The premises of feminism, empirically:

1) There are no significant (psychological) sex differences, thus the theory of sexual selection is untrue.

2) Women are more disadvantaged than men

3) Some kind of pseudo-egalitarianism

Claire didn't include 2). It's a comparable worth problem of massive scale. Impossible to "solve" (uncertainty; incommensurability).

Regarding terminology: compare "liberalism"/"classical liberalism" with "feminism"/"classical feminism". And while I think that classical liberalism is rather clearly defined, I think historical feminism was already conflicted, so there is no single "classical feminism".

"I see, far too often, that feminism is about hating, demeaning, and denying rights to men."

You are absolutely right. That is what feminism is and that is what it has always been.

It doesn't matter to our communist inspired Dear Leaders that men's brains may be different from women's brains. We will all be the same improved people in the socialist/progressive society of the future.

The New Soviet Man
( http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-man )
=== ===
[edited] Karl Marx (1818-1883) expected society to progress from capitalism through proletarian revolution to communism. Fundamental economic and social restructuring would generate radical changes in the character of the people.

Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) and Josef Stalin (1879-1953) were dictators in Russia. They insisted that their regimes had to transform the people's values, even in a socialist society.

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971) specified the moral code of "the builder of communism" at the Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961. A builder of communism would be educated, hard working, collectivist, patriotic, and unfailingly loyal to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Vestiges of past culture such as religion, corruption, and drunkenness would be eradicated.
=== ===

Comrades:

Capitalism is a transitory stage in the moral development of (wo)mankind. At present, people work for their selfish interests, creating property which they cling to like children. This false religion of consumerism produces an unfair society of wealth inequality and dog-eat-dog competition.

We will transform society. We will change the social construct of "human nature". We will all work for the collective good, producing more of both individual comfort and public wealth. What can compare to the large, public square with a children's fountain in the center? We leaders already devote our lives to the public good.

You might scoff at this. But, the vast productive abilities of the people can only be released when they are working for the great body. They can only feel their greatest joy when they belong to the great body. We seek to release the best of human nature, not crush it in competition as is currently known.

When some of you tell us that this is "uneconomic", then you childishly refer to the behavior of people in the present. The new men and women will produce a new economics, where they produce more for the common good than they ever could for their selfish selves and their greedy corporate overseers.

Of course, there will be resisitance. We are realists. The child will throw tantrums when (s)he begins his/her education to be a responsible adult. There will be training classes and retreats for those who offer the most resistance. All will join with us in the end.

* * *
You may think that this is wild parody, but not to our Dear Leaders. Russia was and is run on this theory, as are Venezuela, Cuba, and many other societies today. You don't want to live there. So, be very afraid. Anyway, this is why our Dear Leaders are "uneconomic". They believe in the economics of the New Man, not the economics of free individuals and the capitalist enemies of the socialist utopia.

If every difference is is cultural and we are all the same and we used to live in utopian matriarchies...

What turned the outies into oppressors and the innies into oppressees?

How does a feminist hold the reconcile the beliefs that men are all potential rapists and men and women are essentially the same?

> That is what feminism is and that
> is what it has always been.

Ludicrous.

Feminism is the best possible measure of a nation in this century, and at least the last five.

"Feminism is the best possible measure of a nation in this century, and at least the last five."

If this is true, then exactly what the hell is it measuring?

How much shit men will put up with?
How idiot some women can be? (See the I can do everything a man can do but I need one out of 4 weeks off and I don't want to be paid 75% of a man)

Meh, feminism is like any "ism".

Starts out high-minded and devolves into a corrupted ideology with endless rules for the true believers to follow and the leadership to bend.

Communism, socialism, capitalism, catholicism, muhammedism...

I'd add hobbesian calvinism to that list but now that the strip is back online it never fails to impress.

> If this is true, then exactly what
> the hell is it measuring?

Decency.

And, backhandedly, the resentment of short-sighted idiots... But that's less worthwhile.

Decency? Really?
Those 5 points Amy presents up top are measures of decency?

I'm sorry, but modern "feminism" is a measure of how special some women think they are.

