Yes, Vagina, There Really Are Differences Between Men And Women
And we're not just talking about the "down there" stuff, which is about where many feminists would have you stop -- except, that is, when they're trying to demonize all or most men as rapists and child molesters, and rape as something that men, in vast numbers, will start doing, well, just for sport.
Here's a particularly creepy comment from the quaintly named blog "I Blame The Patriarchy."
I have to say, the moment somebody uses that word I know exactly the unfounded hysteria they'll be into -- and this lady (lydy? wmn?) didn't prove me wrong.
speedbudget
April 12, 2009 at 5:55 am
Just once, I'd like to see side by side statistics of "gotcha pregnancies" versus rapes. I think that might bring a little perspective to this MRA nonsense.Oh, Lard, no. Then the MRAs will just start calling rape "gotcha" sex and you know that shit will catch on.
(MRAs are "Men's Rights Activists.")
Who even thinks stuff like this? I'd love to know who these ladies are, and what their real issue is with men. (Look, if it's your mustache keeping you from getting dates, they make products for that, girls.)
Some guys aren't such great people; neither are some women. It's the human condition. But, if you can find me a single men's rights activist who thinks rape is a joke and there should be more of it, well, I'd be seriously shocked. This is about these ladies (we use the term loosely) exercising their hatred against men in their own special little man-hating sphere.
Back to the actual topic of this post, it seems so dumb to have to say so, but there are so many who refuse to believe this -- who see men and women as simply different-shaped versions of the very same thing -- in the name of "equality." Men and women's differing physiologies led to differing psychologies as we evolved over 1.8 million years.
And let me be clear: I'm for fair treatment for all, but it helps to be clear that men and women are decidedly not the same; for example, men have a much higher propensity to take wild risks (and dangerous jobs -- which usually come with higher pay than working in public relations or a nursery school, jobs which tend to have more interest for women). I was reminded of men's propensity for risk-taking this morning by a story in the Times of London by Simon Kurs about the guy who scaled the Lloyds building in London during the G20 summit:
It is the morning of the G20 summit, and as a Who's Who of world leaders gather in London to discuss the precarious future of the global economy, a figure is clinging by sweaty fingertips to a ledge more than 100ft above the streets below.As the City buzzes with thousands of protesters and police, this man has evaded the security around the Lloyd's Building -- in the heart of the Square Mile -- and is now shimmying up its distinctive metallic exoskeleton without so much as a safety harness or rope.
He reaches the top of 300ft-high landmark just after midday, having unfurled a banner in support of onehundredmonths.org, a green website, on the way up, then clambers down again to the base where a reception committee of about 20 police officers has gathered. Amid cheers from the crowd of City workers, he is arrested, escorted to a van and taken away to be questioned.
It's just another day in the life of Alain Robert, aka the Human Spider, who is the world's most notorious -- and prolific -- urban climber. He may be 46 years old but there is no sign of him slowing down.
Since climbing his first building in 1994, Robert has scaled more than 100 skyscrapers around the globe, including the Empire State Building and the Taipei 101 tower, which stands at 1,671ft. He's also tried to climb the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which are the world's tallest twin buildings, getting 60 storeys up before being stopped.
He's been arrested more than 100 times, been beaten and bruised by the security guards he's outwitted, and suffered five serious falls, which have left him with debilitating injuries to his arms and wrists (though these all happened, somewhat ironically, when he wasn't climbing buildings). Oh, and he also suffers from vertigo.
..."I love climbing, and there doesn't ever have to be another reason to do it," he says. "But now I mainly climb to raise awareness for green causes. I have three children and this issue is more important than anything. We have a bunch of charismatic leaders -- including Sarkozy, Obama and Merkel -- who are working in the right way, but we still need to keep thinking about what can be done to protect future generations, with ideas like making energy more efficient and cleaner."
While I've always made it my practice to throw myself into what I was afraid of -- I'm talking about emotional risks, like getting over being terrified of being on TV. I see no need to sky-dive or wander up the side of tall buildings.
Some women do ballsy, physically stuff, but the truth is, the Evilla Knievels of the world are very few and far between -- the point being that men and women truly are different in some ways, and denying that is silly, divisive, and seriously counterproductive.
By admitting the differences -- say, for example, the way women and men tend to see dirt and mess differently (women tend to notice, um, detail, around the house; men, who evolved better distance vision from their days chasing wildebeests, tend to step over it) -- maybe we can all get along a little better.
Speaking as a woman who works as a software developer, who wouldn't know what to do with herself in public relations, and who has a rehearsal tonight for an aerial dance performance on the side of a 15-story building...
...I have no objection at all to recognizing the statistical differences between men as a population and women as a population. I only ask two things:
1. That outliers like me also be acknowledged, so we don't have to deal with annoying assumptions about what we like and/or are good at, and
2. That talents that are statistically stronger in women not be automatically devalued.
The latter does happen, though not as much as it used to.
The Other Lily at April 13, 2009 8:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642772">comment from The Other LilyI'm an outlier, too. And a friend of mine, Barb Oakley, who wrote Evil Genes, and who worked as a Russian translator on Soviet trawlers in the Bering Sea, served as a radio operator at the South Pole Station in Antarctica, rose from private to captain in the US Army, and is a professor of engineering...is a super outlier!
Generalities about people don't mean outliers don't exist -- we're just the oddballs.
Barb is just so cool. She lives in Michigan and teaches at Oakland University. She, along with Lisa Zunshine and a few of my other brilliant friends are people I'd do anything to get prof jobs for in So. Cal because I'd love to hang out with them more than on the occasional visit.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 8:56 AM
I'm having a hard time thinking this one through, exactly. The Speedbudget comment thread cited above is pretty nasty, but I couldn't help thinking that the writer's view of equality boiled down to "everyone's attitude is as vile as mine is."
Other Lily: I'd like to think most people realize that statistical differences between male and female populations are useful, but can't be assumed to apply to any single individual.
By the way, what's aerial dance on a 15-story building? Are you going to be hanging in the air or something?
old rpm daddy at April 13, 2009 8:58 AM
"statistical differences between male and female populations are useful, but can't be assumed to apply to any single individual."
No truer words written. You have to assess the other person as to where they fall on the curve.
After that it becomes more complicated...
Ariel at April 13, 2009 9:02 AM
Amy,
Talking about balls & (balletic) bravado, have you caught the Oscar-winning documentary about the tightrope walker "Man on Wire"?
It's absolutely hypnotic. Also very, very French and very, very American at the same time!
Jody Tresidder at April 13, 2009 9:04 AM
"1. That outliers like me also be acknowledged, so we don't have to deal with annoying assumptions about what we like and/or are good at" The other Lily
But that's the thing, when people are making assumptions, they are looking at the bell curve, NOT the outliers. So... gently remind them that you are actually more, and then show them. Don't harsh them for making assumptions, some of which you might make yourself. You can also help them understand that those assumptive traits are not limitations.
These are NOT just statistical differences. We ARE different, and not just as individuals. I have a friend who can ski me into the ground, make jumps I will never take, even on black diamonds. But when confronted with power tools? No matter how many things I have shown her, she won't use them, and anything that has to deal with cars is something she isn't interested in. AND she's an engineer.
On the other hand? I hate cooking with a fiery passion. Doesn't mean I can't do it, I'm not interested in it.
On the other hand, the different shaped versions of the same thing assumption, drives me insane WHEN it is paired with traditional gender assumptions. Because of the conflict in terms...
"I can do anything you can do, but go kill that spider, why don't you ever help around the house, and you are folding those towels wrong!"
the most impoortant thing we can ever do is remember that truth is a three edged sword. My truth, your truth and actual truth. Our point of views and experiences are different, and are supposed to be that way... what we do to reach out, to bridge, that is the prize.
SwissArmyD at April 13, 2009 9:05 AM
Hey, The Other Lily: I'm going to take one of those classes! (I'm pregnant now, so obviously can't... but it looks like lots of fun.) I'll just stick to the in-studio stuff... no hanging off the sides of buildings for me.
ahw at April 13, 2009 9:19 AM
By the way, what's aerial dance on a 15-story building? Are you going to be hanging in the air or something?
http://www.bluelapislight.org/images/HyattImages/index.html
(I don't do the really cool stuff -- just choreographed descents. It's a great gig, though!)
The Other Lily at April 13, 2009 9:20 AM
Well said, Swiss. Though I've long since gotten used to killing my own spiders.
Is it just me or is that Alain Robert person just a flat-out asshole?
T's Grammy at April 13, 2009 9:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642788">comment from T's GrammyWhile I order my steak "still mooing," I see no need to kill spiders. I scoop them up on a sheet of typing paper and drop them in the bushes.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 9:29 AM
I use a trick my mother taught me for spiders, giant roaches, wasps, bees, etc.: I pop a large plastic cup over them, slide a sheet of thin cardboard under the cup, and release the critter outside. (I even did this once with a mouse in my then-workplace!)
The Other Lily at April 13, 2009 9:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642793">comment from The Other LilyI'll have to do that with the plastic cup. Thanks for the tip.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 9:45 AM
Last time I saw a spider I was halway across the kitchen ans perched on top of the fridge in less than a second - I hate those things
lujlp at April 13, 2009 9:48 AM
I'm a toxicologist by training, so killing vermin is no big deal. Except I like the mice in our garage and don't feel the need to kill every arachnid. The only time I asked my husband to kill anything was when my morning sickness was so bad just looking at hamburger would make me retch.
I handle all medical/biology issues, and my husband the engineer handles mechanical stuff.
Ruth at April 13, 2009 9:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642800">comment from RuthI find it very romantic that Gregg cooks for me. One of the most romantic meals we've ever had was in Paris, on our anniversary. He was going to make us reservations, but asked if I wanted to eat in instead (in the apartment we were staying in) -- and I did. I find it completely heartwarming to watch my big, Detroit man's man carefully sauteeing carrots and haricots verts (green beans -- which he pronounces in adorably, terribly wrong French-ish, but only, ONLY when in Paris).
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 9:57 AM
Other Lily -- re: bluelapislight.org: Eeeeeeeek!
Regarding the plastic-cup-over-the-bug trick. Needed that once, many years ago. Picture this: hot summer night in Germany, and me sleeping with all the windows open. I awaken to the feeling of a bug on my face. I look over in the dark to the foot of my bed, and see a black smudge on the wall. Turning on lights, I see a five-inch grasshopper! Eeew! It had been on my head only a moment before! I know if I mash him, it will be gross, and if I miss, he might land on me again. I'm running around in my undershorts at two in the morning, trying to figure out what to do. Finally, I grab a wastebasket, put it over the top of him, whack the basket to startle the bug, and cover the top with heavy paper. I throw the whole assembly, grasshopper and all, out on my balcony, shut all my windows, and try to go back to sleep, which I did, eventually.
old rpm daddy at April 13, 2009 10:07 AM
"Man's man"? What does that mean?
I'm perfectly happy with my human, whether he is doing 'women's work' for me or not. I dare say, it's even more heartwarming.
Sheesh, do you even read the crap you write?
Wendy at April 13, 2009 10:34 AM
Oh, please! How can anyone cast aspersions on our great liberator, Feminism? Doesn't everyone know that before Betty Freidan, women were simple slaves, simpering and fawning over their men-folk, alternately patronized and terrorized by those demons, forever weak, helpless and pathetic, right? Riiiiiight.
Just as Stalin's subjects lived in a Communist "all-are-equal workers' paradise," we live in a "we are just working for gender equality" feminist paradise!
I want to start a movement for racial equality and harmony, so I think I'll call it "White-ism."
Our society's coming struggle to cleanse itself of the toxins of institutionalized feminism will be agonizing, but necessary. Like the Comanche indians' multi-barb arrow, you can't pull it out, you just have to push it through the other side.
And wouldn't you know it? Once again, like Hillary says, women will inevitably get the worst of it. But, that's what comes from being gullible, and wanting something for nothing.
Jay R at April 13, 2009 11:06 AM
Wendy -
Please hit yourself in the head repeatedly with a blunt object until you are enlightened.
Jay -
There is a joke about headlines at the end of the world that ends thus: "World to end. Women and minorities hardest hit."
brian at April 13, 2009 11:28 AM
"I'm perfectly happy with my human". Gender is entirely nurture right Wendy?
The sad truth is that today's feminists don't want equality. They want to discriminate against men to make up for past injustices. That's what all this patriarchy nonesense boils down to ...
Charles at April 13, 2009 12:29 PM
I've done a fair amount of reading of the scientific literature in this area, especially that which debunks feminism itself, and based on what I've read I've found that these type women mentioned here are up to doing two sneaky things:
1) Cherry-picking from the research results and interpreting (i.e. modifying) it at will, so they can make some anti-male statements (supposedly) based on it, which appear to the casual reader to have validity.
2) In general, when writing, they frequently cite the scientific material in such a manner as to minimize or negate its validity; since they are in favor of the 'social science model(s)' and they don't want anything which debunks it to come to light among the public.
Regarding social scientists, on gender issues they are effectively being turned out to pasture. Careers and money, as well as certain ideologies, are at stake, so there will be continued rear-guard action by them which will delay the general acceptance of the recent scientific literature.
Norman L. at April 13, 2009 2:08 PM
"The most important thing we can ever do is remember that truth is a three edged sword."
And that a stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles.
Radwaste at April 13, 2009 2:51 PM
"I'm perfectly happy with my human, whether he is doing 'women's work' for me or not. I dare say, it's even more heartwarming." Wendy.
=
"I'm perfectly happy with my human, whether she is doing 'men's work' for me or not. I dare say, it's even more heartwarming."
isn't that special. I wonder if your human is interested in removing your gender too... to decide to make you a generic human being, androgyn with no features at all. Perhaps interchangable with anyone else.
I wonder if we reach that dead end as a species, where everyone looks and smells the same, where we are truly equal in being utterly generic, what will save us?
SwissArmyD at April 13, 2009 4:08 PM
"There is a joke about headlines at the end of the world that ends thus: "World to end. Women and minorities hardest hit - Brian
That is so funny! I am glad I was not drinking anything when I read it.
I have never understood the term Man's Man. I mean a "Lady's Man" is a man who is skilled and often seduces ladies. So is a Man's Man a Man who often seduces men?
The Former Banker at April 13, 2009 5:20 PM
TFB - no, it's an opposite meaning, actually. A "Man's man" embodies all the attributes of manliness.
Kinda like olive oil comes from squeezed olives, whereas baby oil doesn't follow suit.
brian at April 13, 2009 5:38 PM
A man's man is not a metrosexual. He is not a mooch, living off the earnings of others. And he can do his own home repairs.
momof3 at April 13, 2009 5:57 PM
I'm perfectly happy with my human....
So was Dr. Zaius...until that darned Taylor showed up.
