obsessive makes guys no less pathetic that the feminists they'd decry.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 14, 2009 12:35 AM
CRid you obviously know exactly what I meant by QED.
We could have gone back and forth arguing over whether or not these types of threads always get 'crazy ranters' - or I could just wait for the evidence and append three letters. Can you blame me for taking the easy way?
And I honestly don't have the time or patience for arguing with people in comments on blogs. Don't take it personally.
Max at March 14, 2009 9:08 AM
> And I honestly
Why would we doubt that you'd be straight with us?
> don't have the time or patience
> for arguing with people in
> comments on blogs.
And yet, here you are! Apparently the problem isn't meager interpersonal resources or a dwindling clock, it's skills. Or principles. Or something....
You wanna smirk. You don't want to correct anyone's thinking, you don't want to improve your own ability to communicate, you don't want even want to enjoy the joke of a stronger insult. Now, we all feel the temptation of a drive-by. But what exactly is the shared insight your (emoticon'd) comment sought to acknowledge?
And if we can't tell, why offer the comment?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 14, 2009 11:41 AM
Well done, Amy! I have nothing but respect for people who prove themselves truly altruistic by taking a genuine interest in the well being and treatment of groups they themselves are not members of. People who think like this and realize that dishing out tons of preferential treatment based on gender only creates problems are the ones who should be controlling the United States. I'm not a U.S. citizen, but if I was, and you ran for president, Amy, I would vote for you.
Xtrnl at March 14, 2009 8:38 PM
> I'm not a U.S. citizen, but
> if I was
Where do you find these people?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at March 14, 2009 10:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/12/um_what_about_t.html#comment-1638485">comment from XtrnlThanks -- but I don't consider this altruism, but merely a demand for fairness. You can't say you're for fairness if you're only for fairness for some. That's a demand for preferential treatment dressed up as fairness.
And thanks, too, for your vote, but I'm not qualified to be president -- not that that seems to stop many people from running for and getting into that office!
Amy Alkon at March 15, 2009 1:09 AM
Not at all surprising.
I'm writing my second paper of the semester on male depression and male social gender constructs. I have managed to find five journals devoted to men's studies. There are a mere handful of men's studies undergrad programs, all of which are lumped into gender studies programs, not a single grad program.
Conversely, there are better than a hundred journals devoted to women's studies. Nearly every college with a psych department has a specific women's studies program and if they have a gradschool, there will be a women's studies grad program.
Eighty odd years into the mainstream women's rights movement and hetero-males are still just being told to stop being men. But no one really wants to explain exactly how this should work, other than to tell us to stop dissing chicks, queers and transgendered people. While I certainly agree with the sentiment, this is nothing more than a massive pile of complete and utter shit.
DuWayne at March 15, 2009 6:57 AM
Your comment is highly appreciated, Amy "Advice Goddess" Alkon :) Sometimes I wonder whether people only call for equality as long as their social group is in disadvantage? And as soon as they are better off, they'll just become as despotic, condescendend and selfish as the other ones were before? It is very comforting to see that this does not apply to everyone.
I have to say, this is the first time Barack Obama actually disappointed me. He absolutely correctly stated "I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues". But he doesn't seem to recognize that the same applies to men's issues - I'm not even sure whether he acknowledges the very existence of men's issues at all. At least that's what I hope: that Obama is far too intelligent and virtuous to replace discrimination with discrimination of another kind.
Ray at March 15, 2009 12:56 PM
Great opinion piece, Amy. Thanks for your objectivity and insight -- and so well delivered. I wish more people shared your understanding of what's going on.
Chris Heard at March 15, 2009 1:10 PM
"Well, I'm one woman who not only believes in equal selective service, I registered! We'll see what happens if my number ever comes up.." - momof3
It is illegal for women to register.
https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfRegistration.aspx
"(Note: current law does not allow females to register)"
Dan L at March 15, 2009 3:44 PM
Recently the CONSAD Research Corporation prepared a report for the United States Department of Labor. The report is a result of an analysis of some 50 studies of the earnings differential between men and women in the U.S. This report was posted on the U.S. Department of Labor website, but, shortly after the Obama administration took office, was taken down.
