radical feminism versus manosphere
I made the suggestion recently that manosphere must have started up as a satirical response to radical feminism: the kind of Poe’s Law phenomenon that picks up unexpected steam and becomes believable for certain individuals in society.
There are undeniable parallels between these two world views, and I thought it would be useful to examine them in closer detail.
the wake-up call
Both world views introduce the uninitiated to a whole new way of looking at life.
Radical feminism opens doors for many women who have lived lives full of disadvantage and abuse to finally see the root causes in our patriarchal human society. It also pulls back the curtain on thousands of years of oppression and systematic discrimination for anyone, female or male, who takes the time to read facts presented. Once someone sees the world in this new light, life is never the same.
Mansophere opens doors for a subset of heterosexual males, who have felt cheated out of their right to have sex with females, to finally see an imagined world of deliberate game playing where they are the victims. It also gives them reality-based tips for playing on female insecurities to increase their chances of having sex. Once someone sees the world in this new light, life is never the same.
custom language
Both world views are riddled with specialist vocabulary to describe their understanding of the world they see around them.
Radical feminists talk about “handmaidens of the patriarchy” to belittle women who disagree with them; PIV (penis in vagina) to describe the evils of the heterosexual norm in society; “mansplaining” to describe how men arrogantly and patronisingly talk over women.
Manospherians relate much of their changed world view to The Matrix films, in which we can choose a “red pill” to see the real world, or a “blue pill” to remain in the fake world; men are categorised according to their success rate with females, with “alpha”, “beta” and “omega” males; “Feminazi” is a disparaging term for women who disagree with them.
the blame game
Both world views blame the opposite sex for causing problems.
Radical feminism blames men for using their male-born privilege to perpetuate the inequalities in society. They blame men for the horrendous levels of violence in the world.
Manosphere blame women for wanting to have relationships with other men, but not with them.
conclusion
Radical feminism and manosphere are surprisingly very similar – they open the eyes of their followers to perceived gender-specific miscarriages of justice enacted by members of the opposite sex.
However, there is a key difference. Radical feminism is based on the fact that all around the world, in almost every culture, women have been facing, and continue to face discrimination and violence at the hands of men.
Manosphere, on the other hand, is based on the sense of bitter entitlement that envelops a subset of men who don’t thrive under the patriarchal model of society. They’ve clearly been taking the wrong red pill. I would encourage these men to abandon their empty goal of mindlessly and selfishly controlling women for their sexual pleasure, and join the ranks of any form of feminism to fight for a change in society that will undoubtedly benefit everyone.
This was well written and needed to be said.
LikeLike
Thanks Sara.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alas, you are so close Violet, so, so close and yet so far away. The ‘sphere and the rad fems are indeed mirror reflections of one another, simply with the genders reversed. However, it is not women who are so oppressed, therefore making the ‘spherians wrong and the fems right.
The ‘sphere exists to bring attention to the suffering of men, something many women cannot ever see. Men die in combat more often, they have higher suicide rates, they are more likely to be the victims of homicide and crime in general, and yet women run around insisting that we are far more oppressed, victimized by this huge patriarchal system, and men are to blame. The violence we see done to women outrages us, and yet, we think nothing of the violence done to men. Not long ago, we were all upset about some kidnapped school girls in Africa, complaining about how girls are being denied an education. Completely forgotten in that story were all the boys, all shot outright, slaughtered, denied an education too, but not even a part of the collective consciousness.
Dig a bit deeper into feminism, Violet, and you’ll start to see it for what it really is, male arrogance and dominance with the genders reversed, with women holding all the power, in complete control.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that when you mention “some kidnapped school girls in Africa,” you mean the 270+ girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Chibok, Nigeria, in 2014.
The concern over their fate did not have to do with the so glibly misrepresented by you “complaining about how girls are being denied an education” (!), but the fact that these girls, as any in a similar situation, would be subjected to rape, sex trafficking, torture, forced marriage (a.k.a rape — this may not be clear to you), and murder should they refuse to comply with their kidnappers-rapists’ orders. Which is indeed what happened.
No, the boys used and abused by terrorist organizations, including BH, are not forgotten, but that particular story was notable because BH specifically targeted a girls’ school to perpetrate the very crimes I mention above, and it was their first mass kidnapping on such a scale. Also because — and this is the key point — the girls were still alive and there was a chance of rescuing them.
If you paid attention, you’d notice that the girls of Chibok are an old and largely forgotten story now in the US, despite the fact that their fate was/is as gruesome as it was expected.
As Violet suggested, maybe you should read something sometimes — something other than the right-wing or MRA blogs. Given how easy it is to be informed these days, you have no excuse to be so woefully ignorant. Then again, willful ignorance is not amenable to education, so chances are that you reading more would make no difference.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your elitist attitude, the implication that some simply cannot be educated, and the taint of both racism and sexism that hovers over your words.
Also, thank you for validating exactly what I said. You have once again spoken of the horrors of rape and trafficking, but given no thought to the horror of little boys being shot in the back of the head or nailed to a cross and crucified.
LikeLike
LOL @ sexism and racism (and elitism, for a full trifecta) — nice try at outrage deflection, IB.
You did not understand a word I said, did you. Or maybe you’re trying to prove my point. Either way, a closed mind is going to remain closed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It wasn’t a deflection at all, just a simple observation of fact.
LikeLike
@IB
Just maybe you ought to take a breath and re read what you wrote and rather than try to draw attention to the young male victims, which comes across as a deflection, focus on the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or we could focus on the WOMEN who have rejected and persecuted the girls who have been brought back. Than we could wade into really sticky waters, and talk about the girls who have refused to come back and joined their captors.
Life does not come in black and white, men bad, women good.
LikeLike
Let’s wade, IB.
What do you think accounts for women who shun and mock female rape victims? Or women who tell female rape victims that their rape never happened because their rapists are married to them? Or generally women who identify with their oppressors and/or their subservient roles in society?
Please wade as far and deep as you can.
But while wading, please try to avoid erecting strawmen like “men bad, women good.” No one says that here but you in a strawmanning fashion.
LikeLike
Yes, maybe a form of Stockholm Syndrome. I am aware of this.
Or maybe we could just condemn the entire religious framework that has, by and large, always demeaned and denigrated women and created such scenarios that produce people who accept this.