It it not a measure of decency "as I know decency to mean".

An anecdote that may be of interest, that I have not interpreted:

Over at Pharyngula, where views on women's topics diverge wildly from those expressed here, something came up about Girl Scouts. I opined that Boy Scouts was a better organization than GS in a specific way: they gave the boys a measurable path of accomplishment leading to a prize: the Eagle badge.

My message was, how sad for the girls that they don't have an equally noteworthy pinnacle. I was roundly excoriated for whatever sins this idea represents - chiefly not valuing the mastery of soft skills.

I haven't changed my opinion, but those commenters made me expand my idea of what accomplishment means and see that I don't necessarily have the "best" values.

... and yet, as a Scout I had opportunities to do lots of Really Cool Things that, last time I checked, weren't part of the GS world.

When we discuss feminism's aspects, it's worth keeping a steady on feminism's core: There is only one feminism -- one which, at its core, has always been a calculated drive for coercive, totalitarian power. Its only ideology is Marxism. It has no other foundational ethos.

Feminism's communizing, collectivist nature explains why it is so intolerant of outside voices and why it brutally smashes questioning voices within its ranks. Feminism has nothing whatever to do with securing equality or liberty for women or for anyone else.

It's easy to lose sight of that feminist forest for the trees, because feminism does have a
rainbow of manifestations -- it is constantly morphing in search of the best mix of strategy and tactics to seize political, economic, cultural, and social control. Also, not all feminists have the same job, or attack men from the same direction or in the same way. Some are waging war against men, and some are waging peace against men. These aggressions come in many styles.

Always, though, feminism is utterly tribal; nowhere under its tent are there any moderate, reasonable, thoughtful, or fair feminists, though there are many who make it their business to appear so.

It is not possible to bring feminists to a fuller understanding of men and masculinity because disenfranchising and exploiting men is foundational to how feminism takes and holds power, and reaps the benefits of power on behalf of its perpetrators. To imagine otherwise would be like trying to conceive of an ancient empire that grew without subjugating other peoples and seizing their land.

Feminism as currently practiced is nothing more than virtue signalling that one approves of white, middle class and middle aged female privilege.

Florida is in the process of ending permanent alimony. I can only guess at what the feminists think about that.

Also, where is the outcry from feminists demanding that women be required to register for Selective Service when they turn 18 or be denied certain benefits? since all MOSes are open to them, you would think they'd want to take on all the responsibilities of being of draft age?

My message was, how sad for the girls that they don't have an equally noteworthy pinnacle. I was roundly excoriated for whatever sins this idea represents - chiefly not valuing the mastery of soft skills.

I've watched a few videos on Youtube the last week or two basically pointing out a lot of this stuff.

One thing that makes me laugh is many of them, from different people, nearly all love to include a clip of Anita Sarkeesian from some talk where she was on a panel and says, completely seriously,

When you start learning about systems, everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time.

When you've pre-defined that your claims are always true.. makes like a lot easier I guess.

Miguelito, that was 57 seconds of awesome. Thanks.

Amy's commentariat has an strain of boyish ninnydom as regards feminism. My own identity is thinly disguised, but I'd wager this is one of those topics for which comments would appear in a much milder timbre if we were compelled to post over real names.

> I'm sorry, but modern "feminism" is a
> measure of how special some women
> think they are.

[1.] What's with the quotation marks?

[2.] (Well meeeee-yow!) Do you seriously worry that (unspecified) women might (in some unspecified way) come to think of themselves as special? I mean, do you hear the middle-school tone in your comment? Are feelings of specialness something you think we need to build policy around?

> It it not a measure of decency
> "as I know decency to mean".

[1.] No, seriously, what's with the quotation marks?

[2.] You perhaps should make a study of what feminism has meant in the last hundred years... In the United States most gloriously, but perhaps even more desperately elsewhere on the planet. Poverty has fallen more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500, and it's unimaginable that this wealth could have been created without women in the workforce and all the other nontraditional contexts. These matters are indivisible. Your life is longer, safer and fatter because girls are taught to read.