Conan the Grammarian at April 13, 2009 6:00 PM
"... and you are folding those towels wrong!"
lol ... brings back memories, that's my ex-gf to the tee, and 'reasons why I'm enjoying being single, item number 621 on my list' ... why do so many women feel compelled to dog men for allegedly doing every little thing 'wrong'? I was actually wondering the other day if women have always been like that, or if they've only recently been conditioned by feminism to treat their relationship as a power struggle, competition and platform for control instead of a partnership.
DavidJ at April 13, 2009 6:27 PM
""Man's man"? What does that mean?"
It's called "plain straightforward English", I understood it perfectly ... but if you didn't, you might've at least Googled the phrase before dismissing the whole thing as "crap". Also, avoid passing judgment on texts that you (by your own admission!) don't even understand.
Hats off to all the non-spider-killing ladies; I can't stand squeamish spider-killing women (or men).
Hmm ... just thinking about "outlier" women ... I would say the reason I personally don't usually give them as much regard as they might expect, is that in most cases their behavior would only be considered exceptional "for a woman", implying you should have lower standards/expectations for women ... sorry, but there's nothing "special" about merely managing to do what would be considered unblinkingly ordinary for a man (e.g. being a software developer ... or even e.g. if you told me about a man who was a radio operator in Antarctica I wouldn't blink and wouldn't think anything special of it at all, it's quite mundane and perfectly expected to find men doing all sorts of crazy, interesting things all over the world). If you want me to go "wow, that's special", then you pretty much have to do something *truly* special, not something that is merely special "for a women" - otherwise, asking me to be impressed is asking me to be anti-women, because it would be asking of me to have lower standards for the other gender. (Maybe it's also because I was raised in a family with many strong-willed, independent-minded and high-achieving women, so that's my "benchmark".)
DavidJ at April 13, 2009 7:00 PM
"Doesn't everyone know that before Betty Freidan, women were simple slaves, simpering and fawning over their men-folk, alternately patronized and terrorized by those demons, forever weak, helpless and pathetic, right?"
Wellll, not exactly. But don't forget that 50, 60, 100 years ago there was a pretty significant need for a women's movement: women didn't have equal rights, couldn't vote, and weren't earning equal pay for equal work. It's not as though the women's movement sprung out of nowhere. Sure, they had to use pretty extreme tactics, but that's what was needed for recognition and change-just like the civil rights movement or any other movement for change.
As a (female) college student, I think feminism is outdated and unnecessary. I don't think my gender presents any obstacles in terms of job opportunities, life opportunities, civil rights, equal pay, etc beyond biological realities that aren't anyone's fault (such as the fact that I probably can't both be a CEO and raise a family). In fact, there are some situations where being a woman gives me an advantage, but I see this as more of a temporary imbalance than a glaring civil rights violation that necessitates a men's movement. (For example, scholarship incentives encourage more woman to enter fields like engineering. When either 1) sufficient women have entered the field or 2) colleges/companies realize that they are putting themselves at a disadvantage by overfavoring women candidates, the balance should correct itself or even swing the other way).
On the other hand, the constant feminist-bashing is kind of like beating a dead horse. It seems like a lot of misogynist men are using feminism as a excuse on which to blame, well, everything. It smacks of fanaticism, which frankly is annoying.
Shannon at April 13, 2009 7:25 PM
Amy, I just followed your link over to the "I Blame the Patriarchy" blog, and I'm sorry I did. What a vile place! It felt like dancing in dog doo.
They don't seem to like you very much over there. Considering the source, I'd consider that a high compliment.
Kirk Strong at April 13, 2009 8:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642860">comment from Kirk StrongI do. I went over there when the chick posted the link to them on one of my entries, but I have no desire to go back.
What was funny was the lie some girl told about me. Now, of all the stuff they have to hate about me -- rational, love men, not a feminist but a humanist (for fair treatment for all people, not special treatment for some under the guise of equal treatment) -- this Theriomorph chick had to make up a lie about an e-mail I responded to. The idiot claimed I wrote back to her sans punctuation (apparently, she'd written to Creators to complain about me, and they just forwarded her e-mail on to me).
Now, I have ADHD, and kind of a weird brain, and I actually find it upsetting to write unpunctuated sentences, even in a casual e-mail. The rest of the stuff she claimed sounded right on -- something about my huffing away about being at a hotel/conference filled with evolutionary psychologists -- but, she still HAD to lie about me. Hey, honey, whatever tickles your mustache!
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 8:33 PM
Wendy writes:
Wendy, I'm guessing you're visiting here from the world of the patriarchy blamers.
Here, because I just finished a long, long day of writing, is a link to help you:
http://www.mans-man.com/mansman.htm
Almost all of that describes Gregg. Exceptions: No golf, no tux, and I don't think he has a football. He does have tons of crime novels and very interesting books, and can hold a conversation with just about anyone but a Hollyweasel, and talk to them pretty expertly about their area of expertise. We met the ambassador to Hungary -- Gregg knew the inside dope on Hungary. Gregg sat next to Stevie Wonder on a Northwest flight to Detroit -- Stevie quizzed Gregg on the flipside of Hank Ballard's "The Twist" single and Gregg knew it ("Teardrops On Your Letter").
Most important, he can be counted on to do what's the right thing, the kind thing, the classy thing, in any situation. And he always, always does what he says he's going to do. And without complaint. And he always makes me laugh, and always, always has my back.
I've left off volumes, and a bunch of tools, but you get the idea.
Oh, and he makes a mean plate of veal and buttered carrots.
P.S. Chefs have traditionally been men.
P.P.S. Wendy, what does your "human" do for you, and why is it so difficult for you to call him a man? Did you remove his penis with your sharp feminist teeth?
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 8:52 PM
"Twisty Faster" is quite a character, even for a feminist.
She would like to be taken seriously on the subject of men, or the subject of the patriarchy, or of male/female relations and sex.
And yet, if you read her casually every now and then and the reactions to her you'll find:
* she's a lesbian
* she doesn't date men
* she's never married
* she has no kids
* she judges sexual acts depending on who is performing them to who and the various marital status of each (i.e. she compares a blowjob to blowing a funk filled bratwurst, which she thinks is fine if two gay men are doing it, maybe okay if an unmarried couple are doing it, but not okay if it's a married couple doing this.
* she is apparently rich/well off, her day job is that of food critic but apparently she doesn't even need that job. Almost certainly (but my speculation) is that this is due to an inheritance.
* she is a breast cancer survivor (double mastectomy IIRC).
* she is not particularly well regarded in other sectors of the feminist world, especially the "sex-positive" feminists and IIRC, even the gay and women of color feminists.
Essentially she's typical never had to work a day in her life, elite, rich, snobbish, pontificating, pretentious white feminist with no actual experience men, male/female relationships, or of the patriarchy (apart perhaps from medical science.)
What I find interesting is the numbers of "important" blogs that blogroll her as if she actually has any credibility underneath the vitriol she spouts.
jerry at April 13, 2009 9:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642865">comment from jerryHow did you find out all this information about her? Is it on her site? I found her so ridiculous I didn't stick around. I was mainly interested in finding out the identity of Theriomorph so I could find her e-mail and show she was a liar. I fished a little in my e-mail, but I have a boyfriend and a life, so I got back to those fast.
Amy Alkon at April 13, 2009 11:55 PM
there are some situations where being a woman gives me an advantage, but I see this as more of a temporary imbalance than a glaring civil rights violation that necessitates a men's movement
How about some of the other reasons to have one:
1) Men die at a greater rate than women, of 14 of the 15 leading causes of death.
2) The federal goverment spends 5 times as much on breast cancer as prostate cancer, even though they kill at rougly equal rates.
3) Boys are behind girls in almost every subject in school, from reading and writing down to art. Yet all we do is focus on girls re math and science, and meanwhile drug the boys into compliance so that they will stop being boys.
4) Men are routinely screwed over by the family court system, including denial of access to their children even when there is no good eason to deny it; made to pay exhorbitant amounts of child support far beyond what is necessary to support a child; and are jailed for inability to pay even if they lose their jobs or suffer a decrease in income for some other reason.
5) Only men are required to register for the draft. "My body, NOT my choice".
6) Almost all workplace deaths are men.
7)...etc........................
Your kind of smug woman makes me sick to my stomach...who do you think helped you with your "women's rights" movement? How about a little quid pro quo, Miss Equality.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 3:03 AM
p.s.
re: women and the vote, the sufragettes were big-time racist elitists who made it perfectly clear that only white women should be allowed to vote. Didn't know that, did you? The reason you didn't, is because your feminut ancestors have revised and rewritten history.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 3:08 AM
Most "rape" is a joke. It's nothing more than a drunken or shamed woman regretting her unfortunate decision. For every 1 legitimate rape claim, there are probably 9 which are just buyer's remorse.
Mike T at April 14, 2009 5:39 AM
"Most "rape" is a joke. It's nothing more than a drunken or shamed woman regretting her unfortunate decision. For every 1 legitimate rape claim, there are probably 9 which are just buyer's remorse."
You make me ill. That's no different than a woman saying most men saying they were screwed in family court for child support/visitation are just vindictive losers who probably beat their partners. And if you have to get a woman drunk to get a yes, then you are below pathetic and should probably remove yourself from the gene pool.
Yes, there are some false accusations and we all hate those people. Saying they are 90% of rapes is absurd. Real rape is probably underreported. Would you want to go spread-eagle in front of medical people and cops with cameras if you had just been raped up the butt by a gang of guys? Doubt it. Women don't relish the prospect either. It's further humiliating and degrading, although necessary. I'm not sure I agree that if your forego immediate reporting, you should get to do so years later. No evidence, makes it hard. But to say that 90% of women are lying, well, go fuck yourself.
momof3 at April 14, 2009 7:04 AM
Question for Norman: you used scare quotes around the phrase "women's rights." Do you believe that a society in which women cannot vote, own property, or control their own bodies is acceptable?
Question for Mike T: you used scare quotes around the word "rape." Where do you get your information that only 1 in 10 rape claims are "legitimate"? Surely you have excellent evidence to back up such an inflammatory claim. Would you say that 9 out of 10 prison rapes are just buyer's remorse as well?
CB at April 14, 2009 7:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642925">comment from momof3Thanks, momof3, for getting that one (on deadline).
I'm always a little puzzled by people who march out with stats -- insisting that this many out of this many are this or that. Even stats by solid researchers have flaws in them -- as the epidemiologist who kicks my ass about how to read studies says, "Some studies just have fewer or smaller flaws than others on their topic." Self-reported data is especially suspect -- especially when related in any way to sex.
Here's what's important: Rape happens and false accusations happen. Quoting stats is usually an attempt to demonize one sex or another, and that's really not necessary or helpful. I'm against rape and false accusations of it, and feel that those who bring false accusations of rape should get the jail time the falsely accused would have gotten.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 7:16 AM
Hmm ... just thinking about "outlier" women ... I would say the reason I personally don't usually give them as much regard as they might expect, is that in most cases their behavior would only be considered exceptional "for a woman", implying you should have lower standards/expectations for women ... sorry, but there's nothing "special" about merely managing to do what would be considered unblinkingly ordinary for a man (e.g. being a software developer ... or even e.g. if you told me about a man who was a radio operator in Antarctica I wouldn't blink and wouldn't think anything special of it at all, it's quite mundane and perfectly expected to find men doing all sorts of crazy, interesting things all over the world).
Uh... the discussion was about statistical assumptions about what women are good at versus men. So we who are claiming to be "outliers" are not necessarily claiming to be exceptional, spectacular people -- just atypical women. Who are occasionally annoyed by assumptions about what we are "like".
Frankly, the fact that you perceive the message "I am not a 'typical' woman" as a claim along the lines of "I am spectacular and worthy of admiration" does smack a little of condescension toward women.
The Other Lily at April 14, 2009 7:18 AM
CB -
I'm not Norman or Mike, and I can't say what their answers are, but here are mine:
Women have always been able to own property here, dating all the way back to colonial times. They've also been successful in business and politics. They were never chattel, except in certain limited religious subgroups.
I'll ignore your canard about "control their own bodies" since we both know that's code for abortion.
And if you were willing to do a serious, unbiased and divorced from emotion analysis of government power as it relates to universal suffrage, you'd find a correlation damn close to 1.0 for growth of the nanny state and the passage of the 19th amendment. You'll find a massive acceleration after the voting rights act.
The reason for this is that prior to these acts, only property owners were allowed to vote. Now, better than 50% of the voting populace has no skin in the game, so to speak. And so they are voting their interests, which are primarily "how can I continue to live off of the benevolence of others".
As to the rape argument, I don't know that I agree with Mike's assessment. Of course, I also draw a bright line between "forcible rape" and "date rape", which most of the feminists do not. I do believe that the bulk (I wouldn't try to put a number on it) of date rape claims are, in fact, morning regret. The law encourages such false claims by infantilizing women with laws that say she cannot legally consent to sex if she is intoxicated, but the man is liable regardless his state of being.
Prison rape is a completely different aminal. It is all about power and pecking order. There's no question about consent, really.
brian at April 14, 2009 7:25 AM
"How did you find out all this information about her?"
It's on her site, but not explicitly. It's in her posts. I don't read her often, but every now and then I'll follow a link to her, or discover there is yet another controversy in the feminist world, and lo, it turns out she (and Amanda) have pissed off another group of feminists and boy oh boy, do they have the number on each other.
These are my recollections, I could be wrong about a number of them, I don't read her all that often.
And of course, I don't care if she is a lesbian, it's just that I am not certain a person with such a limited real life experience with men in personal, professional, employer relationships has a whole lot to back up her radical feminist philosophy.
jerry at April 14, 2009 7:32 AM
Brian -
The statement "women have always been able to own property here" is grossly misleading. Yes, some women in some states have been able to own some types of property. This is very different from "women have had equal property rights," so unless your argument is that women should have been satisfied with lesser legal status, I'm not sure what your point is here.
My "canard" about control of women's bodies was not shorthand for abortion. Rather, I was referring to the right to be free of physical, legally sanctioned control of women by their husbands and fathers. This is not something that has always been legally recognized, even in the U.S. Do you consider one gender having fewer legal rights than the other to be acceptable?
I understand the argument about the link between women's suffrage and the "nanny state." It's an interesting subject for discussion, but please remember that the pre-"nanny state" had a pretty terrible record of protecting individual liberty for ALL persons. Many people tend to regard 20th century American government as a series of derogations of freedom, which in a way it was - if you define freedom as the right to legally oppress other human beings, that is.
To suggest that non-property owners have no skin in the game is not credible; they still pay taxes (payroll, sales, etc.) and are still subject to the same laws.
What makes you believe that the majority of "date rape" claims are illegitimate? We can all agree that there are some false claims out there, but the process of reporting and prosecuting a rape is hardly a pleasant one for the victim.