As you accept that a make-believe man in the sky ( or version of) takes care of you and judges you and needs praying to and to this day still needs money and in times past when he appeared in his human form had to be brutally sacrificed to make all your naughty sins be forgiven so you could get entrance to Heaven.
Or maybe you should consider offering a box of chocolates to calm his rankled, genocidal nerves; as he often gets pissed off?
And then when he is calm you could pray really, really hard ( like, ’til you bleed tears? Even get all your fundamentalist mates to join in?) and ask him to explain to the Muslims that they have got it all wrong and the Christians are the right ones?
And make sure you ask him to specify exactly which </em. Christians are the right ones as we don't want those uppity bloody 7th Dat Adventists or Mormons or Catholics or Baptists getting any ideas, right?
I know we can count on you, IB.
You have faith!
LikeLike
Hi Insanity, I see where you’re coming from and my next post on the patriarchy will hopefully look at that in some detail. I agree to a certain extent that radical feminism (in particular) seems to have a tendency to disregard the problems of other groups in society – but when they do address them, they usefully identify the patriarchal model of society as being a serious contributory factor.
I think Emma deals well with the more offensive parts of your comment.
LikeLike
Men die in combat more often, they have higher suicide rates, they are more likely to be the victims of homicide and crime in general
To what do you attribute those problematic outcomes, IB?
LikeLike
Hmmm, are you sure you are speaking of “radical” feminism and not “rational” feminism? You associated the word “facts” with it.
LikeLike
I’m definitely speaking of radical feminism. It’s based on commonly disregarded facts about the treatment of women all over the world. The difference is that I sometimes disagree with their assessment of the facts, taking things waaaaay too far and making them an easy target for parody and ridicule. And unfortunately inviting people to disregard feminism generally.
LikeLike
Ok, maybe I need a clearer definition of what radical feminism is. I view radical feminism to be on par with how PETA is in animal rights – fudging, manipulating and misrepresenting facts to push a flawed ideology.
If radical feminism is still fact-based more than it is ideology-based, then what do you describe the branch of feminism that puts ideology before a balanced view of facts as?
LikeLike
There’s still truth at the core. I think being part of the generally disadvantaged group I appreciate that they’re fighting for change. Possibly being part of the generally blamed group, you’ll view it differently. I think if I were a man and saw all those sweeping generalisations about men I’d be put off too. Lots of men get it though – you maybe need to know how it’s horribly affected women close to you to really feel it.
LikeLike
There’s truth at the core of any movement, the issue is how far from that truth has a movement strayed.
Believe me, I am no fan of the way many men treat women. I felt the shockwave of that quite strongly back in my dating days. In hindsight, women often treated me disrespectfully likely an an effect of men treating them disrespectfully, and that grew a distrust in women in me. I came to find that it’s a vicious cycle.
I actually came across a video talking about modern dating apps the other day. Apparently there is one where women are the ones who must initiate the conversation. I think that’s awesome, and is the kind of thing that could help shift society out of some of the ridiculous gendered expectations that exist.
But yeah, that’s something that I’ve found with the little bits of radical feminism I’ve come across – it is very one-sided and is voiced in a way often likely to push away potential male allies who also do not like the gendered inequalities of society. I think pushing away potential male allies who also feel strongly about improving equality is not a wise route for feminism to take in the long run.
LikeLike
“Apparently there is one where women are the ones who must initiate the conversation.”
Are you in the US? I just find stuff like that bizarre, like I’ve landed on another planet. I feel like the UK has soaked up a whole file of sexist nonsense like that from TV and film, but it still isn’t (thankfully) completely mainstream. It is patently ridiculous that there is an expectation that either gender initiate (or pay for) anything.
As MMJ Gregory said on another thread, the people who go to extremes are often those who have been most hurt. I wouldn’t take it personally. And regardless of how extreme some people go, there are still identifiable inequalities that most people want to see eradicated – it would be foolish to disregard that due to disagreement with one small, yet vocal corner of feminism.
LikeLike
I’m in Canada, and unfortunately we do have a lot of influence from the US here.
I totally agree on the ridiculousness of gender-based dating expectations. Gender biases in general tend to irk me. I fully agree on focusing on identifiable inequalities. It’s unfortunate that the corner of feminism that focuses on questionable viewpoints gets as much attention as it does – but that seems to be the nature of western (or at least North American) media, to bank on controversial viewpoints that get people fired up.
LikeLike
Nice photo.
Good points in your post too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What radical feminists saw as patriarchy was just the tail-end of millenia of class wars. Why were women restricted to the home whilst men worked? Because if women went down a mine shaft, onto the battle field, into a large factory or out hunting, they would most likely die, as thousands of men did. In fact, many women DID have to work, due to poverty, and DID die, as their men did. Why did men vote whilst women did not? Because men, as workers and warriors, were directly impacted by policies on finance and foreign affairs and women were only secondarily impacted by the loss of their men.
As society changed and more women needed to work, these practices also needed to change. But the reluctance to change was simply that: a standard reluctance. Not an effort to keep women down, but confusion as to why this new society needed working, fighting women at all.
Men and women alike have been kept down by class structure for all of history. Radical feminism is now primarily middle and upper class, yet uses the suffering of working class women as its platform. Working class men form the majority of the manosphere and are complaining about actual class issues which were designed to almost exclusively harm men and have not been addressed, as well as complaining about the very real impact of being a working class man when all working class women have the freedom and means to “mate up” and “mate out”.
The destabilization of class caused by the world wars was used quickly and efficiently by suffragists to help elevate working class women into the middle classes in terms of law and treatment. This created a situation where the little man and the government were getting too close, resulting in legislation that divided the family and tied women to government, all in an effort to keep the working class in their place. The working class men were so hard hit by the following wars and economic overhaul that they had no chance to try and socially climb the same way working class women did, effectively rendering working class men as “inferior” to working class women.
And of course women of all classes now view unjustly treated men as “bitter” people in an “imaginary” land… Because as far as we are concerned, these men should just suck it up and deal with the fact they have essentially been demoted as a demographic. But that isn’t patriarchy, or justice. That’s a weak government trying to enforce a class divide that wants to disappear.
