I used to enjoy Metafilter, a vaguely intellectual bloggish/website of curiosities, personal tales and nostalgia. I tried to look through there tonight, but everything's dickless.

It's as if there's nothing in life that should every require courage, or discipline, or sacrifice or even practice: As though if you need any of those things, it's someone's being mean, or some policy from Old Guys is still being enforced.

> ...In short, feminism in the West
> has assumed the features of an
> authoritarian movement.

Well, yes, but people with money and brains remain unaffected.

Well, yes, but people with money and brains remain unaffected.

They might remain undeluded, but even those paying attention are affected by the sheer mass of morons

It's as if there's nothing in life that should every require courage, or discipline, or sacrifice or even practice: As though if you need any of those things, it's someone's being mean, or some policy from Old Guys is still being enforced.

Yes, but that's not all on feminism, which strikes me as more of a trailing than a leading indicator here. I love Stanislaw Lem's Return from the Stars, wherein a couple of astronauts return from space and while they were gone (time dialation and all that) people had become entirely soft and risk-averse. They finally give up and had back out to explore.

It's the flip side of creating a society with antibiotics and end-of-life care and viagra.

Astra, that was a theme in several Joe Halderman books too. In The Forever War, when the protaganist returns from his first time-dialated tour of duty, he finds that most of the population now consists of "artists" who live cooped up like rats in mega apartment complexes, and spend most of their waking hours smoking pot.

I must read this so called Joe Halderman starting with Forever War.

Joe Haldeman. FIFY.

Time-dilation / displacement themes:

Larry Niven
-A World Out Of Time, novel
-One Face, short story

Queen (the band)
-'39, by now-Dr. of Astrophysics Brian May, CBE

Mike Judge
-Idiocracy, film

???
-Forever Young, film starring Mel Gibson

That's all for now.

First off it is Joe Haldeman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Haldeman

Secondly I disagree with the premise of the article. Modern gender feminists do not hate men nor do most want "Power" over them in the positive sense. What they want, and what they have achieved in great part, is a society in which women have all of the authority while men bear all of the responsibility. Look at procreation as the quintessential example, women decide;
If there will be sexual activity,
If there is consent (and can retroactively withdraw same),
If birth-control is used,
If conception is permitted,
If the fetus will be brought to term,
If the child will be raised by her.

The man is then reduced to a condition of indentured servitude for whatever term the woman's lawyer and a judge decide and what that mans rights (if any) are in regard to the child, while the woman is automatically considered the primary care-giver and due whatever level of financial support the man can bear (regardless of his ability to pay or provide for the other areas of his life and responsibilities). This holds true even when the man has been the victim of rape (statutory rape being a condition where a minor, WHO CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT, is the sperm donor) or the woman obtains the sperm by force or fraud and uses it to impregnate herself without the consent of the man.

The feminists are likewise quite comfortable with depending on the "Patriarchal Power Structure" to enforce their will on the men in our society. In fact most demand that the Patriarchy operate in their favor even as they decry it and it does in large part.

Likewise, in feminizing a portion of the male population they are creating a two-tiered structure with their emo/metro-sexual creatures occupy one end of this bell-curve and hyper-masculine neanderthals occupy the other and the middle of the curve gets progressively smaller. A situation which can and if these trends persist, will result in a backlash that will give feminists exactly the kind of patriarchal power structure they claim already exists.

Don't believe that? Perhaps you should check the rise of Islam among lower class European males. I have seen a number of interviews among such where the converts claim that the male/female relationship dynamic is a primary motivator. Look to the Afghanistan of the Taliban for a real Patriarchy and the place of men and women is based upon the raw physical strength of the two.

Time-dilation / displacement themes: [...]

Posted by: DaveG at October 2, 2014 9:53 AM

How does Dr. Who not make this list?

Okay. I’m gonna clear something up about “feminism”.