Why do you believe that prison rape is a completely different animal? (Please, please, please don't say something that suggests that you think raping men is worse than raping women.) Even though it's largely about power and pecking order (much like rape of women, what a coincidence!), there can still be many questions of consent. A man could "consent" because he is afraid of his attacker, because he wants to gain protection, or because he wants to gain favors or other benefits from the arrangement.
CB at April 14, 2009 7:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642958">comment from jerryI don't care if she is a lesbian, it's just that I am not certain a person with such a limited real life experience with men in personal, professional, employer relationships has a whole lot to back up her radical feminist philosophy.
Friends and acquaintances of mine who are lesbians have a healthy outlook on men - they just don't want to have sex with them. This woman seems to be a rage-filled nutcase who happens to be gay.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 7:50 AM
Amy,
Speaking of "Rape happens and false accusations happen", and the epidemiologist kicking your butt over statistics, I'd love to hear a statistician discuss false accusations in terms of Type II error.
A mistake that feminists make (or intentionally ignore) is to not realize that their understandable desire to detect all rapes necessarily increases the rate of false accusations. And that morally, ethically, and practically, we need to make sure that attempts to stop rape and make sure women report rape are made in a context where we also try to stop false accusations.
Wiki: Type I and Type II errors
In 1928, Jerzy Neyman (1894-1981) and Egon Pearson (1895-1980), both eminent statisticians, discussed... "in testing hypotheses two considerations must be kept in view, (1) we must be able to reduce the chance of rejecting a true hypothesis to as low a value as desired; (2) the test must be so devised that it will reject the hypothesis tested when it is likely to be false"
This is especially true if you live in a culture where we believe that it is better to free 10 guilty than convict 1 innocent (which feminists would claim they believe in, but who certainly do not behave as though they believe in that (see Duke.)).
Alexander Volokh, (Eugene's brother,) wrote a terrific essay on n Guilty Men: www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
jerry at April 14, 2009 7:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1642968">comment from jerryThanks so much for laying all that out, Jerry. And FYI for the uninitiated, in brief, Type I errors are false positives and Type II errors are false negatives.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 8:09 AM
CB
How so? Women could hold jobs, buy and sell property, educate their children. They just couldn't vote. And if there's anything that's a fallacy, it's that there is some relation between voting and freedom. There might have been social norms that limited a woman's freedom, but it did the same to unmarried men.References please?
So swapping the oppression of some for the oppression of all is acceptable to you?
Somewhere in the vicinity of 20% of them get back more in EITC and other tax credits than they pay in payroll taxes. And don't forget all the other subsidies and entitlement payments. If you don't own either real estate or a business, you really have nothing to lose to the government. Your freedom is not something you care about unless you have a reason to stay here. As long as you have feet, you can leave.
The fact that so many girls end up rescinding the claims when they realize that te guy they just wanted to brush off is probably going to spend 15 years in prison because she didn't want to feel like a slut. And the fact that there are many feminist groups advocating that girls fabricate such charges as a way to control men.
Because prisoners are not free men. They don't have the ability to walk away, they don't have the option to defend themselves.
A patent falsehood. The bulk of forcible rape victims are young and attractive. If it was about power, then female bosses and politicians would be the majority of rape victims. The fact that young attractive women, and not older, fatter, or uglier women constitute the bulk of forcible rapes leads to the conclusion that rape is about sex, not power.
Well, that and the fact that there are far more effective ways to control a woman that don't involve pinning her down and fucking her. So if it's power and control, you should look to the douchebag boyfriends that spend every spare minute tearing their girl's self esteem down and making her utterly unable to function on her own.
Coerced consent is no consent at all.
brian at April 14, 2009 8:32 AM
"The fact that young attractive women, and not older, fatter, or uglier women constitute the bulk of forcible rapes leads to the conclusion that rape is about sex, not power."
I rarely disagree with you Brian, but can you back that up? I really doubt it, since rape is pretty independent of age or weight.
"Coerced consent is no consent at all."
Exactly, man or woman. So saying "date rape" (which is merely called that to distinguish the fact that the woman knew her attacker, doens't necessarily mean on a date) is false because the woman could have walked away is patently absurd. In a previous post I said I like men to be stronger than me. And I do. But it also means I would tend to date the kind of man who COULD hold me down and force me if he took the notion. Not to mention the # of women using roofies (sp?) to drug their dates is so low that I can't find mention of it anywhere. You can be forced without having the life nearly beat out of you. The really horrible beating rapes are because the guy got off on the violence as much as the sex, or more. It wasn't necessary to force her.
If a woman "consents" to avoid being beaten at the threat of violence, then that's no different than a guy in jail submitting to avoid getting killed.
momof3 at April 14, 2009 8:44 AM
mom -
If a guy holds a girl down and takes sex from her absent consent, that is forcible rape, and there is typically evidence of struggle. If she submits because he says "fuck me or get beaten", that's forcible rape too, but harder to prove. Ditto drugs.
I'm talking about the cases where there is consent, there is evidence of consent, and she cries rape a day or two later after consorting with her girlfriends and realizing that she probably shouldn't have slept with him.
This happens far more often than you want to believe. It's also why the conviction rate is so low for rape (as broadly defined) - everything from statutory, to date rape, to forcible sodomy is counted as "rape". And the conviction rate on "date rape" where there is no evidence of either drugs or force is very low.
Look up the details on the Duke Rape Hoax to see why false rape claims fall apart so fast. That case is also instructive as to why such false claims will not be getting any less common.
brian at April 14, 2009 8:56 AM
"... does smack a little of condescension toward women"
Why, yes, I am a little condescending toward women ... and why shouldn't I be, if their achievements and *standards* of achievement remain (even if this day and age where they proclaim loudly to be "my equal") consistently lower than those of men (even while they demand equality and entitlement)? It's nothing personal against women specifically, I just am inclined to admire people who achieve great things, and inclined not to admire people who aren't interested in achieving great things, and certainly I don't admire people who still frequently expect that it's OK to leech off others (e.g. a man), as many women do. But it's not an outright bias, I hold some women in very high regard who have indeed achieved truly remarkable things (e.g. Ayn Rand), not just remarkable "for a woman" but would've been remarkable even for a man. I'm an achiever, and my judgment of the value of people is based on hard work and *achievement* - I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in fact it seems like an objectively good thing to judge people on - there isn't much else, really. (Generalizations are just that, of course, they hold truths even when not absolute truths.) So I won't go e.g. "wow, you're a programmer" to a woman, but I will go "wow, you're a good programmer" to a woman who is a *good programmer* (by anyone's standards) - and I have met (and hired) women who were really good programmers. I am also condescending to men who are lazy and so on.
Basically I have one consistent set of standards for humans - not one set of standards for women, and another set entirely for men (likewise for race). I think that's a good - and rare - thing. Most people don't even realise how different their standards are for men and women, because it's deeply ingrained in our culture, but a useful "thought experiment" to realise just how shockingly bad the difference is, is to watch various behaviours that women frequently exhibit and think are normal, and imagine a man - a real manly man - doing exactly the same thing, and realise that society (men and women) would frequently regard such a man as a pathetic loser and such behaviour as ridiculous. Try it.
DavidJ at April 14, 2009 9:43 AM
"Basically I have one consistent set of standards for humans - not one set of standards for women, and another set entirely for men"
And possibly one major reason for that, apart from my family, is precisely that I've been raised endlessly being told by society how women are equal to men. I used to believe it.
For the record, Amy is also someone I hold in high regard; a.o. her hard work and achievements and promotion of reason and rationality by genuine example are admirable.
DavidJ at April 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Basically I have one consistent set of standards for humans - not one set of standards for women, and another set entirely for men (likewise for race).
Well, fine. I agree with this. I'm just asking you not to read my remark about being a software developer as some kind of request for a head pat. Frankly, it never really occurred to me to think of myself as a "woman" in the classroom, and I don't think of myself as a "woman" in the workplace -- just a person with certain skills, and I expect (and usually manage) to be judged accordingly.
My point was that the existence of outliers (not super-special achievers, just different-from-the-stereotype people) needs to be acknowledged when generalizations are being thrown around. It's easy to say "I would hope everyone knows the generalizations don't necessarily apply to individuals", but too many lazy thinkers either don't know that or talk as if they don't. (E.g. the guy who once looked at me with wide-eyed amazement and said "You play chess?" when I casually challenged him to a game. Needless to say, he didn't know me very well. ;-) )
The Other Lily at April 14, 2009 10:29 AM
>>Women have always been able to own property here, dating all the way back to colonial times. They've also been successful in business and politics.
Widows, mainly brian. Widows.
Widows, widows, widows, widows, widows.
Momof3,
Cheers for that "Fuck yourself" comment too! Big time.
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Regarding the incidence of false rape claims, I recall Craig Silverman (a Denver prosecutor who aggressively pursued rapists in court) stating that one of the high ranking officers who work with such cases estimated the incidence at 45%. So the incidence is not low, but it is not 90% either (I don't like exaggerations either way).
Also, regarding property rights, my great-aunt was co-owner of a house with my grandfather in upstate NY some time after 1910. She was born around 1890 and was never married. So, in this case I don't see where she didn't have property rights.
MIOnline at April 14, 2009 11:10 AM
>>my great-aunt was co-owner of a house with my grandfather in upstate NY some time after 1910. She was born around 1890 and was never married. So, in this case I don't see where she didn't have property rights.
MIOnline,
Well, maybe she did have rights and maybe she didn't - but since you've explained she was a co-owner with your grandfather, I'm not sure how this beautifully advances the argument for the historic rights of the independent woman?
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2009 11:39 AM
Woman shares ownership of parents house with brother in 1910 - horribly oppressed
Woman shares ownership of parents house with brother in 2010 - liberated land owner
Seriously?
Women were given voting rights in most western territories and states long before sufferage.
And in the case of Utah independant of property as well, though that was more about giving the mormon church a larger voting block in state and local elections
lujlp at April 14, 2009 12:03 PM
>>Woman shares ownership of parents house with brother in 1910 - horribly oppressed
You didn't get any hint of "horribly oppressed" from my comment, lujlp!
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2009 12:15 PM
Brian, I still think you're being misleading about property ownership. Yes, a woman could own property if her husband, father, or brother gave it to her, or if she inherited it, but I doubt a woman could go into a bank (as I have just done) and get a loan to buy property as easily as a man could.
Even today, I sense that I'm looked at by bank personel as riskier than a man. I'm trying to buy a house and the first loan officer I spoke to - who has known me (as a married woman) for years - was quite rude and discouraging until she saw my independent credit scores and income figures. It was clear her first thought was that I probably couldn't afford it because I'm a single woman.
And she is likely not an exception, which surprised me a little that this is still the case, even today. I can't imagine how tough it would've been for a single woman to buy a property of her own choosing 100 years ago.
So, you're being disengenuious - and just as false as feminists - when you try to exaggerate equality (or inequality) for the sake of argument. Women could own property but they couldn't necessarily purchase property they wanted, which is neither equal or fair.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 12:29 PM
Woman shares ownership of parents house with brother in 1910 - horribly oppressed
Woman shares ownership of parents house with brother in 2010 - liberated land owner
Seriously?
Straw man. The first case was given as a representative example of female property ownership at the time. The second case does indeed still occur, but is no longer representative.
The Other Lily at April 14, 2009 1:15 PM
lovely - I'm not being disingenuous at all. Because most MEN couldn't walk into a bank and just get a loan back then. You got loans based on family connections. Chances are she would get the loan on account of Daddy's good standing in the community. That hardly counts as a restriction on her liberty. A little perspective might be useful. Exotic financial instruments and fractional-reserve banking didn't exist back then.
And your banker is probably correct from an actuarial standpoint. Single people are a higher risk than married people, and women moreso than men. And your banker is probably sick of dealing with the crying and moaning of all the people who she's had to tell "we can't loan you this money" and just gets defensive up front in the hopes that the ones who KNOW they don't qualify will just go away.
brian at April 14, 2009 1:24 PM
Framing the relative speed of civil rights expansion by gender is a feminist usage of the old "Let's You and Him Fight" political trick.
(And, yes, for those familiar with TA, I know I'm appropriating one of the classic Game Names for discussion purposes here.)
The actual historical fact of the matter is that the difference in power and rights between women and men WITHIN the elite ruling classes and between women and men WITHIN the common serving classes are virtually nonexistent in comparison to the differences in power and rights between BOTH women and men in the elite ruling classes VERSUS both women and men in the common serving classes.
The far greater and more serious social injustice is not now and never has been a gap between men and women WITHIN any particular social level. It is today and always has been the gap between BOTH men and women of the upper levels of power and wealth VERSUS both men and women of the lower levels of power and wealth.
The thought experiment for directly demonstrating this to those deceived by feminist propaganda is to ask which they would rather have been: a female slaveowner, or a male slave.
Yeah, not too hard to figure out when it's presented properly, now is it?
They will, at least on some mental level, get the point. Whether they admit to understanding it, however, unfortunately has far more to do with the degree of their emotional attachment to their privileged status as a "gender victim" and their ability to let go of it. Even thought they are far better off in the long run and the general case by comparing themselves to others of their own gender in terms of power and wealth as well as men, rather that just men alone.
I can guarantee you, ladies old and young, that the women with greater power and wealth than you possess get away with FAR more crap FAR more often that is FAR worse than anything that the men with comparable power and wealth to yours do.
Feminists benefit from promoting this gender opposition and resentment between men and women in multiple ways, not least of which is their own personal rise to superior levels of power and wealth.
Which is why feminists routinely compare women of the lower social levels to men of the upper social levels and shriek, "Sexist injustice!", but feminists virtually never compare women of the upper social levels to men of the lower social levels period, let alone say anything about it.
Why? Because feminism is the theory and practice of prioritizing women's issues ahead of those of men and children, and of institutionalizing that prioritization, for women in general somewhat but for feminists in particular and the most.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 1:42 PM
This is a pretty good, easy to read book on the subject:
What Could He Be Thinking?: How a Man's Mind Really Works
It explains the different biochemical reactions the occur in female versus male brains. It explains the different levels of the various hormones responsible for making us either male or female. It talks about the "spectrum" of these chemicals, i.e the "sensitive males" have more of certain hormones than a typically "masculine" male.
I find a lot of women want their male partners to act like their "best girlfriends" all the time, and are upset and mad when the guy doesn't react "right". For these women to have a decent relationship with the opposite sex, they need to understand - men and women really ARE different, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Tricia at April 14, 2009 1:57 PM
I'm a privileged woman, and I wouldn't compare myself or my opportunities to either a male or female in less privileged circumstances, but that has nothing to do with balance and fairness overall.
Any more than saying that some women owned property..and some men didn't own property, or couldn't get bank loans, proves that there was no injustice in society.
For instance, I could say some black slaves were freed in certain states, and some actually owned property or were sharecroppers...and some white men were poor and didn't own ANY property...but that doesn't equalize the vastly greater opportunities white men had in general over black men!