Hence why so many men “opt out” and start their own companies, go abroad to work, anything to escape the prison of being a working class man in the West.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment. You make really interesting points that highlight what I view as a major problem in radical feminism. Inequality in society has never been and still isn’t confined to discrimination against women. I think it’s really difficult to hold everything in perspective at the same time. But I suspect that in reacting against the radical feminist view, you may have lost sight of the real and continuing problems that face women, and lost sight of the fact that the hierarchical structure overwhelmingly dominated by men is a main part of the problem for everyone. Do you think that’s fair?
Anyway, there’s a lot in your comment. I’m going to give it all some more thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that a lot of the problems faced by women are real and serious… but that they are unaddressed and underaddressed by modern radical feminists. Most modern vocal feminists come from middle class and upper class, educated, first world backgrounds. By believing in their own injustices, they find confirmation in everything from a man holding a door, to their insecurities about their appearance, which are actually just personal slants on normal human behaviour.
Meanwhile, lower class women still face many struggles related to their class, such as working poverty, poor education and dependence on parents and husbands. Although they are a step ahead in terms of rights compared to working class men, that does not mean they know they have these rights or that they are free from injustice. The right to refuse parenthood (abortion for women, absentia for men, adoption for both) may be more present for the women, but that does not mean they can or know how to act on this right. Similarly, there are genuinely many countries where women face gross injustice at the hands of the government, some where men of their own status also face injustice on a similar level but in different areas (India), some where women are treated objectively worse (Saudi Arabia).
But modern feminism does not address either of those areas. By wanting to be victimized, feminists who are in upper class, western, educated environments make a gender issue out of a class issue and deny any help to those lower class women and men who actually need it. It’s selfishness, pure and simple.
LikeLike
What part of class oppression do you not understand about radical feminism?
Door opening, incidentally is silly. One opens doors for people regardless of sex. Mainly if they are carrying heavy objects. Opening a door for someone because of their sex, is crass.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t understand how radical feminism gives class just enough lip service to get by and then goes and completely disregards it when it’s convenient, ie when they want to argue that something perfectly ordinary that made one or two women feel a bit sad is somehow part of a great conspiracy.
LikeLike
Although [working class women] are a step ahead in terms of rights compared to working class men
How so?
LikeLiked by 1 person
First example is parental rights. Working class women and men are BOTH denied right to parenthood and right to non-parenthood even in the West. Poverty, lack of available facilities for abortion or adoption, lack of education regarding contraception, etc. However when an abortion clinic or an adoption clinic is available, a working class mother can choose to go to it and avoid parenthood, even if the father does not want her to. Meanwhile, if the father wants to avoid parenthood he has no authority over the child’s existence and if the mother keeps the child he is forced to pay to support a life he did not wish to create.
Domestic violence. DV is more common in working class families due to the high pressure of poverty and social alienation. Facilities are still rare in poorer areas, where they could be attacked. But when a facility is present, it is almost always exclusively for women and children. This is despite the fact that men suffer domestic violence on equal levels to women and, in poor areas, will be more likely to be physically attacked if they are out on the streets.
Or sentences for crimes. Criminality is more common in working class people with few options. But the legal punishments for women on average, even in identical cases, are lesser than those for men. Sentences tend to be weaker and shorter.
In working class areas, education can be hard. Schools are run down, under-funded, over-populated. Kids miss school for weeks and are simply noted as absent, when a child from a wealthier area would be sought for missing a day of school. Yet girls have various schemes and opportunities they have access to exclusively for working class girls to get into education and continue their education. Boys have to compete against girls for non-gendered grants and schemes and have no all-boys versions of the girls’ ones.
However, it is one thing for these advantages to exist. It is another for girls and women to be aware of them and make use of them. You can have forty grants for girls and five abortion clinics in a poor area, if nobody knows about them or feels happy using them, then they mean nothing in terms of results. But it is undeniable that working class women have been elevated above working class men in terms of legal position and available assistance to solve their issues.
LikeLike
Superslavwife, thanks again for your contribution here. I sensed when you first commented that there was a deeper ‘agenda’ that wasn’t being fully revealed, and you’ve probably given more details as you’ve continued.
No-one is ‘right’ in any of this, we are all coming from different angles, with different prejudices and experiences. But I can see you’ve been pulled into yet another ideology I’m not familiar with. I’m only just wrapping my head round the twists and turns in radical feminism! Is there a name for your understanding of things? There are still some key pieces of information missing for me to understand what you’re saying.
Anyway, “girls have various schemes and opportunities”. Thank goodness someone does! After an eternity of nothing, there are now occasional schemes available to pull specifically women out of poverty, or at least give them a shot at it, and you’re complaining. I’m sensing you might be a brick wall.
“a working class mother can choose to go to it and avoid parenthood, even if the father does not want her to” Speechless. What do you want to see here? No abortion clinic availability so that women either have children they don’t want or risk their lives trying to get rid of pregnancies in unsafe ways? If the father wants the child, should his wish over-rule the person growing the baby, who is likely to be the major carer? I just can’t fathom where that kind of sentence comes from.
“But it is undeniable that working class women have been elevated above working class men in terms of legal position and available assistance to solve their issues.”
Provide your sources please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t really have an agenda, or an ideology. I am irreligious but theistic. I believe humans as social animals should strive to care for each other, but also that we are brutal animals primarily wired for self preservation. I believe we need to observe hard facts, but understand that facts vary over generations and cultures and even individuals. I believe we should aspire to more as that is what makes us happiest, but that everything ultimately is meaningless. It’s complicated.
That said, do not put words into my mouth.
I’m not complaining that girls have a chance out of poverty. I am complaining that boys are being left behind as a consequence. If there is a ladder, by all means use it. But extend a helping hand to your fellows. The whole working class should still be elevated so that high mortality, forced families and ridiculous incarceration are left behind in the Victorian era where they belong.
I am not saying women should not have a choice in parenthood, but that men should have a voice. I have no argument against abortion clinics on a personal or moral level. But if the father wants the child, should he not be able to take the mother aside and negotiate a care pattern as a single father? She can reject it, but the option should be there. And should she go ahead and have a child he does not want, then should he not have the right to, again in advance, tell her so and not be involved in the child’s upbringing?