An excerpt from:
http://chamberpost.typepad.com/files/gender_wage_gap_final_report.pdf
"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
NikkisDad at March 15, 2009 4:24 PM
So we have objective, scientific research that clearly indicates that the so-called "wage gap" is not caused by discrimination, that the current recession is having a bigger impact on men than women, that boys are currently doing much worse in school than girls are, and what does our illustrious new leader do???
His administration covers up objective research data that clearly disproves his assertions that there is a "wage gap" between men and women which is caused by discrimination and he creates the White House Council on Women and Girls to "ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy."
Folks, I believe that this provides a pretty clear picture of what this administration's "special relationship" with feminists means for our country.
NikkisDad at March 15, 2009 4:34 PM
Kathleen Parker, author of "Why Men Matter", pretty much seems to think that men are basically just role models.
It is beyond me why MRA's think she is so great.
Norman L. at March 16, 2009 12:24 AM
So much male-bashing out there, they take whatever they can get. There's treating men fairly and rightfully respecting men for what they've achieved and there's turning them into icons. The latter isn't good.
I was friends with a guy who was a movie star because to me he was just a guy I respected because he was older and amazing in a lot of ways -- I didn't slaver over his every word...like I actuallysaw some other movie stars doing. At that point, you're no longer a person, you're a thing to worship. It's icky.
Amy Alkon at March 16, 2009 3:54 AM
"a droplet of truth in a sea of deceit" was an intended compliment -- you seem to have taken it quite backwards -- the "well done" at the end of my comment is also rather a hint....
next time guess i'll just shut up
ray
ray at March 16, 2009 12:23 PM
Let's look at a check list of men's misery and see which things feminists care about:
90% of the homeless? No.
80% of all successful suicides? No reaction.
95% of men on deathrow come from fatherless families? Nada
men 95% of all workplace deaths? No
men live 9 years shorter? No
Men 2 as likely to get cancer (that affect both genders) due to stress of male role? Nuhuh.
rampant false allegations of abuse/rape against men? Naaaaw!
Hoards of children dying do to pro-mom family courts pushing functional dads away at dysfunctional mom's behest (i.e. Baby P, Baby Grace) F*ck no!
Feminists wouldn't give a cup of warm piss if it meant any of these problems would be solved.
But, you just wait until the male birth control pill comes along.
Do feminists care about the above? Nope. Will they give a flying f*ck when men can screw and screw all day long without being sperm-trapped by women? OH MY GOD, YES THEY CARE!
The removal of the ability of women to sperm-trap men (with the male pill) will make the vast majority of the female goody-grab that feminism offers to go "poof" in the blink of an eye.
John D at March 16, 2009 1:40 PM
Not a day goes by without our gynarchial government here in the uk making anti-male laws and providing birth to death healthcare
for women while allowing men to die of things like prostate cancer without respite,even though there is proved medicinal help we are told we cannot afford it.Our beloved deputy prime minister,Harriet Harman,even goes so far as to say no women sahould be jailed.
You see ladies every step forward for you is one back for men.
Today someone in Holland?has declared that women who work nights are more prone to cancer,4 women are already busy sueing.
My question to Amy is"how much longer can we
pay to appease women"?
Please do not forget that the new council you were alluding to not only has powers to oversee womens affairs but essentially every
departrment in government which is basically
handing over the reins of power to them.This will adversely affect every male in the USA
and many more besides.
I woould suggest men take to the streets because they will surely be on them shortly except for the fact that the "top boys" are exempt from any humiliation.
michael savell at March 16, 2009 1:41 PM
michael savell,
that's why Steve Moxon calls her
Harriet Harm-man
Norman L. at March 16, 2009 3:53 PM
John D.
not sure if you live in the U.S., but I think development of the male pill was dropped there fairly recently, due to the idea that there supposedly would not be a big enough market for it, I believe. Someone correct me if they know better.
Norman L. at March 16, 2009 3:57 PM
ray~Interesting insight and solution. "But, you just wait until the male birth control pill comes along".
I was fascinated by that very idea along with ectogenesis and peddled that newbie thought on some no name thread. Opening it up to those unlike myself and some fem rads for an evisceration. Being politically a virgin thrust into a world of hard revised thinking is no place for thse who are isolated emotionally and morally unscrewed. That would describe the journey most of us former daddies take in our our path to emotional closure if ever. However, I digress.