Less from Amy than her whiny-men male commenters, it's unseemly to pretend that we can each use a fourth-grader's blue-lined essay of "Wuht fǝnmimism mǝans to mƎ" in discussion the term... As if your individual petulance, or collection of trivial grievances, best represented the forces at work here.

> There is only one feminism -- one
> which, at its core, has always been
> a calculated drive for coercive,
> totalitarian power.

Oh, you tortured little darling. However could such a little guy survive?

"At its core" is a nice touch. Nuance, right?

Also, where is the outcry from feminists demanding that women be required to register for Selective Service when they turn 18 or be denied certain benefits? since all MOSes are open to them, you would think they'd want to take on all the responsibilities of being of draft age?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 8, 2016 3:10 PM
__________________________________

Well it's PROBABLY safe to say that most of the women who call themselves feminists would rather see that requirement scrapped entirely. I.e., no, they DON'T like the thought of seeing their brothers, husbands or sons forced to kill and/or die.

But this also raises the question of why men like Paul Elam and his followers don't lift a finger to start a movement like that. More than one person has pointed out that his types are far more interested in media attention than in helping to change the lives of men who feel very unhappy and/or trapped by one situation or another. Where are the protests in the streets against the registry by ordinary men, for starters? You can't get what you don't ask for - and you can't expect other people to do YOUR work for you, as if you were a helpless, voiceless child.

Actually, Crid, another view is that the increased wealth and technology of the 20th. century is what made it possible for women to live longer and move into the workforce. You have cause and effect reversed.

And, lenona, there are many men that have actually tried to help other men, without help from federal, state and local governments. Paul Elam isn't the whole men's rights movement.

And by the way, nice article, Amy.

~The Jolly Patriarch

That is exactly why I see little use for MRA groups Lenona. I know I've said it before and I'll probably say it again. But they are asking you to pick between the Black Panthers and the KKK. Neither side is healthy.

> You have cause and effect reversed.

That's terribly silly, "~The Jolly Patriarch," but we look forward to your explanatory citation.

Here: ____________________________________.

Crid, please elucidate.

Naw, I kinda wanna hear more from that guy. As they've appeared on Amy's blog (and I've seen little of them elsewhere), Men's Rights types are extremely short-sighted, pleased as punch to imagine themselves desperately constrained and diminished by the flow of events, usually as lubricated by a stream of freak-of-the-week news stories (like this blog post, Click, etc.) Let's see how far his perspective extends, shan't we? Let's consider his big view....

but we look forward to your explanatory citation.

Crid, you ever get tired of hypocritically asking of others what you blatantly refuse to do when asked the same?

but we look forward to your explanatory citation.

Crid, you ever get tired of hypocritically asking of others what you blatantly refuse to do when asked the same?

This "blank slate" view posits that there are few meaningful differences between men and women that cannot be explained by socialisation or enculturation. However, this is a view that has been discredited by independent literatures in psychology, neuroscience and genetics, which have all found that biology has pervasive and global effects on human behaviour, irrespective of the pressures of socialisation.

...even when one of the major reasons for this gap is women forming and caring for their families. We see it with the constant pushing of girls and women into male-dominated spheres such as computer science or engineering, as if female-dominated pursuits such as psychology or education were somehow inferior.

*

There's one fundamental difference between men and women. It separates female hipsters from male hipsters, lesbians from gay men, Best Actresses from Best Actors, women in Borneo from men in Borneo and so on: women get pregnant, men don't. I think that single fact drives a lot of human sexual behavior and, in addition, it's always seemed quite reasonable to me that the people who carry, for nine months, other human beings inside them and then give birth to them would be, in general, more in touch with people.

> you ever get tired of hypocritically

I'm never hypocritical. If you too want to believe that comity and wealth are exclusively masculine products, no one will argue. With you.

"Your life is longer, safer and fatter because girls are taught to read."

Rather than suggest that you have cause and effect reversed, I'll say this: you cannot show that this is the actual relationship.

Girls being taught to read is the direct, demonstrable product of a society established by the British Protestants who knew how to get out of the way, and codified the process in the Constitution, etc.