Just use google. In the words of radical feminists: it’s not my job to educate you. Every single fact I mentioned is easy to find and prove. Working class women can choose to have or not have kids. Working class men cannot. Working class women access four times the number of scholarships available to working class men. Working class men go to jail for ridiculously small crimes (including non payment of child support for children they did not want) and are handed longer sentences than working class women. The reality is that the world sympathizes with the plight of the poor woman, yet still blames the poor man for his own situation.
LikeLike
Okay, thanks, interesting perspective. Apologies if I’m coming across as rude, I welcome all views here, and you’ve clearly given your opinion on these matters some serious thought. I still feel like you’re coming from some school of thought I’m not familiar with – you’re not making this up on the hoof, you’ve expressed these ideas many times.
I’m wondering if this is a generational thing. There have been a lot of positive changes certainly in the UK in the last twenty years or so. You make reference to history, but it almost seems like you’ve woken up right now and wondered why there are schemes specifically targeted at women yet fewer at men – this is to redress imbalance. Perhaps you have a point, and now women from lower classes have clawed back ground, to the extent they have more opportunities than men from similar backgrounds (?) – I have no idea how that could be evaluated. So, if you have links to some studies (I’ve googled, no joy) that would be useful.
“The whole working class should still be elevated so that high mortality, forced families and ridiculous incarceration are left behind in the Victorian era where they belong.”
Yes, I agree with you. I’ve worked for the NHS and in further education and I see a lot of resources going into health inequalities and widening access, and I’m not clear where the emphasis in either case has been on gender, except in terms of increasing recruitment of women into STEM courses (higher pay, higher respect, hardly any women).
Forced families – I’m assuming you mean proper access to family planning and comprehensive sex education. Ridiculous jail sentences, I’m with you. I don’t know much about the criminal justice system, but locking people up away from loved ones, responsibilities and social norms is not a route to rehabilitation. Punishment means nothing in real terms. There’s a deterrent factor there, but that could be achieved other ways. Why are women overall given lighter sentences? Is it not because of things like they are more likely to enter a guilty plea, they are less likely to be involved in violent crime, and their crimes are more often associated with drug taking? If I’m wrong and there are no other relevant factors to consider, please show me.
“I am not saying women should not have a choice in parenthood, but that men should have a voice.” This is a really odd perspective, but an interesting discussion point which I’ll try and make a post from. You’re right that there is a gender imbalance, but there’s such a glaring and impossible to overcome biological imbalance behind it, that I can’t see how anything beyond encouraging couples to properly discuss what they both want isn’t crossing an uncrossable line.
Do you feel that there are any battles being fought by feminists that are worthwhile? For example, would you like to see equal representation in politics and the media? Do you agree that men in general are more violent and have a greater sense of entitlement?
I hope you stick around, it’s great having new outlooks on these kind of issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not rude at all! I’ve just had similar discussions before and, when the concept has been “calibrated” in my head I can get a bit blunt. So yes, I’m not making it up on the hoof, but it’s not exactly taught either. I read various perspectives, investigate sources and try and piece it together. If you wanted to talk about narcissistic personality disorder (something I’ve given a bit more thought to recently) or machiavellianism vs empathy (something recent I’ve started investigating) I would be a lot less structured. That doesn’t mean I’m not open to incorporating new sources and information and changing my perspectives. Just that they have to be new.
Both this article, the one it links to and their references shed some light on the ways that working class men have been left aside in policies, legal equalization and health issues such as mental health treatment and choice of parenthood: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21652323-blue-collar-men-rich-countries-are-trouble-they-must-learn-adapt-weaker-sex
These link to pdf downloads illustrating how women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes across petty crimes right up to crimes punishable by the death sentence, even in the same areas when sentenced by the same judge:
1: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI9IbDu5PLAhWLsxQKHXMjC40QFggyMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcl.american.edu%2Fjournal%2Fgenderlaw%2F08%2Fshapiro.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEklA3UAw4V7j_1qMa4P5Ydv6H87A&sig2=oA7BaqtT8LGm1uD8sHTPTQ&bvm=bv.115277099,d.ZWU
2: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI9IbDu5PLAhWLsxQKHXMjC40QFgg6MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.honors.ufl.edu%2Fapps%2FThesis.aspx%2FDownload%2F1476&usg=AFQjCNG3cs3X_23dokga7G9OBe1L3sUFJw&sig2=Nds3HUdUciGhJfCYvv8gAA&bvm=bv.115277099,d.ZWU
3: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI9IbDu5PLAhWLsxQKHXMjC40QFghAMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7235%26context%3Djclc&usg=AFQjCNHL86XyUiSC5E1xp2zl_BisBpmE3w&sig2=JFxyAkE4U9wjdfW1pxOLHQ&bvm=bv.115277099,d.ZWU
And an article as well: https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
I find that a lot of battles being fought by feminists are worthwhile. Indeed, the issues I mentioned are being fought by feminists right now! But I just find that a lot of the more vocal feminists are the ones with less valuable arguments to present (again, possibly because being a middle or upper class, educated woman means you have both more of a voice and a higher quality of life). For example, as men and women do differ in our pursuits, interests and even our life patterns, to achieve equal representation of women would be to push an agenda of inequal opportunity. Would you work to have fifty percent of preschool teachers and nannies be men? To have fifty percent of frontline soldiers be women? The equal representation thing is only brought up:
A: When the area is an area which middle and upper class women want to be involved in.
B: When the change would benefit women, although the cost to men is rarely if ever considered.
And C: When the laws in place to encourage equality of opportunity fail to create identical results.
There are biological differences between the sexes and, when a situation is best accounted for by a biological difference, attributing it to an imagined, intangible social order is just mental masturbation.
That said, here are some issues taken up by feminists (among other people) which I fully support:
I believe infant genital mutilation for both sexes needs to not only be outlawed, but actively enforced, and that “cultural sensitivity” arguments protecting those who choose to chop perfectly healthy babies should not be an excuse for sex-based crime against girls (some African traditions) or boys (some Abrahamic traditions).
I believe that the state of sex work needs to be addressed and new laws need to be enacted, as, as it stands, the women who enter sex work voluntarily are neglected in terms of all sorts of economic, fiscal and future employment freedoms, whilst women who enter sex work involuntarily have a hard time making themselves noticed. Prostitute licensing, essentially.