These are smoke and mirrors arguments. The vast amount of property was owned and controlled by men. The fact that a few lucky women had kindly fathers, brothers, or husbands who may have given them land doesn't mitigate the injustice of having it all determined and granted by MEN.
C'mon, it's just silly to assert these kind of things. You don't need to pretend that women had equal opportunities to men at the turn of the century. It hinders the overall validity of your positions.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 2:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643102">comment from TriciaThat book, by Michael Gurian, is good. I put in the link to Amazon.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 2:26 PM
lovely -
My point goes to your argument that there is/was institutional bias against women.
There was not.
There was institutional bias against blacks in the South (antebellum), and the entire nation (postbellum). In fact, as unpopular as this is going to make me, I'd say that life for blacks in the US got worse overall after the civil war. There's a shitload of reasons why, and most of them are related to culture and class, and those specific things are being exploited to this day.
But comparing women or homosexuals to blacks as far as civil rights and struggle is bullshit, and everyone knows it.
Women did not have it anywhere near as bad as the "conventional wisdom" would hold.
Oh, and finally - women and men don't have equal opportunities now. And they never will. Because they are innately different.
brian at April 14, 2009 2:31 PM
>>It explains the different biochemical reactions the occur in female versus male brains. It explains the different levels of the various hormones responsible for making us either male or female. It talks about the "spectrum" of these chemicals, i.e the "sensitive males" have more of certain hormones than a typically "masculine" male.
Tricia,
That author, Gurian, has NO scientific credentials at all!
If your common sense prods you to trust him - fine! But he can't claim to authoritatively "explain" what is not yet remotely fully understood by peer-reviewed neuroscientists, surely?
Jody Tresidder at April 14, 2009 2:35 PM
This is so very well written -- congratulations.
For those who want to talk about institutional biases against women, ask my great-grandmother, who stayed in the safety of her warm home every day with the kids while my great-grandfather was risking his life in a dangerous mine just to feed the brood. No one ever suggested my great-grandfather had a choice, this was his lot in life as a male. Just as it was when he was conscripted to be shipped overseas against his will to fight a war he did not understand. My great-grandmother never, ever would have suggested that he or his co-workers or fellow soldiers were in any sense "undeserveredly privileged." He was just fulfilling pre-determined role as a male. Yes, he had more legal "rights," but he also had greater, far more terrible responsibilities. That is how it has always been, until perhaps recently (but still men still account for 93% of work-related deaths, and only young men can go to jail or have other liberties taken from them for failing to register for selective service). Contrary views are revisionist history of radical feminism prompted by the politics of envy. They are lacking in nuance, anti-intellectual, and untrue.
But getting back to present day, since that's where we all live: if only we would all stop gender stereotyping people, and gender politicizing issues that affect predominantly one sex or the other, everyone would benefit. These things serve no interest other than to feed some victim fetish. For example, there is no sound reason we can't all oppose rape AND false rape claims without pretending either is a myth. Yet when the three Duke lacrosse players were declared "innocent" by North Carolina's attorney general a fair number of radical feminists greeted the news with disbelief and anger. Think about that: they would have preferred Crystal Gail Mangum to have been raped than for three "undeservedly privileged" young white males to walk away free.
And that is morally grotesque beyond all imagining. This nonsense needs to stop, and we need to start looking at people as people, not as members of the supposed oppressor or oppressed classes.
Pierce Harlan at April 14, 2009 3:00 PM
I'm a privileged woman, and I wouldn't compare myself or my opportunities to either a male or female in less privileged circumstances, but that has nothing to do with balance and fairness overall.
Except, of course, for how the very fact that you wouldn't do so directly demonstrates my point.
That refusal has everything to do with what I was saying. As a self-admitted member of the upper ranks in terms of power and wealth, your refusal to make that comparison is direct evidence of the validity of my argument.
Any more than saying that some women owned property..and some men didn't own property, or couldn't get bank loans, proves that there was no injustice in society.
And this is supposed to invalidate the point of the question of which would you rather have been -- a female slave-owner, or a male slave -- how, exactly?
For instance, I could say some black slaves were freed in certain states, and some actually owned property or were sharecroppers...and some white men were poor and didn't own ANY property...but that doesn't equalize the vastly greater opportunities white men had in general over black men!
Except, of course, for how white women benefited second-hand from those greater opportunities as well, and far more so in comparison to both black men and women than said white women suffered in comparison to their white male peers.
These are smoke and mirrors arguments.
A bold claim, madam!
Now, where is your proof?
The vast amount of property was owned and controlled by men.
And the benefits of that vast ownership were shared by their female peers, while the vastly larger number of both men and women in the non-owning servant and peasant classes were far more comparatively powerless and poor than any of those female peers.
No matter how much you try to preemptively ignore that fact, it's not going away.
The fact that a few lucky women had kindly fathers, brothers, or husbands who may have given them land doesn't mitigate the injustice of having it all determined and granted by MEN.
No, it doesn't.
What does mitigate it, yet again, is the far greater difference in power and wealth between women of the upper classes and the far greater number of men in the lower classes.
C'mon, it's just silly to assert these kind of things.
Yet another bold claim, madam!
Now, where is your proof for this one?
You don't need to pretend that women had equal opportunities to men at the turn of the century. It hinders the overall validity of your positions.
And if I was actually doing so, that might be a relevant point and a valid claim.
But since I'm not, they're neither.
My point is that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differencesin power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes.
It is, of course, hardly surprising that as a self-admitted member of said upper classes you fail to recognize and address that actual argument, and instead present a sack of invalid irrelevancies without proof or even internal consistency.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 3:14 PM
Well, institutional bias really doesn't tell the full story, does it, Brian?
Even after instutional bias was lifted, such as it was for blacks, there still existed discrimination based on color. It exists to this day. The only thing that prevents this discrimination from being worse is continued vigilance and oversight of the laws that are designed to balance things - although they can certainly be carried too far, such as with affirmative action.
Yet, I still believe having the freedom to succeed in any area one might wish is preferable to the idea of getting 3 square meals a day as a slave or "cared for" as a subserviant being. I, like probably most people, would rather know I can branch out in any direction in search of my OWN version of happiness and success, rather than have it dictated to me, even if that means I may fail.
And it's not wrong to compare those two struggles. Blacks had it far worse than women, I agree, but, there again, the fact that they did doesn't mitigate the injustices and prevalent discrimination - institutionalized or merely culturalized - that women endured.
Admitting that doesn't hurt the cause for men's rights. Failing to acknowledge the truth does.
It's kind of like how feminists refuse to acknowledge so many of the advancements or progress that they themselves fought for and won. Yet, your hardcore feminist will probably still say, "Things aren't much better for women today." Even though that's so obviously false as to be absurd, they fear admitting any progress will invalidate the whole movement. When, in fact, it's NOT admitting what's clearly true that makes them seem like irrational zealots.
You guys don't need to fall into that same trap. Make your case that the pendulum has swung too far in the female direction...but don't contend that it was ALWAYS better to be female. That's absurd.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 3:25 PM
That's not true at all. People don't abandon racism because they'll get in trouble for it. In fact, I'd say that things like Affirmative Action only increase racism by validating the belief that there is something inherently "wrong" with black people.
And your "truth" is simply not true. There has never been a time in American history where women were chattel. There was never a time where women were forbidden by law or custom from owning property. There is precisely NOTHING that women have endured in the United States that will ever come close to the injustice of slavery.
Period.
You are imagining immense injustice against women when there wasn't any. Women's opportunities were limited by the fact that there were limited opportunities for EVERYONE in 1700. In fact, the lower classes (farmers, laborers, etc) were far more egalitarian than the upper classes. To this day, the female upper-crust has no responsibility greater than being an entertainer. The farmer's wife, however, had to work just as hard as the farmer and all their children.
And there is less still that homosexuals have endured that will ever come close to the injustice of slavery.
Activists cannot afford to admit that because it completely removes their ability to wield power without merit.
brian at April 14, 2009 3:32 PM
"It is, of course, hardly surprising that as a self-admitted member of said upper classes you fail to recognize and address that actual argument, and instead present a sack of invalid irrelevancies without proof or even internal consistency".
How can anyone deny that members of the upper classes generally have it better than those in the lower classes? I was not making that argument at all.
And I began in the lower middle class, so I know. But that is the great thing about freedom and equality. When it is offered, more people, of all races and genders, can rise to a higher standard of living.
But offering fair opportunities for success doesn't mean that there won't be some folks that, just by the luck of the draw, or parentage or whatever, get a bigger slice of the pie than others.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 3:40 PM
Question for Norman: you used scare quotes around the phrase "women's rights." Do you believe that a society in which women cannot vote, own property, or control their own bodies is acceptable?
Women have generally had the right to vote in local elections all along. In the pasts, locally is where there interests were concerned, i.e. as 'caregivers' (an overused term), etc; whereas men paid the federal taxes which paid for the wars that only men fought. Thus men's interests were on a national level.
Women of the time understood that and did not have a problem with it. It only seems like a rights violation nowadays, when looking back on it through our feminist-tinted glasses. Also, prior to the 60's, the focus was on the family, not "individual rights" as it is now.
It is always wrong to impose current standards or philosophies on past times. However, this is precisely the mistake people make. The truth is that considering what was then feasible, and the circumstances of the times, women in the past were just as priveleged as they are today.
The property ownership issue is addressed above.
The issue you cite of 'body control' is a moral issue and has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Besides, there are many women who currently oppose abortion.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 3:52 PM
"And your "truth" is simply not true. There has never been a time in American history where women were chattel. There was never a time where women were forbidden by law or custom from owning property. There is precisely NOTHING that women have endured in the United States that will ever come close to the injustice of slavery."
Not being forbidden isn't the same as being ALLOWED in most cases. Blacks weren't officially "forbidden" from sitting in the front of the bus, but look what happened when one brave woman tried! C'mon, Brian, be reasonable.
I saw how subserviant my grandmother was to my grandfather...how subserviant my MIL was to her husband. These women owned NOTHING. It all belonged to their husbands. They couldn't do anything but pop out children and be cooks or maids. They weren't educated and couldn't afford to leave even when they were abused.
To say women have never been treated as chattel in this country is plain false. There were cultural and societal structures and biases that certainly conspired to keep a woman "in her place".
Did you see "The Changeling"? That's based on a true story. That poor woman got thrown in an insane asylum by a male police officer just for being "distraught and emotional." That's the kind of discrimination and injustice that occurred to women back then.
I know you'll say men had it tough too - they plowed fields and worked hard and died in dangerous jobs. Life, back then, was rough on everyone who wasn't rich. But it's absurd to claim that women had the same liberties and freedoms, and were not subservient to males.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 4:04 PM
Regarding false rape accusations, they are rampant. Every credible study that has been done has shown that it is approximately 40-70% of reported rapes [MacDowell; Kanin; and others].
Also, several retired police officers have recently come forward anonymously and stated they believe the false accusation rate is about 60%.
The problem with the figures cited by feminists and others, is that they are based on DOJ statistics (or outright fabrications such as the 2% figure). One problem is that the DOJ/FBI does not keep track of whether the accused party is eventually found guilty or innocent; so as far as they know, the false accusation rate could be anywhere between zero and 100 percent.
There is no way of knowing the rate of unreported rapes; but I'd venture to say the crime is over-reported considering the rate of false accusations.
The MacDowell study mentioned above was one of only a handful of scientific studies which gives the reasons why women make false accusations. Of the women in the study who admitted they had lied, 20% said they made the accusation for 'spite or revenge'. Other reasons included 'needed an excuse for being pregnant' and 'needed an excuse for coming home late from a date'.
The sooner we as a society can come out of denial on this issue, and also stop placing the crime of rape on the ridiculously high pedestal upon which it currently stands, the better it will be for both men and women.
Until that happens, men falsely accused will continue to be beaten and murdered by angry fascist mobs, lose their jobs, their wivers, their friends, and in general face a lifetime of stigma (as their name has been revealed in the press..whereas the false accusers name is rarely ever revealed, even after it has been determined that the accusation was false. That also raises the issue that we need to start punishing false accusers with something other than 'community service'.)
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:06 PM
Norman,
It's pretty clear, isn't it, that Lovelysoul only cares about "body control" for women. So what if only men can be involuntarily drafted and exposed to mortal danger if necessary. Too bad that a man can be forced to a life of hard labor to support a child the woman was free to discard as a mere "lump of tissue." So sad that when men are killed on the job, it's expected, while if a woman is killed, something went horribly wrong!
The self-righteous blindness, callousness, and hypocrisy of feminist women never cease to amaze me.
Jay R at April 14, 2009 4:09 PM
p.s.
the MacDowell rape study is discussed at length in Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power". That is my source for the 20% and the reasons cited above.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:09 PM
Jay R.
agreed. One partial solution might be 'paper abortions'. The majority of women would fight that tooth and nail, however.
Another is the developement of a male birth control pill. Women say they want men to be equally responsible for avoiding pregnancy, yet many of these same women are against the pill's development.
Deep down, women really do not want to give up their 100% control of the reproduction process. Yes, 'hypocrisy' is a good word for it.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:13 PM
Ladies,
the goodie grab will not go on forever. In fact, the tide is already slowly starting to shift. Many of you will be hard-pressed to escape social oprobrium once the shift is complete.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:16 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643145">comment from Norman L.yet many of these same women are against the pill's development.
Um...evidence?
Norman L., you seem to spout things from time to time that you, well, perhaps generate in your own head.
There might be some women against a male pill. But, I write about sex and people spill all to me on a variety of topics, and that's the first I've heard of it.
In my book, for those who can get it, the smartest birth control is the copper 7 IUD. No chemicals, no remembering to take a pill, not a lot of risk involved (but there's some with any medical device or procedure), very high level of protection.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 4:19 PM
evidence is available at glenn sacks website archives, and at:
wwww.google.com
If women are generally in favor of it, why was the development of it recently stopped? Or are you saying there are a lot of men who are against it, and there is no politics involved?
btw I'm wondering, when you interview these people for your writings, what kind of cross-section of people do you get? Do you interview mainly women and honorary women? How many people have you interviewed? If you believe you have gotten a representative cross-section, on what basis do you believe that? Have you consulted with pharmaceutical representatives or researchers?
Do you think all the people you are speaking with are going to be toally honest, and to say something which is not p.c. - like "women don't want to give up absolute control of the reproduction process"? Even if they are anonymous in your book, it is not like people are always gushing to give information to 'sex writers'; who by the way, are always women. I remember the Hite report...
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:33 PM
p.s.
did you ask the interviewees if they are in favor of a male pill? Approximately how many of them did you ask that?