Feminism used to be a good cause. It used to stand for the belief that women should have equal rights and the same opportunities to pursue careers and chase their dreams just as men do. It used to mean you believed that women should be treated as more than objects. Women who used to call themselves feminists stood up against oppression of women. They believed that women should be respected as human beings and valued as contributing members of society. And they fought for it, they didn't whine on facebook about sexist tee shirts and unfair wage gaps and pink power tools.
Women wanted to treated “equal” to men in terms of ecomonics, law, family choices, healthcare options, career options, education choices, etc… They wanted to feel free to make their own CHOICES about the path their lives took.

This is no longer what feminism means. It’s no more than a power struggle now than a fight for equality. (and not this B.S. girls are the same as boys “equality” because, well, science.)

Feminism has turned into female entitlement.

Listening to these young “feminists” today, you’d think that every man is a rapist/pedophile/jerk/sexual deviant who only wants to keep us down. They make a huge deal out of innoculous things they’ve deemed “offensive” like Batman wife tee shirts and the color pink on toys. They insist that any man who would approach them to ask them out is only after ONE thing and how dare they in one breathe and then bemoan their loneliness in the next. They wear clothing meant to attract attention and then cry out “Pervert!” when they receive that attention. They insist on their right to have open sexual relationships, unprotected and free, and then villianize anyone who would suggest they should then deal with the consequences that come from those encounters.

The term ‘feminist’ is now being used by young women who wouldn’t understand what ACTUAL feminism is if Websters bit*hslapped them with a dictionary and a burning bra.

What these modern day ‘feminists’ have forgotten is that just because you WANT something, it doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it. The word “equality” and “womens’ rights” do not mean what they used to mean. They are actually substitutes for ‘vagina entitlement’.

Telling a woman that she must ALSO be accountable to the consuequences of her choices apparently means that you’re condoning a this supposed “War on Women”. Having a vaja* doesn’t excuse you from being accountable nor does it give you a reason to stop using your damn brain.

Listen, ladies.
There is no War on Women.
The only ones who are creating the divide amongst men and women are so-called Feminist Women who use the word “equality” as a weapon.

Yes, there are still many examples of masogonism in society, just as there are still racists. You cannot eliminate those bad apples by insisting everyone follow the script you’ve written for them so that you have more power. The point of Women’s Lib movement was so women had more CHOICES and women have never had more choices than they do now. So, if a woman chooses to stay home and rear her kids, stop calling her husband a sexist pig who’s trapping his wife and stop calling her a slave to tradition and accusing her of helicoptering over her kids. If a woman chooses to work instead of being SAHM, stop calling her selfish and neglectful. If a woman chooses to have NO kids, stop saying she’s not a real woman. If a woman decides she’s pro-life, stop saying she’s a traitor to her gender. If a woman chooses to dress up and wear makeup because it makes her feel pretty, stop telling her she’s only succumbing to societies expectations and unreachable standards of beauty. If a woman decides that she doesn’t want to wear dresses and hates makeup, stop telling her she’s not trying hard enough to attract a man.

Just, stop.

WOMEN are their own worst enemies against real feminism, not men.

And also, spellcheck will be used next time I post.
Damn...

"How does Dr. Who not make this list?"

Oops. I'm an SF Geek, but I've never felt the urge to watch that show.

Sabrina wins the Internets. You just said everything I was thinking, but probably better than I would

Feminism has always been based on a lie, and that lie was that women did not have professional opportunities prior to the feminist's clamor for rights, but if you look at the historical records, for instance; the medical school graduation class lists in the 1890's you will find several women.

My great grandmother was the first elected Justice of the Peace in the world.

I had a great aunt whose mother was a physician, and my father's sister was a mathematician, and highly respected mechanical engineer who worked as an aircraft designer during World War II.

The truth is, feminism has always been about making low level clerical positions, teaching and government work pay more than they should, distorting the market for administrators, and suppressing the supply of the high skill trades such as pipe fitting, plumbing, and electrical work which require greater upper body strength than most women can manage.