I believe that breastfeeding and other natural child-rearing practices should not be subject to cultural mores. If women need to breast feed on a bus, so be it. If women choose to breast feed their child past six months (the international average, last I read, was three years and the tribal average is seven years), then so be it. As long as the act contributes to the child’s overall wellbeing, social stigma has no place in child rearing.
I also believe that issues such as male violence, sexual differences and cultural differences need to be discussed, but not necessarily in the way anyone seems to be discussing them. We still seem to be stuck at “boys are nasty” and “girls are silly” in terms of the cultural differences which our biologies breed. It would be great to be able to discuss, for example, how a woman’s greater need for sleep might impact on her stress levels in work. Or why chick flics and action films might contribute to greater peace between the sexes, if we didn’t continually make fun of them. Or the ways in which human sexuality is flexible, and under what conditions men feel comfortable being flexible compared to women. But, as I said, it seems as a society we are still to immature to discuss such matters on a biological, sociological and statistical level.
LikeLike
Yes, those imaginary and theoretical advantages would be advantageous, Slaviswife, if they were not so, well, imaginary and theoretical.
I’m afraid you did not make a compelling argument that it is undeniable that working class women have been elevated above working class men. You have taken examples of what is typically considered “female privilege” by MRA-n-ilk applicable across socio-economic classes (the “privilege” not to have an abortion, to obtain a lesser prison sentence, to find a shelter for abused spouses, and to get an education) and suggested that somehow they are even more “advantageous” among the working class. They are not, and some, if not all, of those things are privileges at all. Working class men have a hard life in general and face many problems, but it is far from “undeniable” that working class women have it better.
Anyway, let’s look at your arguments.
1. Working class women and men are BOTH denied right to parenthood and right to non-parenthood even in the West.
I don’t know what this sentence means, frankly. Working class people of both genders are most definitely not denied right to parenthood (or “non-parenthood,” whatever that is), not in America at least. I don’t know where you live, but I am quite certain it is not different there if you are in the First World country.
However when an abortion clinic or an adoption clinic is available, a working class mother can choose to go to it and avoid parenthood, even if the father does not want her to.
Yes, theoretically she can. But in addition to your correct observation that she may not know of this option or be made to believe it is evil, etc., there is the plain fact that abortion clinics are under constant political / (danger of) terroristic assault in the US, and because of that they are dwindling and are not easily accessible to women, especially from the poor / working classes. This is the first article that comes up when I google “access to abortion among poor” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/4304111.pdf — but there are more.
Abortion is not the best method for family regulation — preventing pregnancy would be much more desirable. And access to contraception is also more difficult for the working class (and poor) women than other groups, as you’ve noted.
Meanwhile, if the father wants to avoid parenthood he has no authority over the child’s existence and if the mother keeps the child he is forced to pay to support a life he did not wish to create.
How does this translate into an advantage for the mother, who must raise the child to adulthood? While the father only provides financial support, she must provide material, physical, and emotional 24/7/365 care for many years, in addition to financial support. I do not see how this “elevates” the working class women over men.
2. DV cuts across all socio-economic classes. Saying that men suffer DV “on equal levels to women” misses the point that male-to-female DV tends to be far more dangerous and deadlier. That’s one of the reasons there are more shelters for women and kids. A working class man who is abused by his wife and afraid for his life does not have to sleep on the streets, though. Family, friends, and churches are alternative options. And yes, there are shelters for abused men, too, even though fewer than for women and kids.
3. Criminal sentencing disparities: again, a phenomenon that cuts across socio-economic classes. (I should add that this has nothing to do with feminism.)
4. Education.
You say Kids miss school for weeks and are simply noted as absent, when a child from a wealthier area would be sought for missing a day of school. Yet girls have various schemes and opportunities they have access to exclusively for working class girls to get into education and continue their education.
I don’t understand what you mean by that. Are girls who drop out of school continuing their education thanks to those “various schemes” despite not showing up? What are those schemes?
Boys have to compete against girls for non-gendered grants and schemes and have no all-boys versions of the girls’ ones.
Would you please provide sources for this?
LikeLike
Edit:
“They are not, and some, if not all, of those things are not privileges at all.”
LikeLike
To quote JP: Here comes the clue train, last stop, you. Normally I’m not rude, but if you will be difficult I will be blunt.
Point by point.
1: Right to parenthood: the right to have kids when you want them. Right to non-parenthood: the right to not have kids or be held responsible for them when you do not want them. Working class people often have their children removed from them or cannot afford children. They are also restricted in terms of family planning facilities. Thus, both rights are denied. Not for every indidivual, but often enough to be considered.
2: Yes, abortion clinics are under assault. But that fact, or any exaggeration of it, will not change the fact they exist and exist at the disposition of women, not men.
3: The disadvantage: he is left supporting a child involuntarily. She chooses to have and support the child. Her choice, her consequences. But it isn’t. Her advantage is that she CAN abort or put up for adoption any child she wants. He does not have that option. Can you not see how that is not a level field?
4: Shelters and help for men on their own are still rare and working class men are unlikely to have access to them, forcing them back into a dangerous environment. Also, scale of DV should never be an argument as to who gets the room. Would you send a woman back to an abusive husband because another woman is under greater threat? Or would it be better to give them BOTH a safe place? Likewise, working class men in violent relationships deserve a safe place to stay.
5: So the fact that one sex is disproportionately given harsher penalties and longer sentences has nothing to do with feminism? Nothing at all? What if it were women being given a longer sentence or a bigger fine across the board?
6: Point one on education: ALL working class kids are at risk of dropping out.
7: Point two on education: Girls have extra incentives not to drop out, whereas boys do not. As evidenced by more working class girls graduating high school and going to college.
8: Point three on education: http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/nerdscholar-scholarship-study-5000-private-scholarships-analyzed/ Four times as many scholarships for girls at university level.
Denying these facts is simply pushing an agenda of female weakness. All humans need help. Women do not currently need more help than men. Some special help, based on sex? Sure. But to deny that working class men have been left in the dust whilst women like you or I rise above them is just blindly elitist bull.
LikeLike
Working class people often have their children removed from them or cannot afford children.
Removing children from working class families does not happen, at least not in America, unless severe neglect and / or abuse is involved. In cases of abuse and severe neglect, however, children of any parents, and not just working class, will be removed.