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:36 PM
I will add that my great-grandfather (father of my great aunt and grandfather mentioned earlier) worked hard at both farming and cutting timber to earn a living back in the late 1800s. He was hit by a falling tree on the last day of 1891, and died on the first day of 1892. I know this because of my great grandmother's diaries, and newspaper clippings.
My great grandmother was left to care for three children by herself. Her second son died twenty years later in 1912 at the age of 24 after being crushed between two trains at the railyard he was working at.
So, both father and son were killed on the job. Hardly "male privilege," although it was rough for my great grandmother as well.
More on this story at:
http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=15134.0
MIOnline at April 14, 2009 4:37 PM
Oh no, they're onto us at "The Patriarchy." Next thing you know they'll be cutting up our Male Privileges™ cards (the ones we hand out to every male on proof of gender).
Thomas Fullery
Thomas Fullery at April 14, 2009 4:42 PM
Amy, it only took me a couple of minutes to find this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/d4prgx
And, while yes, it's only one link, it's a link to a newspaper article, and crap like that doesn't get printed unless the editors believe there's a market for it, and they're usually right.
The mindset is indeed out there, Amy. Please keep in mind that even your professional data set is very self-selecting.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 4:47 PM
Amy,
I found this as my very first hit on google - an article by Glenn S.
http://www.glennsacks.com/do_women_really.htm
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:55 PM
Amy,
since you cannot meet the ridiculously high standards that I propose for your book, you cannot use the "Norman L. Publishing Company"!
/sarcasm off
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 4:59 PM
"My point is that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differences in power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes."
How can anyone deny that members of the upper classes generally have it better than those in the lower classes? I was not making that argument at all.
Wait. Who -- besides you -- is saying that you were?
Because it sure isn't me, nor, as far as I can tell, anybody else here.
And I began in the lower middle class, so I know. But that is the great thing about freedom and equality. When it is offered, more people, of all races and genders, can rise to a higher standard of living.
True, but hardly relevant to my point that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differencesin power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes.
But offering fair opportunities for success doesn't mean that there won't be some folks that, just by the luck of the draw, or parentage or whatever, get a bigger slice of the pie than others.
Again true, but still hardly relevant to my point that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differences in power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes.
So if you could just respond directly and meaningfully to my point that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differences in power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes, well, that would be very much appreciated.
Because I'm getting kind of tired of repeating my point that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differences in power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes without you actually responding in a direct and meaningful manner to my point that the differences in power and wealth between BOTH men and women of the upper classes compared to BOTH men and women of the lower classes were AND ARE TODAY far greater and far more significant than the differences in power and wealth between men compared to women WITHIN those upper and lower classes.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 5:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643159">comment from Norman L.Amy, I found this as my very first hit on google - an article by Glenn S. http://www.glennsacks.com/do_women_really.htm
Glenn's a friend. Note this sentence prefacing the women's words:
"Is the following conversation far away?"
In other words, they are fictionalized. Speculation.
You might be a little slower to gloat about your high standards, which apparently do not include reading comprehension.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 5:07 PM
Jay R, I'm PRO-LIFE, so your assumptions about me are way off. Since when did anything I wrote apply to abortion, anyway?
This is always pointless to discuss with you guys, degenerating into "my grandaddy was killed by a tree," therefore, women had it so much better than men....even though men were free to vote, encouraged to own property and businesses, and could usually get a better education.
But, no, women had it MUCH easier - it was cushy and wonderful being subservient and totally dependent...or at least no worse than being male. These were actually good times for women - focused on "the family" and all. Hell, it was the Waltons in every household. Why, oh why, didn't Maw just realize how good she had it and stay in her place?
And, somehow, when you can't discuss things rationally, you go totally off-topic and accuse me of being pro-abortion...lovely tactics. This is just ridiculous!
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 5:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643161">comment from AcksiomAcksiom, again, your link is not proof women do not want a male pill. (And who cares if some or even many don't? If I were a man, I'd sure avail myself of a male pill if there were one. But, it's far harder to stop bazillions of sperm from swimming than one egg from implanting.)
But, personally, I'll always take responsibility for birth control, since it's my body that gets pregnant.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 5:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643162">comment from Norman L.If women are generally in favor of it, why was the development of it recently stopped?
See above, ya big nitwit. Millions of sperm/one egg reference.
There are typically a couple of reasons pharmaceutical companies stop research -- doesn't seem profitable, or too many dead research subjects.
I know, Norman L., you want to believe it's all the angry feminists on corporate staff at Big Pharma. Then again, you accused me of removing the URL to your site -- "sabotaging" your comments -- and putting in a bible URL instead...as if I cared enough to do such a thing. (It's my website cache -- probably a plot by feminist poltergeists...not that I'm a feminist or a poltergeist!)
I have to say, there's a line of dunderheadedness in this string that's a little trying.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 5:13 PM
And, Acksiom, I honestly don't know what you're screaming about. I guess I'm missing your point or find it irrelevant. Just because there is a disparity of power between BOTH men and women of wealth and BOTH men and women in lower classes doesn't mean that we stop trying to address equality between men and women...either way.
I happen to believe that the men's right's movement has some valid complaints about biases towards women in current times. Should we stop looking at that and focus on equality of the classes instead?
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 5:18 PM
ls -
You keep arguing that there is/was institutionalized bias against women.
And you offer only the example of your great grandmother as proof.
In reality, what opportunities would there have been for her? Seriously.
What jobs were there in 1890? Not many. In 1929, we had double-digit unemployment without counting the bulk of women (who at that point were a minuscule part of the work force). There simply were not enough jobs to go around, and most of the ones there were simply could not be done by women.
So, do you care to tell me how this lack of opportunity was part of some grand plan to keep women subservient?
Women were subservient because it was a ticket to an otherwise free ride.
Marriage rates are declining rapidly because men and women no longer NEED each other for simple survival.
Any imagined oppression of women went away not due to any fights, but because the advancement of civilization made marriage mostly obsolete.
Or are you now going to say that expecting women to make their own way in the world and not attach themselves to the first man who happens by is some form of patriarchal oppression?
brian at April 14, 2009 5:28 PM
I think a far more likely reason that drug-based MBC research was stopped is that the pharmaceutical companies gauged the odds that RISUG would pass human standards testing successfully as being too high to warrant further investment in their own models.
RISUG, if it passes human standards testing -- and by all accounts I've seen so far, it will -- would not only cost a mere few dollars for a vas deferens injection at an outpatient clinic for up to ten years of reliable 99.9+% MBC, but it would even be reversible through a similar injection within that time frame for comparable costs.
There's no way that a dose-based drug or hormonal MBC model could compete with that. The upfront development costs just so far alone make that clear.
As to "Acksiom, again, your link is not proof women do not want a male pill," well, if you willfully refuse to perceive Ms. Woodham's statements as being just that, there's not much I can do about it.
You're certainly not going to convince me that the similar-to-far-worse comments I've seen from women in various forums over the years didn't happen. I would provide links but I don't have any; at the time, it never occurred to me that someday I might need them.
But based upon my experience, what the publication of Ms. Woodhams article tells me is that what I've seen expressed online is not only not limited to the internet but is even acceptable in the mass media.
And I don't think it's an insupportable step from there to the idea that female opposition to comparable MBC is not just a miniscule wacky fringe position.
That's certainly not true in terms of female opposition to male intrusion into the traditionally female areas of childrearing. I know you're fundamentally honest enough to recognize that. May I suggest you try mapping across from it to the idea that some women really don't want men to have BC comparable to their own? They are not, after all, so very far apart conceptually.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 5:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643173">comment from AcksiomAs to "Acksiom, again, your link is not proof women do not want a male pill," well, if you willfully refuse to perceive Ms. Woodham's statements as being just that,
She's not "women." She's one woman. And she's arguing that it's kind of a waste because women bear the consequences of a slip-up of the male birth control, so they must have birth control as well.
FYI, I regularly advise men to maintain custody of the condom from start to finish and even carry it off in a ziploc sandwich baggie they keep in their wallet...never to leave their wallet unattended with a woman they are not 100 percent sure they can trust isn't going to use them to get pregnant, etc., etc.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 5:54 PM
Brian, I am NOT arguing that there was always institutional bias. I said just because you aren't officially forbidden to do something doesn't mean there aren't strong cultural and societal biases that effectively disallow the same actions. In fact, those pressures are often much broader and longer-lasting than anything institutionalized.
You are actually making my point. Women felt they had no other choice but to marry the first man who came along. And, sadly, as supposedly liberated as we are today, some women still think that way.
The difference is that in my grandmother's time it was a rational thought. Her options for doing much of anything else were extremely limited. She didn't choose a "free ride" - my God, she worked from dawn till dusk! Eight kids - and no way to stop 'em coming.
That's not the case today, yet the impact of centuries of male/female dynamics still linger, and the female survival response hasn't necessarily matured far enough yet. Viewed in its full historical context, we've only been free and independent for little more than a blink of an eye.
I don't think marriage is obsolete. I plan to get married - but this time because I WANT to, not because I have to, or need to.
And it's amazing how much wiser our choices become when we realize we fully have a choice - that two people can choose each other from a space of independence and self-sufficiency. In the long run, that should make relationships better, not worse. It just takes time.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 5:58 PM
And, Acksiom, I honestly don't know what you're screaming about.
Repeatedly bolding the basic point of discussion that you've consistently refused to address is not 'screaming'.
It's just a means of pointing out your gross behavioral dishonesty so clearly and unmistakably that virtually no one can miss it.
I guess I'm missing your point or find it irrelevant.
Well, which is it then?
Are you missing it, or do you find it irrelevant?
I'm curious to learn how it could be either, since AFAICT you can't actually find it irrelevant without not missing it ITFP.
I mean, you have to understand it first in order to find it irrelevant, right?
So how can it be either of those two possibilities? You can't have the second one without the first one being false.
Just because there is a disparity of power between BOTH men and women of wealth and BOTH men and women in lower classes doesn't mean that we stop trying to address equality between men and women...either way.
Unless, of course, the addressing of equality between men and women is being abused as a means of personal enrichment and entitlement by feminists to the common actual detriment of men and women in general.
That's the ultimate point -- how your focus on differences between men and women WITHIN social classes -- let alone men in the upper classes versus women in the lower classes -- is a distraction from the far more important and significant issue of differences between both men and women together of the upper classes versus those of the lower classes, and how feminists use that distraction to gin up resentment of men in general and your male peers in particular in you and others which they then use to attain greater wealth and power for themselves at the expense of you and your male and female peers alike.
It's fundamentally the same as fascist officers of the State using hate-based propaganda against foreigners or a particular sub-culture in order to exploit the general population.
I happen to believe that the men's right's movement has some valid complaints about biases towards women in current times. Should we stop looking at that and focus on equality of the classes instead?
". . .in current times. . . ."
That would be the answer to your question right there.
Now, can I have some answers to my outstanding questions to you?
Or are you just yet another Pwethiouth Widdle Pwintheth Pwiviwidge who thinks she doesn't have to reciprocate the same rules of courtesy that she expects of others?
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 6:24 PM
She's not "women." She's one woman.
Aaaaaaand you're certainly not going to convince me that the similar-to-far-worse comments I've seen from women in various forums over the years didn't happen. I would provide links but I don't have any; at the time, it never occurred to me that someday I might need them.
But based upon my experience, what the publication of Ms. Woodhams article tells me is that what I've seen expressed online is not only not limited to the internet but is even acceptable in the mass media.
And I don't think it's an insupportable step from there to the idea that female opposition to comparable MBC is not just a miniscule wacky fringe position.
That's certainly not true in terms of female opposition to male intrusion into the traditionally female areas of childrearing. I know you're fundamentally honest enough to recognize that. May I suggest you try mapping across from it to the idea that some women really don't want men to have BC comparable to their own? They are not, after all, so very far apart conceptually.
And she's arguing that it's kind of a waste because women bear the consequences of a slip-up of the male birth control, so they must have birth control as well.
And that is supposed to not be opposing it. . .
. . .um, how, again, exactly?
Because that sure looks like a call for MBC to not be developed to me.
I'm really having a hard time here seeing how 'researchers shouldn't do this' is not opposition.
And how the publication in a mass media outlet of a viewpoint that I've personally seen expressed by other individuals online doesn't indicate a wider acceptance of it than just fringe whacko internet babble.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 6:40 PM
Wow, there are 2 or 3 fucking idiots here today. Or I'm out of patience. Who knows.
Men die on the job-and did so more frequently "back then". Yes, true. And what, praytell, were the death in childbirth stats back then? Pretty darn high, I believe. But it was a great time to be a woman, very safe, no doubt.
As far as a male pill, I think it'd be great, but yes I'd still use my own protection too. Which is why I can't understand why men go naked just cause a woman is on the pill, or says she is. And anecdotally, the men I've heard toss opinions on it were uniformly "no way in hell am I fucking with my body like that".
momof3 at April 14, 2009 6:54 PM
One point lovelysoul, while women may have had to grab onto the first man to happen by - its not like men (for the most part) had a whole lot of options either
lujlp at April 14, 2009 7:14 PM
Lujlp - SHHHH! You'll disrupt THE NARRATIVE.
Dirty little secret - an unmarried man as recently as 50 years ago was pretty much done. He wasn't getting anywhere in the business world, and he was scorned socially.
But I suppose that's better than having 8 kids and washing socks for a man that's truly grateful for the clean socks.
brian at April 14, 2009 7:28 PM
I need found this - I posted it on a feminism post here a while back thought we could use a laugh
By me -
From: WWWTSTBA patriorical subcomittiee on sexual awarness
WWWTSTBA = Who would want to screw these broads anyway?
To: All conspiracy members in good standing
We here at the WWWTSTBA have taken it upon ourselves to both further the patriarcy and placate femminist at he same time. We have endevored to get certain women into the workplace. While we know that seems counter productive please bear with us.
These women we are placing in the workforce are pushy, unattractive and have self esteem - obviously they pose a threat. However, by placing them in the work force we nutrelize them.
1. They are too busy working to have time to activly fight the patriarcy, yes they still complain but they no longer take action.
2. While trying to maintain a career they fail to have children thus fail to pass on their ideas. The few who do have children will rely to TV to distract the kids, and or agents in Hollywood will be able to commence brain washing protocals.
a. as a side note we would like to thank HAMCTF(hollywood area mind contol task force) for all the slutty stippers that barney and the teletubbies helped to produce. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GENTS.
3. As working women these ladies will naturally develop a superiority complex, they will look down on other women - harass, harague, denegrate, and insult 'their inferiors'. This phenomina will cause other women to lose their self esteem making them easier to control and keep in their place.
So as you can see the WWWTSTBA has things well in hand, and those uppity women only think they have made progress.
However is you feel THE PLAN needs tweaking all members in good standing know where the online suggestion box is located.
Sincerly,
the WWWTSTBA
lujlp at April 14, 2009 8:02 PM
Amy, that time o' the month again, eh?