Teh Patriarchy set things up (we call them The Founders), and one of the signs and portents of our success is that we don't actively hinder half our population by enforcing their ignorance and beating them into submission: the girl reads, not bleeds.

This seems awfully sunny:

> British Protestants who knew how
> to get out of the way

Basically, nobody ever got out of the way, ever.

Ever...

...Except maybe John Riccardo, who quit Chrysler to make room for Iacocca (who was gracious in turn in his memoir).

But other th

...Okay, maybe also Woodruff, whose silent generosity begat the CDC in Atlanta.

But there are no other exceptions to the ru

...Well, sure, Ringo was a pretty humble guy. The drumming on "You Won't See Me" was gorgeous, but he never made a big deal out of it.

But humility doesn't happen in the big patterns of cultural control.

I guess I'm "that guy" Crid is referring to. Modern "feminism" bears no resemblence to the feminism that helped empower women to get the vote, open up more jobs to them (thanks to WWII), push for being treated equally in the workplace and in life in general.

I put it in quotes because I figured calling it Feminazism (a more accurate term) would offend you even more.

Plenty of articles that have women demanding more than equal treatment, simply because they are female. Talk about mixed messages "I can do anything a man can do and do it better but I need to have 1 week in 4 off because of female problems" "I demand free tampons free birth control Stop looking at me Stop complimenting me All men suck All men should die".

Plenty of examples out there, so no, feminism is not a measure of the decency of a country. If it truly were, American and European women would be up in arms at the way females are treated in say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. But that's too hard . Modern "feminism" still complains about equality: start registering for the draft at age 18, just like all males are required to by law. Then you have a leg to stand on.

Measure of decency, horse crap.

re lenona;
"Where are the protests in the streets against the registry by ordinary men, for starters? You can't get what you don't ask for - and you can't expect other people to do YOUR work for you, as if you were a helpless, voiceless child."

If women wanted to be treated equally in any endeavor they could have simply insisted on adding the words "and women" after "men" in the wording used in the laws/regulations/training tests.

Two words. So simple I'm not sure why they did not. Is it a female thing to make it complicated? Seriously. Two words added and you're in. TA DA!

So it's not men's fault that women are not required to register. Women did not insist on it being required when they certainly could have. They must have had a reason to not require it. (Not being privy to the conversations I am making some assumptions here.)

So why would/should any man force such an obvious requirement ("please add _______") and easy solution when it was specifically not part of the "solution" presented?

Simply agree to the political demands ("Women will serve on Navy ships or you will lose your funding."), save your job, and move on to the next 'political' problem. Don't make this one worse as there's nothing in it for you.

If the patriarchy is real, then men have been able universally and in all cultures through history to with one hand (since the other hand was plowing the field) to oppress all women. ergo, women are NOT the same as men and are NOT equal.
OR if women have wanted to have children and husbands and this choice reduced their need and desire to be plumbers and loggers, especially before washing machines and cars existed, then they ended up not inventing stuff or sailing into the unknown and drowning.
It can't be both. Pick one.

"> If this is true, then exactly what
> the hell is it measuring?

Decency."

Since there is no reciprocal call for women to do the same for men, it's indecent. men do not exist to serve women's interests for the benefit of women.

"[2.] You perhaps should make a study of what feminism has meant in the last hundred years... In the United States most gloriously,"

It has meant derailing the labor movement, and that was the initial impetus behind it. If you look at pictures of suffragettes, they are all wearing the kind of clothes you couldn't possibly work in. That's because they were all the contract prostitutes of rich men. Mother Jones called this out over a hundred years ago.

Feminism has always been about what's good for privileged white women. That's where the advocacy and emphasis are Non-white feminists have been calling this out for decades, to the point of calling themselves "womanists" instead to differentiate themselves form white feminists.

There's a name for men who engage in this chivalrous defense of feminism - The One Good Man. A woman coined the expression and called it out for the rapey sexism is ultimately is:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-one-good-man/

Ever kiss a girl?

I'd heard that Mother Jones believed, more or less, that votes didn't change anything, especially when they come from poor people, so why should she support a movement started by RICH women? (I asked Ronnie Gilbert about this, since she'd played MJ, and she said yes, that was pretty much it.)