It has gotten so bad, that many low skill paper pushing positions in government like *Sexual assault response coordinator* who supervises no one, makes more than a Professional engineer with an advanced degree who supervises 15 people,

And then, the government wonders why they cant hire enough engineers.

Oops. I'm an SF Geek, but I've never felt the urge to watch that show.

Posted by: DaveG at October 2, 2014 2:20 PM

If you're interest in checking it out, I recommend starting from the beginning of the revival, but if you're going to jump in mid-stream, a good place to start is season 4, episode 8, Silence In The Library.

if you look at the historical records, for instance; the medical school graduation class lists in the 1890's you will find several women.

The dean of University of Michigan's architecture school, back in the 60s, told my aunt and the other women there that he would not graduate any women.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2014 6:28 AM

And there is still discrimination against Jews and Asians, which is what affirmative action does.
But now the discrimination is in favor of the academically unqualified.

*policy* didn't make things better.

@Amy

I have been discriminated against, but so has my son, in favor of girls.
At my first choice Law School I was discriminated against in favor of lawyers kids, and the politically connected.

My son was discriminated against at a music school because he wasn't a girl.

There are always going to be people who dislike you, either for your sex, your race, your looks, your accent, or your obnoxious personality.

There is plenty of individual discrimination going on. The sex and race spoils game, just makes it worse.

Navel gazing about specific policies to *level the playing field* so that everyone gets a just outcome is just fairy dust.

In the end, Boo Hoo, life is *unfair* and attempts to make it more fair, are destined to do nothing more than push that big blob of unfairness onto different people, often for twisted reasons. It just never goes away.

The dean of University of Michigan's architecture school, back in the 60s, told my aunt and the other women there that he would not graduate any women.

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at October 3, 2014 6:28 AM

In the 1980s, our school district's policy was that kids had to use the bus stop closest to their home. When my mother wrote to request that the school bus pick us up at the bus stop near the babysitter's house, the school board initially said no. When she petitioned the school board at a public meeting, one school board member said that if she was a decent mother, she would be at home with us instead of heading out to work. I think once he put such a fine point on it, it was that much easier to get the policy changed.

People create policies. I'm glad people attempt to make them, for lack of a better word, fair.

C. J. Cherryh's Merchanter's Luck deals well with less than Einsteinian time dilation. They have faster than light travel, but there is still time dilation. So ship families and station families form in to separate class structures. After all, if you miss the ship leaving by the time they get back you will be much older than those who left. So not the generations have passed and society is completely different situation.

Though personally I like her Chanur series better. It is much easier to read and has truly alien characters/societies. Not the star trek we are all the same except for the bumps on our forehead type aliens.

People create policies. I'm glad people attempt to make them, for lack of a better word, fair.

Posted by: Michelle at October 3, 2014 8:26 AM

The best you can hope for with policy is to make it neutral. Few policies succeed at even that low bar.

And you are absolutely correct. In a Liberal's mind, it is the *attempt* that counts, and not the actual results, or the frequent disastrous effects, of good intentions taken too far.

This is why capitalism is inherently evil, because liberals believe it is primarily driven by greed. Therefore, bad intent, bad policy,

Human Nature is a hard teacher, but a fool will learn by no other method than experiencing the results of policies with good intentions.

Look at procreation as the quintessential example, women decide;

If birth-control is used,
If conception is permitted,

Warhawke223
_________________________________

Er...I don't quite follow.

Contrary to what some MRAs like to claim, most women (especially in unmarried couples) do NOT object when a man wants to use a condom. (And if she does, it should be easy enough for him to point out that even the Pill is hardly infallible, for more than one reason, and that he really wouldn't want HER to have to face an unplanned pregnancy. If she's using the IUD, he can point out that ectopic pregnancies can happen with IUDs, that those are seriously dangerous, and he could never live with himself if she were to have one.)