Glenn's a friend
So? What does that have to do with it?
they are fictionalized. Speculation.
Where there's smoke...it's not as if he just dreamed up the topic one day.
And you should know there is a difference between fiction and speculation.
You might be a little slower to gloat about your high standards, which apparently do not include reading comprehension.
Apparently you cannot even take a joke, nor do you understand sarcasm even with the toggle indicator.
How many times are you going to dredge up the thing about the blog link? Sheesh. I admitted I made a mistake and apologized. You're starting to sound a lot like Nick with your holding of grudges. Also it's obviously ludicrous to use the one incident to 'prove' that everything else I say is somehow wrong.
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 8:11 PM
Wow, there are 2 or 3 fucking idiots here today
which one are you?
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 8:16 PM
How do you know he was grateful for the socks? I don't think I ever heard my grandfather compliment her for anything.
Yeah, sure, he probably had a limited selection of women to choose from in a small, farming town. But he sure as hell got away with treating her like crap, even though she was the sweetest lady and never once complained. He was the boss and controlled everything. She couldn't even drive a car, and had no money to buy a nice Sunday dress unless he approved.
So, maybe life was miserable for BOTH men and women back then, but if you had to choose between being the subservient woman with no money, property, or transportation, and the bossy man, who could at least come home and vent his frustrations while being treated like the king of his castle, I think most of us would want the power position, not the weak one.
He was a sheriff, btw, in a peaceful southern town, so he wasn't out working in the coal mines. She worked at least as hard as he did -churning butter, canning, cooking, quilting, sewing all their clothes and caring for 8 kids, while luckily surviving childbirth 8 times.
How can you not see that she, like most women of that era, was more disadvantaged? This doesn't take away from the hardships men faced, but you can't reasonably act as if women were not more oppressed by these circumstances.
lovelysoul at April 14, 2009 8:20 PM
Acksiom,
Amy and the others here pretend they are scientific, e.g. in their demands for evidence - they pretend that common sense and basic human and social psychology do not apply.
Depending on the issue or the stage in the conversation, however, they lapse into hysterics when confronted with something that is unpalatable to them.
P.S. Amy
I received a very high score on the 'Verbal' part of the GRE, and did well on the LSAT too, so I suspect my reading comprehension is just as good as yours.
["Women are naturally better at reading and writing, at verbal and language skills." Hah! That has already been debunked!]
Norman L. at April 14, 2009 8:25 PM
Norman-wait let me get this right: you're chastising Amy and "the others" for failing to accept your "common sense" as scientific evidence? Well, duh. Of course common sense doesn't equal scientific evidence. Your common sense tells you that women would oppose a male birth control pill. My common sense tells me that women would jump at the idea for a male birth control pill-after all, I'm a woman and I think it's a great idea. Diametrically opposing viewpoints, neither of which counts as "scientific evidence."
And you're accusing Amy of lapsing into hysterics? When? Where? All of her writing that I've seen has been rational, intelligent, and backed up by credible sources and statistics.
Reality check-no one is claiming here that women are naturally better at verbal skills. You're essentially arguing with yourself to prove a point that is-what?
Shannon at April 14, 2009 10:13 PM
Lovelysoul: "you can't reasonably act as if women were not more oppressed by these circumstances."
You desperately cling to this fictionalized view of "herstory" in order to avoid cognitive dissonance from your "femmes uber alles" attitude. Without this canard, modern feminism becomes even more a cruel fraud. And you wouldn't want to be responsible in any way for the damage it is causing, right? You LIKE being able to accuse all males of historical "original sin" for which they must BEG women's forgiveness. It's "empowering," isn't it?
By the way, I never said or implied that you were an abortion supporter, and it makes no difference to my observation. I merely pointed out that you specialize in collecting "one-sided coins" when it comes to gender empathy. You whine about women's bodily integrity while blind to the very same issues faced by men. All while women's bodies are legally protected, and men's are anything but.
But not to worry. As a 21st century man, I of course don't expect very much from you.
Jay R at April 14, 2009 10:20 PM
Also-out of curiosity I googled "male birth control bill." The first link that came up was an article on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
The general gist is that a male birth control is currently in the works, but that men have mixed reactions about this development. The first two paragraphs read:
"Forty-year-old Scott Hardin says he’s glad that men may soon have a new choice when it comes to birth control. But, he adds, he would not even consider taking a male hormonal contraceptive. Hardin is like many men who are pleased to hear they may have a new option but are wary of taking any type of hormones.
“I would rather rely on a solution that doesn’t involving medicating myself and the problems women have had with hormone therapy doesn’t make me anxious to want to sign on to taking a hormone-type therapy,” says Hardin, who is single and a college administrator."
The second article that came up, http://health.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm, addresses the question of why a male birth control has taken so long to be developed:
"One reason is that pharmaceutical companies haven't had much interest in -- and more importantly, haven't had much research funding for -- a male birth-control pill. The other reason stems from inherent differences in male and female anatomy."
The third article, from askmen.com, http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_60/72_love_answers.html, gives statistics that say that 66% of men and 75% of women would be open to a male birth control pill.
I am just not seeing any evidence to substantiate the viewpoint that women are against a male birth control pill. And honestly, can't you give it up and acknowledge that the fact that you're wrong about this is a GOOD thing for men? It's a good thing for men and women that both sexes are open to the opportunity for men to exert more autonomy over their reproductive capabilities-why create an argument when there is none?
Shannon at April 14, 2009 10:36 PM
What you all really established is that both male and female faced all sorts of hurdles in life in the 19th and early 20th Century.
Now, regarding property rights. Single women had the same property rights as men from the start of this Republic, but married women did not. Starting in 1832, state after state began to "grant" married women the right to retain or acquire property without forfeiting control of it in marriage. I believe that by 1890 all states had done this.
Voting rights for women started sometime after the Civil War in western states, possibly Wyoming, but was only enacted in 4 or 5 states until the 19th Amendment (at least they did it by amendment rather than Judicial penumbras).
Women were promoters of the social rules every bit as much as men. Women are just as abusive as men, but the abuse can be of different forms. In DV, men use fists, women use weapons. But if a man is hit by a plate, its funny, right?
Ariel at April 14, 2009 10:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643219">comment from Norman L.Amy, that time o' the month again, eh?
Norman, that comment speaks volumes about you. The fact that you thought it and would post it.
And do note that I say that as somebody who celebrated Martin's comment where he called me a "clueless cunt" -- i.e., don't bother grabbing for your next desperate move and accusing me of being thin-skinned. I'm anything but.
If I did hold "grudges," I wouldn't hold one against you. You're just a guy who makes menstrual period cracks as a substitute for being able to hold your own in a debate.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 11:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643220">comment from AcksiomMay I suggest you try mapping across from it to the idea that some women really don't want men to have BC comparable to their own?
I think very few women have given it much thought, save for the occasional flutter of "I wish I didn't have to take these pills with piles of hormones that make my tits hurt" -- meaning, wishing somebody else could do something in lieu, or too.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2009 11:20 PM
How can you not see that she, like most women of that era, was more disadvantaged? This doesn't take away from the hardships men faced, but you can't reasonably act as if women were not more oppressed by these circumstances.
Maybe he does see it, but also sees how both of them were so very, very much far more disadvantaged in comparison to the coal mine owners' female relatives and their peers.
Why are selectively choosing to stop making comparisons just a mere hundred years ago or less? Why aren't you comparing the vast sweep of human history in which both men and women of the lower classes were far more abused and subjugated together by the ruling elites than they abused and subjugated each other within their social level?
There is simply no meaningful comparison to be made between your grandparents' relative gender conditions and the condition of the overwhelming mass of lower-class humanity relative to the ruling elites throughout history.
It only looks impressive if you very carefully select just a very specific miniscule tiny little itsy-bitsy mere fractional section out of the whole of human history to consider.
Acksiom at April 14, 2009 11:31 PM
You're just a guy who makes menstrual period cracks as a substitute for being able to hold your own in a debate.
What do you mean? I addressed your issues, then you did not answer, e.g. when I made the comment about Glenn's letter; but instead you say my remark 'speaks volumes'. Sorry I oppressed you with the period comment...are you having trauma from it right now? Perhaps you should drive up the coast to Esalen where I'm sure there are feminist therapists who can help you.
I agree, if you blow off being called a cunt-face but have a problem with my trivial comment, you are an oddball. But let's cease with the personal attacks -- are you or are you not going to admit that a significant number of women are against a male pill?
We have responded to you with at least two links, whereas you merely say that in interviewing for your book, 'no-one said they're against it'. So? Did you ask them?? I already asked you that once, and you didn't answer.
Quid pro quo.
Norman L. at April 15, 2009 12:22 AM
Of course common sense doesn't equal scientific evidence. Your common sense tells you that women would oppose a male birth control pill.
You have been given the two links. View them, then tell us what you think. So far, you have not provided evidence scientific or any other kind of evidence.
Come to think of it, you don't even know what you're talking about. I did not say or imply that my own common sense tells me women are against the pill. In fact I'd agree with you, one would think they'd be for it.
The type of sense I'm referring to in this case is mostly the ability to extrapolate, which I would consider common....can you not see based on Glenn's letter, and Acksiom's article, that there are a significant number of women against the pill? Or at least that the mentality is out there? It sounds like you're pretending those two things, the letter and the article, exist totally in isolation.
You could probably even disprove that to yourself by googling!
Norman L at April 15, 2009 12:33 AM
You guys are way too easy to spin up. You crack me up!
Norman L. at April 15, 2009 12:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643255">comment from Norman L.Sorry I oppressed you with the period comment...are you having trauma from it right now?
Norman, this comment reveals you're an ass not worthy of response.
As I noted from Martin's comment -- I love a great insult. The old menstrual period joke is not one of them -- it simply emphasizes that you're just a sad eighth-grade girl of man.
"are you or are you not going to admit that a significant number of women are against a male pill?"
Admit? Women don't even think about this issue.
Birth control isn't part of my book, nor are man-woman issues, which is why I said no such thing.
Your links showed no evidence women were against the male pill, and this is a stupid debate.
If there is a male pill, women would not be able to scam men into fatherhood. I'm very much against that and just did a whole TV show on the topic, and have written about it numerous times before.
The male pill does not exist and is thus a non-issue. Yes, the interests of many women are at odds with the interests of many men. I advocate that people behave in a fair and ethical manner, no matter what their gender, and I'm against special treatment under the guise of equal treatment.
Again, the male pill doesn't exist. I know you want to feel persecuted. Go crawl under your bed and do that. This argument you're trying to pick is stupid and a waste of my time. Again, no evidence women in number are for or against a male pill. And, without a pill, who cares?
Go make your lame-ass period jokes elsewhere. I'll refrain from asking you if you failed to have a good bowel movement in the morning, since you act like a poo-flinging monkey in the absence of the ability to engage in rational debate.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 3:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/13/there_really_ar.html#comment-1643271">comment from ShannonShannon's comment went to spamland, and got posted in a delayed manner (it's above), but it's wise, so I'll repost it below so you won't miss it.
Shannon writes:
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2009 3:23 AM
"But not to worry. As a 21st century man, I of course don't expect very much from you".
Well, as a 21st century woman, I expect as lot more of you, Jay R. I expect you to be intellectually honest, even as you are passionate for your cause.
I'm not a feminist. I love men. And I never mentioned "bodily integrity". So, to invent this whole profile of me based on something that I never even said is wrong. You either have me confused with someone else or assume that all women think that way.
And it's not "herstory." Doesn't matter how much you guys try to revise the past to suit your agenda - that makes you no better than the most rapid, irrational feminist.
Feminists always have used that hook - "there was some bad man, somewhere, who did something bad to a woman, so that proves men everywhere were bad".
All I was pointing out is that some of you guys are using the same misleading tactics. "There were some women, in some places, who owned some property and didn't have such bad lives, so obviously, women everywhere were never subservient or oppressed."
And maybe you've never been subservient or thought about how miserable that would be to have someone literally control your existence....and we're not talking about harpy wives. That's not "control". Only a wus would use that argument.
Control is having your education, property ownership, ability to drive, to think, to speak and act freely inhibited or restricted by someone else, or a group of people. And men did control that for women, in most places, up until at least 1890, and effectively well beyond.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2009 5:07 AM
Your right lovelysoul, unfortunatley those same men treated men of the lower social classes in the same manner
lujlp at April 15, 2009 6:15 AM
That's true lujlp. I wanted to add that. It's not like men themselves weren't being oppressed by other forces - the government or class system. But that still doesn't justify putting someone else even farther below you.
I mean, that is how a lot of discrimination, and particularly racism, has attempted to be justified. "I'm beaten down, so I beat you down." That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't negate the fact that one whole group of people, in general, is on the bottom.
My only point here is that the men's rights movement is in danger of rendering themselves as irrelevant as the feminist movement. Feminists did themselves in by refusing to acknowledge ANYTHING that didn't paint women in the most positive light. And, as a result, they came to be viewed as a bunch of irrational zealots...rightfully so.
You have to maintain some balance, not try to slant everything - every part of history - to such a degree that you go off the edge. It's hard when you're in "a movement" to keep that perspective because they're generally lead and fueled by the most angry, agrieved people with the most biased views. And that's good in a revolutionary phase, but in the end, it tends to be counterproductive.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2009 6:44 AM
I'd just like to go on the record as stating that I'm all for a male birth control pill. And be tickled to death if a sexual partner was using it.
That said, he's still either gonna use a condom or not get a piece of me (and I'm post-menopausal, so, no I'm not on the rag right now).
Hmmm, if more men had that attitude (using protection no matter what a woman claims to be on) could it be that there would be less of them tricked into daddyhood against their wills?
It's only equality when each party accepts self-protection against the risks.
T's Grammy at April 15, 2009 11:52 AM
Lovelysoul,
I appreciate your clarifying comments, and really do welcome any attitude, such as you express, that might lead to a detente in the gender war. My crack about not expecting a lot from you was intended as a general, sarcastic commentary on the current infantilization of women in the name of their "liberation." I do apologize if I insulted you personally, which is always uncalled for.
Please understand that I come from a different place than you do: during my entire adult life a war has been waged on men by society because of our sex -- all in the name of "helping" your sex. One of the primary weapons in that war is the feminist-fabricated "historical guilt" of all men AS A CLASS. If I can't help feeling just a little bitter and hostile under the circumstances, well, I'm only human, and, after all, hasn't male alienation been the feminists' real goal, as part of the destruction of the family unit?
My objection is to your PC insistence that women have generally been MORE "oppressed" in the past than have men, as opposed to just "oppressed" ALONG WITH men. To hold this view, you impose your current sensibilities and social more's on past times, and reveal your ignorance about the often-harsh realities of those times. You also, with all due respect, seem to spend little effort actually trying to empathize with the male perspective. Thus, you misinterpret history and mislead yourself, IMHO.