Where do you live, S?
Yes, abortion clinics are under assault. But that fact, or any exaggeration of it, will not change the fact they exist and exist at the disposition of women, not men.
That is because as of now only women get pregnant. Kinda obvious, unfair as it may seem.
On the subject of abortion clinics under assault, I’d recommend John Oliver’s Last Week segment, which gives a view of the situation without many exaggerations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y
The disadvantage: he is left supporting a child involuntarily. She chooses to have and support the child. Her choice, her consequences. But it isn’t. Her advantage is that she CAN abort or put up for adoption any child she wants. He does not have that option. Can you not see how that is not a level field?
I don’t know how you’d level that “unlevel,” in your opinion, field. By allowing men who father unwanted children walk away from the responsibility of providing for them? Many of them do, but it is frowned upon by the state, and not because of “man-hating” or feminism, but because if the fathers do not financially support the kids they’ve made, the burden falls on the state.
I think it is a very basic human responsibility to support children we have created, whether intentionally or not. If one does not intend to do that ever, one should take precautions not to create any children ever. Condoms for men work, even though imperfectly; vasectomies even better. It also helps not to have sex with women who are untrustworthy. I’m not sure why you suggest that men are somehow victims here. I would think that men are capable of taking basic responsibilities for their sex lives and reproductive options, just as women learn to do, sooner or later.
Shelters and help for men on their own are still rare and working class men are unlikely to have access to them, forcing them back into a dangerous environment.
Is there any data on that? My google is of no help on this one.
Also, scale of DV should never be an argument as to who gets the room. Would you send a woman back to an abusive husband because another woman is under greater threat? Or would it be better to give them BOTH a safe place? Likewise, working class men in violent relationships deserve a safe place to stay.
Of course they do. The scale is important to assess the risk of danger. A random slap or a push is not the same as skull bashing. In the first instance, the spouses may just chill in separate rooms of their house; in the second, not so much. But yes, let’s keep everyone safe, women and men, I won’t argue against it.
So the fact that one sex is disproportionately given harsher penalties and longer sentences has nothing to do with feminism? Nothing at all? What if it were women being given a longer sentence or a bigger fine across the board?
The disparity in sentencing can be seen as a function of paternalism: seeing women as less responsible, more childlike; as well as chivalry, especially in the case of male judges. I suspect that this trend predates feminism, although I don’t have any data to support that.
However, you may be interested in learning that girl offenders receive longer sentences than boys: http://news.utexas.edu/2015/09/22/girls-serve-longer-sentences-than-boys-in-justice-system
Point two on education: Girls have extra incentives not to drop out, whereas boys do not. As evidenced by more working class girls graduating high school and going to college.
This has always been so ever since girls were allowed to enter the same educational institutions as boys. In communist countries of EE, for example, where no one heard of feminism, girls, working class and not, always outperformed boys at school. That did not change the fact that the boys, or men rather, went on to occupy the top positions of power in politics, industry, and everywhere else. So, in other words, that clear and persistent across the world (where girls are allowed to get education on par with boys) gender disparity in academic performance does not translate into the men’s general disenfranchisement. And it has nothing to do with feminism, but is probably a function of other factors, not in the least biological differences between genders.
Point three on education: http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/nerdscholar-scholarship-study-5000-private-scholarships-analyzed/ Four times as many scholarships for girls at university level.
Thanks. From what I see, these women-only scholarships are created almost exclusively by private individuals and institutions. I see no reason why other private individuals and institutions should not create scholarships for boys.
Denying these facts is simply pushing an agenda of female weakness.
You introduced the notion that working class men are “undeniably” disfavored in comparison with working class women, even though many of your arguments were poorly supported or not at all. Not sure how requests for explanation or evidentiary support for your arguments constitute “pushing an agenda of female weakness.” One could as easily say that you are pushing an agenda of male weakness. But let’s set agendas aside for a moment.
All humans need help. Women do not currently need more help than men. Some special help, based on sex? Sure.
So women do not currently need more help than men, but they do special help, based on sex, anyway? What’s the distinction here? If they do need “special help, based on sex,” that means women do need more help than men, in some respects at least? Pardon my confusion, but your reasoning here is unclear.
But to deny that working class men have been left in the dust whilst women like you or I rise above them is just blindly elitist bull.
Please speak for yourself, S. Working class people are my people, so your charge of elitism is misplaced in my case. I grew up dirt poor, with a locksmith dad and a seamstress / meat packer mom.
Thanks to socialism in my country of origin, I got decent education, but immigration took me back to working class, where my employment included janitorial work, cleaning offices; wiping shit and vomit; care for the dying; cleaning houses, and a stint in a meat packing factory where my elderly mother still works full time. At 79. I suspect she’d be tickled to know how some young woman on the internets believes that the working class women’s lives are easier than those of men. Especially since she’s watched for the umpteenth time a young man with little schooling and no experience being promoted to a lineman (line supervisor) as women with long decades of experience do they heavy lifting, literally and figuratively, for about 30% less of what he makes from start.
Or I could gather a bunch of my former coworkers and we could share with you the tales of sexual harassment and rape on the job, a problem that affects working class women (and almost never men) everywhere, but especially the immigrant ones who have the least resources and recourse for addressing it.
But given that this is physically impossible, I’ll do the second best thing, and introduce you to this story, which should help you understand what the working poor women’s (unlike men’s) everyday reality is like:
https://www.revealnews.org/article/under-cover-of-darkness-female-janitors-face-rape-and-assault/
So elitist, much advantages.
LikeLike
1: Forced adoption. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297573.stm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/are-over-zealous-social-services-acting-on-orders-to-meet-adoption-quotas-394647.html http://forced-adoption.com/
2: “Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
3: So you are making an assumption of misogynist intention in order to disregard misandrist results? Men are executed and imprisoned more, but your personal feelings and interpretation of the motivate are what really matters, right?
4: But they do not create scholarships for boys. Because as a society, we believe males do not deserve help. As you are so kindly evidencing. Helping girls does not equal not needing to help boys.