If men are going to complain that it's too much worrrrkk to remember to use condoms, maybe they need to campaign and fund-raise for Vasalgel so that it WILL actually get to the U.S. by 2017, as Parsemus has claimed it will. (I'm guessing the people at Parsemus are just trying to speed up funding so they won't have to repeat what the media have been saying for decades - that it's just 5 years away. But if that trick works...more power to them!)

In the meantime, I wish MRAs would come clean regarding their accusations that feminist organizations - or famous living self-described feminists - don't want men to be able to prevent unwanted fatherhood. So far, they cannot name even one. (One famous deceased feminist has been so accused - but I can't find any proof that she was worried about anything other than men's LYING about being on a male contraceptive, which is a fear that any father of a teen girl can empathize with.) Plus, as I've mentioned, if feminists didn't want men to have such choices, they'd ALREADY have tried to make laws to stop single men from getting vasectomies. (Right now, their main complaint is that sometimes, at least, a 21-year-old man can get sterilized if he wants - but a woman is typically told to wait until she's 30 and/or has had at least two kids, as if women in their 20s always change their minds and men never do.) And here's a reminder: If doctors refuse to sterilize married men without the acknowledgement of the patients' spouses, well, the same seems to be true when married women want to get sterilized secretly. Who wants to get sued?

The best you can hope for with policy is to make it neutral. Few policies succeed at even that low bar.

Posted by: Isab at October 3, 2014 11:07 AM

Neutral is a better word than fair. Thank you.

Lenona Says:

"I wish MRAs would come clean regarding their accusations that feminist organizations - or famous living self-described feminists - don't want men to be able to prevent unwanted fatherhood. So far, they cannot name even one."

I am having trouble understanding why this would be difficult for them to demonstrate.

I feel like you are equivocating again here where you are jumping back and forth between two different meanings of the term "fatherhood".

There is of course the biological meaning of fatherhood where the father is the man who provided half the genetic material to generate the embryo in the first place.

However, there is also the longer term meaning of fatherhood that refers to the man who is financially and emotionally responsible for raising that child into adulthood.

Whenever I have seen such arguments written by MRA's they are usually referring to the second usage of the word fatherhood and not the first.

I think it would be extremely easy to identify "self-described feminists" who do not want men to be able to prevent unwanted fatherhood in the context of the man deciding they do not wish to be financially or emotionally involved in the child's life.

Well, given the context of my post, it was obvious I was talking about male birth control, per se. Where's the "jumping back and forth" in that post? Jeez.

Want proof that MRAs are ranting a lot about a conspiracy theory with regard to MBC? Go to Youtube and search under "male birth control" "male contraception," "vasalgel," etc. Then read the COMMENTS. Depending on who posted the video in question, you'll find plenty of men arguing that nameless women/feminists don't want Vasalgel or a male pill in the US and are trying to stop it. But, again, they can't name a single famous feminist who has said as much. Oh yes - check out any article on the subject in "A Voice for Men," too. Or soc . men. In the meantime, Katha Pollitt, in a recent interview regarding her new book "Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights," repeated her support (indirectly) for male birth control, support which she's expressed clearly several times already. Also, Meryl Streep used to campaign for it in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm guessing that if she's stopped, it's likely due to lack of male interest.

Which is not to say that a few loonies, such as Gloria Allred, haven't tried to get in the way of PATERNITY testing, per se. Very embarrassing and inexcusable, yes, but it's NOT the same thing! (For the record, there ARE smart people like Wendy Kaminer, who has no sympathy for women who commit paternity fraud or try to cover it up. We need more like her.)

And yes, Katha Pollitt has said (in her book "Subject to Debate" - it was in the 1998 column "Precious Bodily Fluids") that unwilling FATHERS,
per se, should not be let off the hook for child support, in part because "every man could claim
his girlfriend tricked him."