But I wonder if anyone ever asked MJ: "Well, if voting doesn't change anything, why are there all these Jim Crow laws, etc, in the way of the black vote? What are whites afraid of?"

Bob in Texas wrote:

So it's not men's fault that women are not required to register.
_____________________________________

You know perfectly well I meant "if men don't want to have to register, they should stand up, organize, and say so."

Otherwise, they're implying they don't mind the double standard, even if they do mind.

As they've appeared on Amy's blog (and I've seen little of them elsewhere), Men's Rights types are extremely short-sighted, pleased as punch to imagine themselves desperately constrained and diminished by the flow of events, usually as lubricated by a stream of freak-of-the-week news stories (like this blog post, Click, etc.)
Posted by: Crid at March 8, 2016 7:18 PM
_____________________________________

More here, if you like:

http://rooshnme.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-voice-for-men-cult.html

Excerpt:

Paul Elam has solidified his cult base by recruiting women. "The Honey Badgers Brigade" are an integral part of his self-styled position as grand patriarch and prophet. Cults cannot survive without female converts; they are the most fervent, loyal members and the most willing to sublimate their own egos to ensure the survival of the group. Within any burgeoning religious or political movement, women are the worker bees, zealously serving the agents of their own oppression. Plus they bring the male converts on board! Although I have to admit paying $5000+ to be "love bombed" by typhonblue doesn't sound all that enticing...

Comments:

NPSJune 19, 2014 at 7:01 PM

So Karen Straughan, Janet Bloomfield and Allison Tieman are like the Manson girls?

Cinzia La StregaJune 19, 2014 at 7:41 PM

You're gonna get me in trouble, NPS.

(I like the post from bodycrimes, too - about "shit tests.")

"You know perfectly well I meant 'if men don't want to have to register, they should stand up, organize, and say so.'"

You evidently missed the Vietnam War draft protesters and dodgers. And the "Gangs of New York" Civil War draft protesters. To name two. As Steve Earle once pointed out, it's the young, working-class men that lack any political influence or sympathy who get drafted.

Crid wrote:

"That's terribly silly, "~The Jolly Patriarch," but we look forward to your explanatory citation.

Here: Suzanne Venker: The Flipside of Feminism."

~The Jolly Patriarch

Spokesman for "The Patriarchy" (You can blame us - you always do!)

To Cousin Dave: What's your point?

First, Vietnam protestors weren't complaining about men but not women being drafted. Apples and oranges.

Second, since there seem to be enough volunteers for the armed forces these days, maybe due to an increased population (and even people who aren't forced to register are still free to volunteer while they're still young enough), what's stopping young men today who DON'T want to volunteer from using the extra time and energy that draftees didn't have back in the 1960s? (It's not as though the working classes didn't exist back then...but they found time to protest anyway. About a lot of truly important things, not just the war.)

I realize that men might feel unmanly about demanding the right not to be forced to register, but the only alternative is for men to demand that women be forced to register, which could be a much harder battle. Besides, one could argue that being forced to register IS an unmanly situation.

To clarify an earlier post; I should have divided it as follows:

Cinzia La StregaJune 19, 2014 at 7:41 PM

You're gonna get me in trouble, NPS.
____________________________________________

(I like the post from bodycrimes, too - about "shit tests.")
___________________________________________

I wrote the last line myself, that is.

"Paul Elam has solidified his cult base by recruiting women. "The Honey Badgers Brigade" are an integral part of his self-styled position as grand patriarch and prophet."

If that's how you feel lenona, then perhaps you should debate this with them. They are quite available - they have a blog on their website and they do radio shows. That's if you have the balls for that.

"I realize that men might feel unmanly about demanding the right not to be forced to register, but the only alternative is for men to demand that women be forced to register, which could be a much harder battle. "

Some women are already doing that, on solidly feminist grounds:
"A Morris County mother, on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter, is suing the U.S. Selective Service System and its director, arguing that the system discriminates against women.