What to your modern eyes may look like horrible past "oppression" may have been seen by both women and men of the time as prudent and necessary protection. How can you believe that women in the past were so weak, ineffectual and helpless, either individually, or more importantly, collectively as a social force? Also, how dare you imply that men throughout history have been naturally disposed to "oppress" their loved ones without revealing more than a little ingrained misandry?
I happen to believe that men were historically more "oppressed" in the service of their women and of society in general than vice-versa, under any reasonable interpretation of that term. The evidence supports it. But at the end of the day, so what!? What difference does it make today which sex supposedly had it worse than the other in various times past?
I ask you to honestly confront this question: Why is it SO important to you to believe that women were generally "more oppressed" in the past than men? What do you gain from this view? What moral "high ground" do you take? What privileges and "remedies" are justified?
Put another way, if your historical view is inaccurate, or more importantly, simply irrelevant, what changes in your gender-relations paradigm would become necessary?
I look forward to your thoughtful reply.
Jay R at April 15, 2009 1:07 PM
I appreciate that civil and insightful response, Jay R.
To me, the past simply explains the origins of the women's movement, which I don't believe would've occured at all had women not felt seriously disenfranchised and faced with an inequality of choice.
If women truly felt "protected" by laws preventing them from voting and social constructs that pressured them not to use their minds but to spend life having babies or being nurses, barmaids, teachers, or wives, then the feminist revolution never would've happened. It certainly wasn't because we wanted to destroy families.
Has it gone too far? What I've learned on this site leads me to think so. I was never really aware of the men's movement until I came here, but I've since developed a much greater appreciation for what men are going through as a result of the women's movement.
And this explains to me the growing anger and frustration that fuels your movement. But I can't help to see the similarities between the two, as well as the dangers that both movements can create if not careful.
Like I said, the women's movement abandoned intellectual honesty in favor of painting everything as anti-male. And this, to me, is where the real oppression of men began - when the truth got twisted into propaganda.
It's not oppression just to have a hard life. Life sucks in many ways, for many people, male or female, but in a free society, we pretty much share the negatives of the human condition equally.
Oppression is when one group conspires to have power over the other, either by law or social constructs. This is often done in the name of protecting the lesser group from themselves - or because life would really be "better" for them if their freedoms were limited.
Feminists have effectively used this to propogate the myth that men don't make good fathers, aren't emotionally sensitive, or aren't capable of controlling your vile desires, so it's "better" if we protect you from yourselves.
This is exactly what was done to women for years. We were the "fragile" sex, too dumb to handle life without different "protections" and limitations.
To deny the truth of that gives you only one half of the puzzle in this gender war. We can't possibly find a detente if men don't acknowledge what started the conflict in the first place. You'll only become as much of a threat to justice as the women's movement has become.
lovelysoul at April 15, 2009 2:30 PM
"You'll only become as much of a threat to justice as the women's movement has become."
Unfortunately, Lovelysoul, this may already have become inevitable. The biggest threat to women is that most men will wake up and come to realize what I've been expressing here -- that they are under serious, unprovoked and unfair attack -- and will begin to "defend" themselves. So few women are, like you (and Amy), wising up, putting the brakes on feminism (currently a truly hateful, vile ideology), and making an effort to once again encourage (and deserve) men's affection -- as opposed to fear and loathing. And feminists seem to want a fight to the death. Women have no right to expect that men are so noble that "equal and opposite reaction" won't occur. Nor can women count on men being able (or willing) to make the distinction between "woman" and "feminist" when the shit hits the fan for real.
So, talk to your sisters about a little attitude adjustment, and maybe we'll have some reason to hope. Men's tolerance and patience is not unlimited. We have been "turning the other cheek" for 40 years. The fuse is burning, and it will be women who extinguish it in time -- or not.
Jay R at April 15, 2009 3:28 PM
"We were the "fragile" sex, too dumb to handle life without different "protections" and limitations."
BTW, Lovelysoul, just who in the hell do you think was encouraging that view? Women's first concern has always been, and always will be, their own security. Believe me, there was no affirmative action where women were clamoring to get behind that mule and plow the north forty!
As Warren Farrell has said, women's greatest strengh is and has been their facade of weakness; men's greatest weakness is and has been their facade of strength. Do you think women manipulating men to get what they want is a new phenomenon?
Jay R at April 15, 2009 3:34 PM
>>I was never really aware of the men's movement until I came here, but I've since developed a much greater appreciation for what men are going through as a result of the women's movement.
Lovelysoul,
I was just thinking how much I agreed with your statement.
Then I read Jay R's latest about burning fuses etc at 3.28.
And I feel myself sliding back...
Jody Tresidder at April 15, 2009 3:34 PM
Sure, Jody. Ignore the situation because you don't like it. Maybe it will just go away ... (Baby covers its eyes and declares, "You can't see me!")
What is your suggestion regarding the path to gender peace? Or do you think everything is just peachy the way it is? You can be part of the solution or part of the problem. Go ahead and "slide" if you will ... .
Jay R at April 15, 2009 4:07 PM
There is no solution because Americans are far too comfortable. On account of that, we need to create strife to give ourselves something to conquer. The worst possible outcome of any of the great political struggles of the day is a definitive solution.
If God is real and he's listening, I think we could use that asteroid right about now.
brian at April 15, 2009 4:57 PM
>>What is your suggestion regarding the path to gender peace?
Jay R,
Well, you could start by demonstrating you've actually understood ls's point about NOT making the same shrill, divisive, blinkered, threatening mistakes some female extremists have made?
Or you could just keep humming "Eye of the Tiger" or whatever your blustering bullyboy anthem du jour might be while churning out dark warnings about fuses burning and so forth...?
Up to you.
Jody Tresidder at April 15, 2009 5:08 PM
"Shut up." she explained.
There are only two ways wars end. When one side has completely destroyed the other's ability to fight, or when both sides get sick enough of fighting that they sue for peace.
The gender feminists have shown no inclination to stop fighting, and when the men give in and try for peace, they get stabbed. When they fight back, the water works start.
If women as a group want to be taken seriously, they need to grow up and stop with the bullshit fighting over ever perceived slight.
LS - I notice that you have pretty much ignored the fact that the men didn't get a whole lot of say in the marriage game either. You pretty much had no choice. You either got married and made with the babies, or you were shunned. Never mind that without forming the families they did there was prettuy much no hope for survival.
100 years ago, men didn't cook or clean. They didn't have the time. Since we've doubled the number of people who work, we had to create jobs for them. Some of those jobs came in the form of creating prepared meals.
So here I sit as a single man, I can have a decent dinner with little or no effort on my part. Unlike my grandmother who spent hours every day cooking.
Clothing is cheap, and wrinkle free. I don't own an iron, and I've never stitched a sock. When the clothes wear out, I just get new ones.
Women haven't been freed from the patriarchal prison of marriage and domestication because of some honorable struggle by the sisterhood. They've been freed from it by men who invented all the machines that make women redundant.
In fact, women have become the one thing they complained all along that they were - useful to men for nothing more than babies and sex.
Congratulations. How does your freedom taste?
brian at April 15, 2009 7:58 PM
you ont need an asteroid brian, a well placed bomb in the yellowstone caldera would do the same thing
lujlp at April 15, 2009 8:22 PM
Men don't like to wear condoms because they reduce sensation, and the driving force behind male desire is sensation. Perhaps this is so obvious that no-one feels the need to state it. The ideal male contraceptive would be one that increased sensation. But then we'd never get any work done.
Norman at April 16, 2009 1:51 AM
>>Congratulations. How does your freedom taste?
Delicious, brian.
How does your male separatist group taste?
Jody Tresidder at April 16, 2009 4:52 AM
You're making my point all too well, Jay R. I think what will happen is that men like you, with such anger and condescension towards women, will eventually render yourselves extinct...in favor of men like my boyfriend, and Amy's Greg, who can handle being with intelligent, successful, non-subservient women and truly, deeply love them.
The old hardcore, angry feminists will die off too. Most of them are already irrelevant now. And hardly any men desire being with them because of their biased attitudes. Therefore, they can't reproduce or spread their propoganda without new offspring - or converts to the cause - and they're getting less and less of either.
Those who can't adapt to these changes and work to create balance - not some gender "victory" or vengeance (which is straight out of the feminist playbook) - will gradually disappear.
lovelysoul at April 16, 2009 6:51 AM
Jody - What male separatist group?
It's not like there's some organization (at least not that I am aware of) that promotes singlehood.
But for the man who is not interested in offspring, women are pretty much extraneous.
And you completely managed to miss the point of my comment anyhow. Which is typical.
brian at April 16, 2009 7:00 AM
>>And you completely managed to miss the point of my comment anyhow. Which is typical.
Unfair, brian!
I grasp perfectly that you enjoy prepared meals for all sorts of excellent reasons!
(To be fair to you, I'd given up "understanding" since I know very well that you collect only evidence for the prosecution when discussing these topics. And I wasn't in the mood for some sort of fake, polite detente today - unlike lovelysoul who has been both patient & incredibly courteous. Plus super articulate!)
Jody Tresidder at April 16, 2009 9:45 AM
Sorry for the delayed response - this thread really seemed to get away from itself. I never imagined that there were people who would actually argue that a legally oppressed group benefited from and even requested that oppression.
When I earlier referred to women being legally deprived of the right to control their own bodies, the primary example that comes to mind is marital rape. Men could legally rape their wives in almost every state in the US until the 1970's or later; some states, like North Carolina, didn't change this until as late as 1993. It's one thing to suggest that the feminist movement created some unfortunate outgrowths that negatively impacted men; it's another to suggest that it was wholly unnecessary because women didn't suffer from legal oppression.
CB at April 16, 2009 10:09 AM
Thanks, Jody. I really laughed at your "eye of the tiger" comment earlier. And very well-put CB.
That is precisely the problem. There is no need for this "war." The men's rights movement is not unlike the white supremecy movement, in that they are both trying to claim oppression and regain power for a class of people who were never legally oppressed or powerless. They have complaints and grievances, but that isn't the same thing.
Supremists have some valid points too - regarding affirmative action and loss of white men's jobs, for instance. But whatever validity they have becomes overshadowed by the fact they come off as hateful looneytoons.
And most reasonable people realize that supremists are fighting a "revolution" where none is needed because their group, white men and women, have never been oppressed.
To the contrary, the civil rights movement, and the women's movement both needed to be fought because they were truly correcting legal oppression. Did they overcorrect? Sure. But that's all - an overcorrection - which is really to be expected whenever you have cultural change of such magnitude.
What is needed now is some thoughtful, respectful balancing in the areas where things went too far. The hateful verbiage is unecessary and counterproductive to that end. So, I'm not sure balance is really what is wanted by the men's movement anymore. They, like white supremists groups, have worked themselve up into believing they're entitled to a "counter-revolution", but the facts don't warrant one, so they're starting to just sound crazy.
lovelysoul at April 16, 2009 10:57 AM
Oh, CB. The word games you play!
Men could ALWAYS be prosecuted for assaulting and harming their wives, even if a sex act was involved. But, because consent for sex WAS presumed in marriage, "rape" was not one of the legally-available charges.
Of course, folks like you are happy to extend "marital rape" from abhorrent acts of violence to the current "Well, the next day I decided I really hadn't been into doing it when he started" standard of "rape."
Would you be happy to have women prosecuted and jailed because they got their husbands drunk before "imposing" themeselves on the poor, impaired creatures?
Equality is a bitch. No wonder women avoid it like the plague.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 11:10 AM
I would be happy to have anyone, male or female, prosecuted for sexual assault if that person forced him or herself on a non-consenting partner.
And as for men being prosecuted for assaulting and harming their own wives, you'd be hard pressed to come up with any substantial number of situations in which men were punished for violence against women prior to the advent of the women's rights movement. (If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to provide it.) In addition, your statement reveals the crux of the problem: you don't seem to believe that married women have a right to decide when to have sex, and that therefore, a wife cannot be raped by her husband. Is this the case?
CB at April 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Lovelysoul,
I see how uncomfortable my observations have made you (and poor Jody). But did you not notice that they preceded my expression of hope that women like yourself (and Amy, of course) may be able to set things right? My comments also followed praise for your somewhat gentler (although still dismissive) attitude toward gender relations.
So, you divert yourself to an attack on me as a chest-thumping "supremacist."
If I say to you, "A tsunami is coming, run for high ground and warn others of the danger!" it does not mean that I wish you and others harm, nor does it mean that I am in favor of the tsunami. Can you understand the distinction between a threat, as opposed to a warning, combined with a plea for cooperative assistance?
In all of this, you never deny the coming tsunami -- you just castigate me for being an alarmist.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 11:36 AM
And I'm saying you're kidding yourself, Jay R, if you think it'll be a tsunami. You don't have the backing for that - any more than white supremists groups do. You might, if you took a rational approach, but the current one is making you and other MRAs look like a vengeful, hate-spewing, irrational fringe group.
Reasonable people will not wish to be associated with that, so you are narrowing your support base considerably.
It is normal that a class of people who previously had the ability to oppress another class of people would be angry once the oppressed class is given previously denied rights and freedoms. That will naturally seem to the oppressors as if they've lost "rights."
However, that doesn't make it so. There may be areas where adjustments are needed but no reason to return the powers that were previously held.
And the right to batter and rape wives was one of those powers. Of course, women didn't come forward and report it! Where could they go? Rape, particularly, is hard to prove, and battery is also unless there are substantial marks left. But, even more of a deterrent was that women were largely dependent on their husbands, and they had very few options for themselves if they left, particularly if they had a bunch of children to bring along.
Likewise, you'd be hard-pressed to find any records of white men prosecuted for abusing black men before slaves were liberated...and probably not very often after that, until the civil rights movemement. But it doesn't mean abuse didn't HAPPEN! That is the silliest argument to offer as proof. All it means is that the victims were afraid to come forward.
That was an injustice that needed to be addressed. And it obviously didn't make a fringe element of white men very happy, so they formed supremists groups and talk about revolutions and violence...and maybe even a "tsunamis" of revenge.
They make threats, rather than offer solutions....because they really don't want equality. Truth be told, they want their superiority back.
So, I'm just saying you're sounding a lot like that too, and it's either a mistake, which you and other MRAs need to rectify, or it's just the truth seeping through, and you, like rabid feminists, are just paying lip service to gender equality.
lovelysoul at April 16, 2009 12:31 PM
Lovelysoul: "Only men have to change!" "The oppressors can never be oppressed!" "You have no problems that are not your own fault!" "The proof of oppression is the very lack of evidence of oppression!"
How quickly you retreat to the non-think, anti-male polemic of the knee-jerk feminist, even as you attempt to distance yourself from that type of feminism.