The upshot was that indeed our radical two assed testicless warriors were on me like diarrhea sliding off a shovel. Not unlike any forming dictatorship the standard formula is to politically and legally own the kids, then through the kids the parents. Text book style Marxism aka Gramsci's march through culture Stalinist version II. Take away reproductive power and they are disarmed and feeling threatened. The idea that males also get to barter in the reproductive choice must have given them the eebie geebies. Or so I percieved and was assailed accordingly.
To cut a long diatribe short, the speculative results were in the theorizing of harvesting female human eggs. 1.Creating shell egg like structures filled with liquefied highly nourished females. To emulate the chicken egg environment. 2.Creating hosts out of estrogen enhanced male homosexuals thus furnishing them with their ultimate emotional desire to fulfill the truest expression of a human female.
As for the male pill that would get us halfway to equalizing the playing field. That is for the future, while not I assume part of the big bubbas plan. It is amazing where the mind goes, I am unsure of the state of that male pill pharma tech, but I do know the thread got pulled so the conversation never matured.
AndrewEss at March 17, 2009 10:52 PM
Norman L posted:
"Kathleen Parker, author of "Why Men Matter", pretty much seems to think that men are basically just role models. It is beyond me why MRA's think she is so great."
Me as well, Kathleen Parker seems to be pushing for mens/boys rights, upon a closer look it seems she wants men to be a certain way, and wants women to behave a certain way...for the goal of encouraging men to be what Parker considers "real men"
She does insult men/boys, example her nonsense that men are turning out to be lazy jobless bums who live for video games.
We DO like video games at any age, as they cater to what men love, mathematical challenge: modern video games genuinely challenge the mind and motor skills to calculate and react.
That aside, women tend to get jealous of video games as they want their men to pay full attention to THEM instead...hence types like Parker who come through the back door to try and manipulate society and hence men.
IMHO
RickR at April 7, 2009 7:25 PM
It's not easy for women to "take sides" with the men/boys. Sexists women often tell them they're "man pleasers" who "do it to get attention from men", and boycott blogs etc.
Amy's encouraging because she's clearly mature and grounded and her opinions are from thoughtful perspective, so it's obvious her motives are sincere and have nothing to do with "pleasing men", as it were.
Men and boys in this country need women like Amy, she reminds them that intelligent women with qualities like, gulp, compassion and empathy, still exist.
Also she isn't ramming it down women's throats, she talks in a way that makes them think, which invariably reaches people.
Rick at April 8, 2009 5:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/03/12/um_what_about_t.html#comment-1642232">comment from RickIt's not easy for women to "take sides" with the men/boys. Sexists women often tell them they're "man pleasers" who "do it to get attention from men", and boycott blogs etc.
I get this all the time from female readers of my column -- despite backing up what I write in my column with science and reason. Again, if you're claiming you're looking for fair treatment for all, as I am, when somebody who is not of your gender is being treated unfairly, you have an obligation to speak up. Those who claim to seek fair treatment for all, but don't speak up when men are being discriminated against, make their true desires clear: special treatment for their particular group under the guise of fair treatment.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2009 12:59 AM
"When somebody is not of your gender is being treated unfairly, you have an obligation to speak up."
Yes agreed, something MRAs should consider as well.
New MRAs are angry; the more they realize the sources of misandry include huge influential government/political entities...the angrier they become.
But until they've learned...they tend to blame women as a whole. That usually changes once they've come to terms and calmed down a bit.
But these days there's more folks like Amy, Glenn Sacks, Wendy at ifeminist, that offer a more balanced point of view; in other words the Men's Movement has matured and progressed through the years. And included in that mix of advocates is a fairly large number of women.
Rick at April 14, 2009 3:07 PM
"I didn't slaver over his every word...like I actually saw some other movie stars doing."
Ah, yes... you must admit he had serious chops.
I've had the opportunity to talk to a few actors at DragonCon, and I find them generally humble and appreciative; of course, that might be just the type who show up there. I'm delighted that he found you refreshing.
And they have surprising skill sets. Wouldn't it be cool to have a senior American government official who could speak four or five languages, dance, ride horses and motorcycles and play a dozen musical instruments?
Radwaste at March 19, 2010 6:47 PM
Leave a comment