5: As for class. I am welfare class, raised on welfare fraud, from a messed up family unit massively impacted by the fact that divorce is biased against men and that mental healthcare does not account for the fact that men also suffer depression or women can also be abusive, dragged across several countries, living on campsites for over half a year, missing school for years at a time. I had to work hard to get where I am, but every step along the way there was someone to help me. As one out of thousands of examples, when I was almost homeless the care centre gave me a flat all to myself, because: girl asked for it. This allowed me to complete my education. No boys I knew were given flats to themselves, leaving most of them in shared flats and hostels. Most of them dropped out of school due to disturbed home lives. Most of them are still moving across houseshares, whilst most of the girls now are either out of that situation or in council houses.
I started out with literally nothing, at the age of sixteen, almost on the streets. No GCSEs, no money, no transferable skills, unable to drive, living in a house given to me only because I was a teenage girl almost on the streets, surviving off £4k a year whilst taking numerous GCSEs and A-levels. My everyday reality? Get up, thank the gods that I had enough rides left on my bus ticket, go to school, wonder whether it was worth the extra bus fare to stay late for after school support, get a free school meal and pack some of it for dinner, stay for after school classes, raid the reduced sections of the supermarket, get home, make sure I had over £5 on my electricity meter, put the gas on, shower, turn the gas off again, wrap up warm, eat something, do my schoolwork, realize I need internet connection for a task, see my phone has no internet left and its not time to top up yet, make a note to get up even earlier to access library or school internet to complete my work, pack my bags, prepare my laundry bag for a friend or relative or the launderette to wash, go to bed. That was my life. And I made it. Not just because I worked hard and was terrified of not making it, but because as a girl I had every grant, every allowance, every extra bit of funding, every possible advantage given to me. The boys are now men and are still where they started. How far could they have come if they had received an extra £1k a year, a safe home or support applying for housing and university? We’ll never know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s really interesting. There’s so much in there, I’m going to be digesting and pondering all this for a while. What extra help I’ve seen available for women I’ve put down to biological facts – they are more vulnerable physically to violent attacks and also obviously the only at risk of becoming pregnant. If I wander off into completely speculative territory (you can correct me if I’m wrong) in terms of homelessness and links to addiction, they are also more vulnerable to being sexually abused and pulled into prostitution. Does that sound accurate?
My other initial observation is that, regardless of your gender, you’re obviously tenacious and smart. Another wild speculation – being dragged about several countries and campsites would undoubtedly be unsettling/traumatic for a child, but perhaps it made you more adaptable/flexible and experienced. Do you not think that a male with your characteristics in your situation would have found ways to get through too?
I think you’re right that there are undeniable gender advantages and disadvantages that can work both ways. I just think that the bigger picture, globally and domestically, is that men have much more advantage, and have had as far back as we know.
LikeLike
It is true that there are gender-specific risks to homelessness for women, and these need to be kept in mind when assessing a woman’s need for shelter. However men’s greater risk for becoming involved in drug and gang activities, and overall greater risk for assault and homicide on the street, should also be considered as a factor when looking for shelter for them. In short: the risks of homelessness are gender-specific, and, short of homicide (which I think we should all agree is the worst result for anyone), men and women’s sufferings of gender-specific violence should be considered on equal but separate terms. Women need to be protected against prostitution, rape and robbery. Men need to be protected against drug circles, gangs and physical abuse.
References:
1: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiWq8ClopjLAhVJ1hQKHdnYA40QFggiMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F116352%2Fhosb1210-chap3.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE4Uc4KapZS6_uOlCo7GIwTRy1q5Q&sig2=OT1iyoEFt0qgM7zhHGbSig&bvm=bv.115339255,d.bGg
2: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj43oiXopjLAhXFyRQKHZZkC3oQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsocant.chass.ncsu.edu%2Fdocuments%2FSmith_3.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGx-i3OvCWapqsU5vX_yPVXbq6kbw&sig2=IFG_vwRVp5DzKRwCHYkHaw&bvm=bv.115339255,d.bGg
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#Statistics
4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Crime_Survey
I also believe that any amount of traumatic incidents likely to place you in foster care, hostels or on the streets would have a similar impact on the reasoning abilities, opportunism and survival skills of anyone. Nobody ends up in those places for small issues. Children of abusive and neglectful parents, street and squatter kids, children roped into drugs, gangs and prostitution… all of us were put through trials and all of us eventually found the assistance we needed because we were tenacious. But as girls and women, the female sex were offered more advantages. Hell, however much people go on about homosexuals receiving extra help and homosexual men being on a par with women in terms of support, I remember exactly one LGBT funding and support package, and that was privately funded and limited access. The guys got the short end of the straw in terms of options.
Globally I have to agree that being a male grants more opportunities. In terms of results, many males fail to achieve this advantaged position in their societies because a third or second world hierarchical culture is essentially a bottleneck. But unlike their wives, mothers and sisters, they at least have a chance. Plus, violence against women, on a global level, exceeds that against men. And I believe that as the world globalizes we need to work hard to prevent those cultures from being brought into the first world, as FGM and forced marriages already have.
It is also true that especially among the middle classes, men tend to rise above women in many areas. But to focus on middle class issues that commonly result in a missed promotion or a bit of offense when global issues and working/welfare class issues result in deaths, coercion into criminality and terror is very short-sighted. Also, as I have already said, I believe working class women have been put in a position where their opportunities in life and legal advantages exceed those of working class men. That does not mean they are seizing these opportunities but, like the working class men in patriarchal third and second world countries, they at least have the option out, should they find it and seize it. I think it would be valuable not only to introduce and equal number of options for working class men (grants, contraceptive access, adequate paternity laws, shelters, etc), but also to do something about awareness and access to these options for both sexes.
LikeLike
Who gave you the house and the money to live on while you went to school? The government?
And what happened to your parents, if you don’t mind me asking?
I gather you live in Great Britain then, is that correct?
LikeLike
Yes, I do. The house came from an association for young people who were homeless or almost homeless, receiving government funds. The money was welfare. Parents is a personal issue, let’s just leave it as they were not capable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry to hear about this, Slavs. It sucks not to have competent or caring enough parents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Possibly part of my reason for being concerned about the lack of debate about disenfranchised men, tbh. I know what it’s like to be the one who everyone ignores. That’s not to say that women do not still need help, just that the debate needs to be expanded and we need to see that women are no longer the ones with least resources and opportunities in every area of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, S. A few points on your comment:
What radical feminists saw as patriarchy was just the tail-end of millenia of class wars.