Be patient, Lovelysoul. Eventually life will knock all of that PC, women's studies nonsense out of your head. But I don't hold your naivete' and inexperience against you. You are making an effort.
If you weren't worried about the present and future of gender relations, you'd be off singing in the chorus of the "go-girl" crowd, rather than mixing it up here with threatening neanderthals like me.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 12:53 PM
I'm beginning to think that "Jay R" is actually an undercover feminist trying to discredit the 'men's rights' movement. This person makes ridiculous and shocking claims without a shred of evidence or reasoning, and when challenged, retreats to blatant misstatements of others' positions, combined with insults and condescension. I can think of no better way to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the views he purports to support - other than lovelysoul's thoughtful responses, of course.
CB at April 16, 2009 1:03 PM
Feminists LOVE to go on about "loss of privilege" (meaning deprivation of equal rights) being SO upsetting to men. Perhaps this is really why, as they look to the future, so many ladies are upset; no matter how they try to preserve it, female privilege will eventually erode completely as men eventually "get it." Then women can deal with finally having reached the status of second-rate men. Congratulations! This feminist utopia is fast approaching.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 1:10 PM
CB,
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis and insights. (He's ugly and has bad breath!! He says things I don't want to be true! Let's all not like him together!!)
Still waiting for YOU to offer any back-up for your crap. Oh, that's right. You don't need any because you have that woman's "different way of knowing." Uh huh.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Jay R, you may be a Neanderthal, but I'm not threatened. What an ego you have!
I never took "women's studies," nor am I naive or inexperienced. I have experienced male domination, and marital rape, up close and personal.
The difference is that, unlike you, these experiences didn't make me lose all objectivity. I didn't grow to hate men or believe you are all that way. If anything, it made me value and appreciate, even more, the many wonderful men who treat women respectfully and lovingly, who aren't so insecure as to need to be angry and controlling.
But my life experience has certainly given me the insight to identify those men who do want to dominate, and my sense is that you have no real interest in being fairminded here. You hate women and are trying to be superior to them...and that has more to do with what threatens you than me.
lovelysoul at April 16, 2009 1:23 PM
Jay,
Again, your rebuttal (and I'm using that term loosely) consists of making up things that I never said. The only person who's said anything about a woman's "different way of knowing" (huh?) is you. If there is a specific claim that you feel lacks evidence or reasoning, please point it out, but random name-calling isn't going to get you anywhere.
At this point, treating your responses seriously just seems counterproductive. If you're interested in having an intelligent debate, indicate that by offering reasoned analysis supported by evidence. Otherwise, I'm not going to encourage you further by responding rationally when you can't be bothered to do the same.
Oh, and for anyone who is further interested in the spousal rape issue, this is a decent overview: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701
CB at April 16, 2009 1:23 PM
"You hate women and are trying to be superior to them...and that has more to do with what threatens you than me."
Lovelysoul, this is the oh-so-predictable final rejoinder of any feminist confronted by reason. So you never took women's studies? Then you're a true natural.
By the way, in the adult world, disagreement and criticism does not equal "hate."
Jay R at April 16, 2009 1:39 PM
CB,
I reviewed your last pompous, sanctimonious comment. Then I reviewed what I have posted here, and what you have posted in response. And then I laughed.
BTW, not every phrase in quotes refers to a comment YOU made. I was making sarcastic (thus the quotes) reference to the oft-repeated claims of feminists that women need not be constrained by logic and rational discourse, as those are "male" attributes. Women, it is asserted, have a "different way of knowing." If you have never heard this phrase before, then you are woefully ignorant even of the feminist dogma which you so vigorously defend.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 1:51 PM
All you've done is be condescending and make threats towards women, Jay R. There'll be a "tsunami"...we're going to reach the class of second-rate men...and so forth.
You haven't made hardly any balanced or respectful statements regarding women, so what is one supposed to think? The only half-way fairminded statement you've made is that you hope women like Amy and me can "fix" things.
Well, we can't fix that attitude. We can't work with someone like you towards a solution because you refuse to offer any...just threats. We can't work with someone who views our whole gender in such a negative light.
And if we say we don't appreciate that, you call us man-haters and feminists. But I like (and love) a lot of men, just not the kind who constantly puts down women. I have no repsect for that.
Show me how you really want gender equality, and not a total reversal of the positive gains that have been made for women. Because all I want as a woman is to have the same rights to pursue my dreams as you do. The government can't guarantee me a good life - it can't guarantee that to anyone. All the government can do is give us the same tools to pursue happiness.
Right now, my happiness involves purchasing my very own home for the first time. I don't think that would've been possible for me, as a woman, a century ago. A man might've left me one, but it wouldn't have been the dream house that I've worked hard for and chosen all by myself.
And I want to live in it with the wonderful loving man in my life, and we'll make each other happy...without anybody controlling anybody...without any yelling or conflict...and that's truly what most women want...which is probably the same as what you want. We're not so different.
lovelysoul at April 16, 2009 2:22 PM
Lovelysoul, of course we're not so different, as is apparent from a clear, non-hysterical reading of my comments. It's just that women can NEVER be equal so long as they tote around that stinking mess of purported historical victimhood in order to justify their current slate of priviliges over men. This perpetual victim status only results in a lack of respect for women.
You ignore actual history and instead conclude simply that the women's movement would never have happened if women weren't historically oppressed. Setting aside the obvious question of how such an "oppressed" group could so suddenly emerge on top, should we also conclude that the Nazis would never have persecuted the Jews but for existence of past injustice by the Jews against Germans, as the Nazis claimed? That's ridiculous, now isn't it?
How happy can your man be so long as you harbor the idea that, as a man, he is guilty and OWES you something, as a woman, on the basis of events occurring before either of you was born? You will exude your sense of entitlement, and he WILL grow to resent it.
But, I want you to be happy. Good luck.
Jay R at April 16, 2009 3:16 PM
Jay R, I will ask you to consider one thing. Much of what I know about male dominating behavior comes not from women but from men.
With the exception of my current boyfriend, every man I've been romantically involved with had controlling tyrants for fathers. My ex was beaten regularly as a boy, while his mom was meek and subservient.
So, most women don't need a history lesson or feminist input to know that this was a dynamic in a lot of families. We know because we deal with the emotional fallout in the men that we love (and often the cycle of abuse as these men have a tendency to become like their fathers).
It's not that I "want" this to be true. I don't. Women were not the only victims of this domination - little boys and girls were too. But, since their dads were their role models, it seems to have a greater impact on men.
My current boyfriend is the only guy I've ever been with who had a gentle, loving relationship with his dad. And, perhaps not coincidentally, he is the most gentle, loving man that I've ever been with.
I think things are changing now, with fathers today. They are more psychologically aware and conscious of how their behavior impacts their children, and I see a lot of great dads out there. If they were abused, they are breaking the cycle. But, to me, it's just factually wrong - and also not fair to them - to deny that men of past eras were often dominant and controlling - not just to their women, but the whole family.
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 6:40 AM
Yes, Lovelysoul, get in touch with the source of your anti-male bigotry and misandry, and then maybe you can rid yourself of its toxic, and limiting, effects.
Your blaming of males is a crutch. Get rid of it, and you (and those men in your life) will be much happier.
Again, good luck.
Jay R at April 17, 2009 8:28 AM
One more thing, Lovelysoul,
Look into it, and you will discover that the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women, and that the majority of that abuse is directed at their boys. Statistically, the safest place for a child (and his mother) is in a household with the natural father.
Does knowing that women abuse boys more than men do make you feel any better? Perverse, indeed, but information is power.
Do yourself a big favor, and rid yourself of what you THINK you know. It's bad for you (and will be harmful to your relationship with men.)
I wish you the best.
Jay R at April 17, 2009 11:55 AM
"Look into it and you will discover" doesn't cut it. If you have evidence for a claim, provide it. If you don't have the evidence - maybe you're the one who needs to be ridding yourself of what you THINK you know.
Oh, and even if you are able to come up with a study proving your conclusion (a quick google search turned up a few other people making that claim, but none with actual statistical evidence), make sure it takes into consideration the number of children being raised by single women as opposed to single men. If greater numbers of women are custodial parents of children, then logically there will most likely be greater numbers of women doing all sorts of child-related activities - regretfully, this will also include abuse.
CB at April 17, 2009 12:30 PM
As a GAL, I question those stats, Jay R. They are likley skewed because more children today live in single parent homes with mothers and no fathers. Thus, the stats would naturally show "more" child abuse by mothers.
This is what gender movements do - they twist facts to suit their cause.
At any rate, that was clearly not the case in past eras when men headed the households, and women were expected to be subservient and agreeable. I think if you ask your male friends - at least those who are middle aged -you'll find a higher percentage of them were verbally or physically abused by their fathers, or at least had cold, distant fathers.
There are tons of books written about these difficult father/son relationships - try reading Pat Conroy, for instance. "The Great Santini". This is not a myth that I just made up on my own for some feminist agenda.
I truly love and deeply empathize with men, and I have no problem with male relationships. I'm in a wonderful relationship! I do not resent or hate any man. In fact, I'm still good friends and business partners with my ex. You truly sound nuts to keep saying this. It shows that you are completely biased against women because NOTHING I say seems to get through to you.
lovleysoul at April 17, 2009 12:40 PM
lovelysoul that why we have percentages, to account for the differences in baseline numbers.
60 out of 100 = 60%
600 out of 1000 = 60%
see how that works? the base numbers were ten time larger but the result is the same percentage
lujlp at April 17, 2009 2:05 PM
CB, do your own homework. This is a blog, not a scientific review. If you had found anything contradicting me, you would splash it all over the place here. You admit that I'm right because of the greater number of women raising children. Of course this will affect the statistics ... but that wasn't the point. Sure, some men are abusive. But, for WHATEVER reasons, women do most of the abusing, especially of boys. So, accusing men of being the greater abusers of children is baseless, which I'm sure disappoints you to no end.
Lovelysoul,
You say I am completely biased against women because nothing you say gets through to me. Wrong on both counts. I just refuse to accept lies because they make you feel better about being a woman.
As for the "bad dads" you seem to think were so prevalent in the past, have you never heard the phrase "just WAIT until your FATHER gets home!" Yeah, good ol' Dad gets home from work to find that he is expected by "docile, subservient" Mom to dish out the discipline, rather than get a hug. Great. According to you, she's a passive victim along with the misbehaving child, and he's just another ogre who LOVES beating his kid.
You demand empathy while giving none. I would just let this go, but your unfortunate, misinformed, and misguided attitude shared by so many women (and a lot of foolish men) is poisoning male-female relations.
Jay R at April 17, 2009 2:13 PM
You're the one poisoning male-female relations, Jay R. Either I deny that women were legally oppressed and culturally disadvanted for most of history - as they STILL are in much of the world - or I don't "like" men.
I mean, I also like many German people, but by your logic, I would need to deny the holocaust ever occurred to show them proper "empathy". That's illogical. I don't hold the holocaust against the Germans I meet today, any more than I hold the past against men. Or hate all whites because they once oppressed blacks. The truth is just the truth, and I won't deny it to be politically correct.
And, as a GAL, I'm assigned abuse/neglect cases, and I see how many single moms head households. I see how many dads are absent. Yet, just because a certain percentage of those female-headed families have abuse claims doesn't make me assume that children are necessarily safer with men.
Show me credible stats that include only two parent homes, or homes with a male in them, including stepfathers and brothers. If those stats prove that men are less likely to be the abusers, then you could make the claim you're making.
But, in 20 years, I have seen many cases of male abusers - particularly molestations of young girls and boys by men. There are a pretty equal number of male and female substance abusers who simply neglect or abuse their children.
So, it doesn't seem to me that EITHER gender has a legitimate claim to being the "safer" parent. And that is because I AM unbiased.
Unfortunately, you can't even recognize an unbiased opinion. Because I'm female, and have a perception that differs from yours, then I must be biased and a "man-hater".
Again, straight from the feminist playbook - logic doesn't matter. It's almost laughable how you don't see how your tactics are precisely the same.
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 3:24 PM
PS: I would also question any study that claimed women were less likely to abuse children. That would reek of feminist propaganda to me....just the whole idea of maintaining that one gender is "safer" for a child than the other. Sounds fishy.
The only area where that might be true would be molestation. I have yet to encounter a female sexual molestor.
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 3:48 PM
Umm how about all those teachers that have been arrester for
wait for it
molesting children!!!!!
lujlp at April 17, 2009 4:37 PM
Not my cases, lujlp. Just said I hadn't had one, not saying it never exists, but it's less common, so fems could validly claim that...in just that one area.
Why does everyone here have to be looking for the "gotcha" moment? My comment made perfect sense.
Besides, a lot of those cases were indeed consensual, with the boys actively pursuing the teachers. My boyfriend had a relationship with a female teacher when he was 15...that was way before it was heard of to prosecute. And, to this day, he doesn't feel "victimized". He remembers it fondly.
This thread is about the diffences between males and females, and I think that is an interesting example. Boys aren't socialized to guard their virginity, or treat their sexuality as quite so precious as girls are. Therefore, they don't usually tend to experience female seduction as such a violation.
Which (before anyone starts) is not to say the teachers shouldn't be prosecuted.
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 6:30 PM
It is also important to mention that those cases all involved physically mature-looking males...not young, pre-adolescent children.
I say that because I think we have really gone off the deep-end in this country registering sex offenders. Both men and women, as well as teens, risk being labeled as pedophiles, when they aren't perving on little kids but sexually mature-looking people.
To me, there's a big difference. A true sex offender - the kind we parents really fear - is an adult who wants to rape our 3 yr old.
I feel there should be a different classification for teens just being teens, or men and women who are not physically attracted to underdeveloped victims. Once a victim has past puberty, it's really a different type of crime than what we all think of when we hear "sex offender".
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 6:43 PM
Tell me lovelsoul suppose you had a physicallymature 15yr old girl who pursed a male teacher, would you be a caviler about that?
lujlp at April 17, 2009 7:06 PM
I'm not cavalier about it at all, lujlp. I'm just saying we need a different classification.
If my 15 yr old daughter looks 21, and she seduces her teacher, well, he has definitely used bad judgement and violated parental trust. He should still be prosecuted because he's an adult and should know better.
Yet, do I want him to show up when I do a search of my neighborhood for "sex offenders". Should I live in fear of him raping my 5 yr old neice when she's out playing in the yard? No. That's not likely because he's only turned on by physically mature girls, not little children.
We're convoluting the sex offender registries with people who shouldn't be there. It's ruining lives and causing parents unecessary fear.
lovelysoul at April 17, 2009 7:21 PM
Wow! Really great post came across it on Google. This aricle is extremely interesting. You seem to be a very experienced blogger I’m actually new to blogging and I recently made a website about online pawn shop . If your not busy I could really use some feedback on it. Thanks alot!!
g-spot vibrators at March 21, 2011 12:26 AM
Leave a comment