Read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/2gcnd

Most people - including fathers of teen daughters who get pregnant - are not about to suggest that there's anything wrong with that, if only because they're not about to suggest that ONLY the mother and not the boyfriend or taxpayers should have to support the child. (Besides, how do we know that he DIDN'T want a kid but changed his mind? It happens.)

Also, if men could get out of supporting out-of-wedlock children, what's to stop us from returning to the days when even MARRIED men could abandon their wives and kids and pay little or nothing, on the unofficial grounds that "she must have driven him to it"?

Lenona Says:

"Well, given the context of my post, it was obvious I was talking about male birth control, per se. Where's the "jumping back and forth" in that post? Jeez."

That is all well and good, but so far as I am aware, the discussion about voluntary fatherhood amongst MRA circles goes much further than simply talking about male birth control.

But okay... we'll focus only on male birth control.

The first thing I want to point out is the following criteria you have set up which creates an unfair and unequal standard:

"But, again, they can't name a single famous feminist who has said as much."

AND

"Want proof that MRAs are ranting a lot about a conspiracy theory... read the COMMENTS. Depending on who posted the video in question, you'll find plenty of men arguing that nameless women/feminists don't want Vasalgel or a male pill in the US and are trying to stop it."

I hope you realize what you are doing here.

In one fell swoop you have made any nameless/faceless commenter on a youtube video or blog a suitable representative of the MRA group... but to be a suitable representative for the feminist group one must refer only to "famous" individuals.

You have to use equal standards here Lenona.

If only famous, well known representatives of the feminist movement count, then we must equally disregard the inane blathering of some random commenter on a youtube video.

There are loonies within any group that can be quoted to suit a purpose.

What isn't legitimate is to cherry pick which group you keep the loonies for and which group you disregard the loonies altogether.

Now getting back to the topic of male contraception, I did a quick internet search and came across this article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/26/male_pill/

It certainly seems like this article is written from the perspective of someone who is not too fond of the idea of men having more control of their reproductive choices.

Furthermore, the fact that the authors name is hyphenated suggests that she is not exactly a "traditional" minded woman and would likely self-identify as a feminist.

Yet to you, people like her do not count because they aren't famous enough... yet at the same time, some two bit nobody comments on a youtube video and that guy represents an entire group of people?

You have to compare apples to apples here. If the only comments from feminists that count are from famous members of that group, then the only comments from MRAs that you should consider are equally famous individuals.

This of course will really limit what you have to choose from because so far as I am aware there really aren't many famous MRAs who are household names like many famous feminists.

I do understand what you are trying to do though.

You want to keep the loonies from the group you do not identify with, and ignore the loonies from the group you do identify with.

I can't stop you from doing this, but it doesn't make for a fair or reasonable assessment.

Lenona,

With regard to your second point i think it is clear that you do not believe that men should have the same degree of choice with regard to voluntary parenthood that we currently provide women.

It is my contention that when you see people in MRA circles arguing that people within the feminist camp are in some sense against men having the right to choose to be a parent, this is generally what they are talking about.

From my perspective I think in this sense they have fairly assessed the situation.

I am not making a judgement here on what is right or wrong... but at face value the perspective doesn't exactly seem fair or equal.

"Also, if men could get out of supporting out-of-wedlock children, what's to stop us from returning to the days when even MARRIED men could abandon their wives and kids and pay little or nothing, on the unofficial grounds that "she must have driven him to it"?"

This is an appeal to consequences and is therefore and invalid argument.

This argument is fallacious in the same way that it is fallacious to argue that abortion shouldn't be legal because there is nothing to stop women from using it as a form of birth control.

That some women *might* do this isn't a sufficient reason to strip that right from the majority of women who are responsible.

Similarly, that some men *might* do as you suggest isn't a sufficient reason to deny a right from the majority of men who are responsible.

I hope you can see the parallel logic here.