Specifically, the complaint says Selective Service is violating American women's equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution by requiring only males to register for the draft.
Under current law, virtually all males 18-25 in the United States must register for the draft, although the draft itself has been mothballed since 1973.
Women can enlist in the military, but they are not required to register for the draft."
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/07/should_women_be_required_to_register_for_the_draft.html

This is what having a moral conscience looks like.

> Here: Suzanne Venker: The Flipside
> of Feminism."

Watch your punctuation.

After ten minutes of Googling last night, I couldn't find a single thoughtful review of this title from a scholarly or dispassionate reader... Only whining, pro & con, of the kind by which the book itself is presumably composed. It doesn't seem to be the kind of research work which would affirm, as you did, that "increased wealth and technology of the 20th. century is what made it possible for women to live longer and move into the workforce." (Nor have I ever heard that it was older women who moved first into the workforce.)

Could you quote a particular passage from the book that prompted your comment?

...Because that comment looks childishly inane, as did the teen sarcasm:

> You can blame us - you always do!

I wouldn't blame you for anything, and that's part of the problem. Men's rights types never seem to have made enough of their lives for which they might be criticized. Nonetheless, as noted above, you imagine yourself to be constrained and diminished, and you want to claim half the population as your cohort in resentment.

When naive wannabe-feminists say stupid things, I know they aren't talking about me... And if they did, in person, I'd not need the support of my brothers to overwhelm their idiocy. I don't take it personally.

See how that works?

Again, perhaps if you quote a passage from the book....

To Cousin Dave: What's your point? - lenona

To lenona: Can we have just ONE conversation where you DONT move the goalposts you misandric gender bigot?

Some women are already doing that, on solidly feminist grounds
____________________________________

Good for them. But I was talking about what men could be doing for themselves if they're unhappy with their current situation. Too many of them - even the young men who COULD be drafted some day - don't seem to care that they're being discriminated against. This is the sort of thing that makes women stop trying to help men with issues that men don't seem to care about, such as when Meryl Streep stopped (I think) working for better male birth control after ten years or so of activism, starting in the 1970s.

Luj, would you please not avoid the valid points I made, as CD did?

Of course, one likely reason many young men don't complain is, they gamble on the chance that if there IS ever a need for the draft, they'll already be too old for it - or too physically damaged in one way or another.

In the meantime, again, anyone who WANTS to join the forces is free to at least try.

To clarify a bit more: Currently, the draft doesn't exist. Getting rid of it was the goal in the 1960s and 1970s. Now, all that remains is the registry. There's a difference. The question is, why aren't men demanding that THAT become optional, too?

You know perfectly well I meant "if men don't want to have to register, they should stand up, organize, and say so."

Posted by: lenona at March 9, 2016 1:25 PM
_________________________________________________

You evidently missed ... draft protesters and dodgers.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 9, 2016 1:46 PM
_________________________________________________

To Cousin Dave: What's your point?

First, Vietnam protestors weren't complaining about men but not women being drafted. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: lenona at March 10, 2016 8:12 AM

lenona, as you can see you stated men need to protest men being forced to register, Dave pointed out we had, you then
MOVED
THE
FUCKING
GOALPOSTS
YOU
GENDER
BIGOT

No matter what the topic of conversation somehow you always manage to convey the opinion that it is somehow always mens' fault/responsibility/duty and how dare anyone expect women to pick up any slack anywhere

You clearly didn't look at my last post.

The draft was ended in 1973. If, AFTER that, there was any massive protest against the SSS, which remained, please tell me the source. Thank you.

At any rate, while it's certainly not consistent for feminists to stay silent about it, am I really supposed to believe that the average man resents (for more than a week, maybe) having to register when his sister doesn't have to? It's been forty-plus years and we still don't have the draft back, after all. Maybe the average man is willing to settle for that.

Not to mention all the men in the forces who very often resent having to WORK alongside women and don't want to see more women in the forces, just as they don't want to have to work with openly gay men in the forces. Chances are those men don't mind the fact that even heterosexual men could, once upon a time, get out of being drafted by claiming to be gay - so long as real gay men got kicked out too.