Not just. Economic class analysis is useful, but insufficient in understanding the situation of women as a (sex) class under patriarchy. That’s where the feminist perspective is necessary, which is what my recent discovery of RF has made me appreciate. Patriarchy cuts across all socio-economic strata and affects men and women in relation to each other in relatively uniformly ways, placing women in the second tier position because they are women, the sex class, and making them vulnerable to the same form of exploitation (sexual and labor-related) across all socio-economic strata. Again, not all women are impacted in the same way, etc., and of course a class position, among other things, changes a woman’s fate considerably, but the general principles apply.
Why were women restricted to the home whilst men worked?
This applies to rich (enough) women only. Working class women have always worked outside the home, and then did the second (and third) shift at their own house.
Because if women went down a mine shaft, onto the battle field, into a large factory or out hunting, they would most likely die, as thousands of men did.
Women have always worked in factories, and before Industrial Revolution, in any areas of daily enterprise (producing textiles for sale, food, etc.) They also worked in coal mines (as did children). Women were eventually banned from coal mines not because they were not good workers (or anyone gave a damn about their health and well-being), but because their uniforms — trousers and manly shirts, or sometimes no shirts at all — were deemed a threat to decency.
And while the killing business, hunting and war, was typically reserved for men, women did that too, although in very limited numbers. But working class women have always had jobs outside the home.
In fact, many women DID have to work, due to poverty, and DID die, as their men did.
Yes, indeed.
Why did men vote whilst women did not? Because men, as workers and warriors, were directly impacted by policies on finance and foreign affairs and women were only secondarily impacted by the loss of their men.
It is more complex than that, since, as you know, women worked as well and their well-being was as directly impacted by financial and social policies. There was also a set of pervasive beliefs, shared in many segments of society to this day, about women not being fully human, not capable of independent reasoning, etc., that fueled this discrimination.
Men and women alike have been kept down by class structure for all of history.
True. Yet every man — generally speaking — could be assured in the comfortable enough knowledge that he was still lucky not having been born a woman; and that even though he had it bad, there were always women / a woman who had it worse (and if they/she didn’t, he could make it so). There are some proverbs to that effect, about women being the negros of the world. John Lennon wrote a song about it: http://www.tumultueuses.com/Woman-is-the-negro-of-the-World
In my country of origin, there was a saying that under every man, no matter how unlucky in life, there was always a woman to make him feel better — to remind him that his fate was not as awful.
Radical feminism is now primarily middle and upper class, yet uses the suffering of working class women as its platform.
I’m new to RF, so it is difficult for me to verify that, but from the little I have seen (in print), opinions go both ways: that the working class women’s concerns have been ignored by feminists, but also that the working class feminism is alive and strong, although neglected in the media.
Working class men form the majority of the manosphere and are complaining about actual class issues which were designed to almost exclusively harm men and have not been addressed, as well as complaining about the very real impact of being a working class man when all working class women have the freedom and means to “mate up” and “mate out”
Which parts of the manosphere do you mean?
From what I have seen, an overwhelming majority of the spherians are white, middle class, relatively well educated, and gainfully employed men with plenty of free time on their hands, who complain about women in general, and feminism in particular. More specifically, they complain about women not wanting to have sex with them as they should, share their dehumanizing views of women, and tips on how to use and abuse them. If there is any discussion on class issues, it is fleeting and tangential to that about sex and harping about women — or sex, really (which is what women are reduced to under patriarchy, as RF so well explains).
BTW, I would say that the “actual class issues” — and I’m not sure what you mean by that exactly, but I’m assuming foremost the gross and growing income inequality that leads to all kinds of social injustices — were never “designed to almost exclusively harm men.” Ruthless capitalism ruthlessly dehumanizes and destroys all who are not the rich and/or owners of means of production, men and women alike, even though in different ways.
There is compelling data, for example, showing that the last recession has been very gendered in that it has disproportionately affected (working class) women:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/heather-mcrobie/when-austerity-sounds-like-backlash-gender-and-economic-crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/21/spending-cuts-women-report
LikeLike
Wage gap myth:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
Here are some by women
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-incomehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
US Department of Labor http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/
Gender pay gap is not what activists claim http://wwww.examiner.com/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim
Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with likehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html
Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp
The Wage Gap Myth
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html
Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html
The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3pKN3XUKM&feature=youtu.be
Women Now a Majority in American Workplaceshttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06women.html?_r=2
Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/biggest-shock-fridays-payroll-report-sorry-men
Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Lowhttp://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/share-of-men-in-labor-force-at-all-time-low/?src=recg
Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Menhttp://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9
Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: studywww.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R
Female CEOs outearned men in 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664
Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Young-Women-Earn-More-159818705.html
Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Tophttp://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peershttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html
The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Menhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/
Women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount. http://www.womenintechnology.co.uk/news/young-women-earn-more-than-men—news-800761492
Young women now earn more than men in UKhttp://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/10/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-in-uk/
The only chairwoman in the FTSE 100 index of biggest British companies, when asked about government efforts to force companies to make at least 25% of board member to be female said: “there’s no real evidence to suggest women being on a board makes the companies any better – what we’re doing here is forcing an experiment.” This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTy…
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/ This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
Blaming men for women’s choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243
Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html
Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm
ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity” http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R
There is also the myth that women are kept out of certain more lucrative fields by sexism. The truth is that women stay away from math out of their own free choice http://sify.com/news/women-stay-away-from-math-out-of-their-own-free-choice-news-scitech-kk1lubiiiee.html
Women In Science: No Discrimination, Says Cornell Studyhttp://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984
Let’s be real about the lack of women in tech http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10
Here are some by women http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-incomehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
US Department of Labor http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
Men don’t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.
Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs—if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.
Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.
Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn’t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the “sexism” of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband’s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
The Wage Gap is a Myth
The wage gap statistic, however, doesn’t compare two similarly situated co-workers of different sexes, working in the same industry, performing the same work, for the same number of hours a day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men and women classified as full-time workers.
The Department of Labor’s Time Use Survey, for example, finds that the average full-time working man spends 8.14 hours a day on the job, compared to 7.75 hours for the full-time working woman. Employees who work more likely earn more. Men working five percent longer than women alone explains about one-quarter of the wage gap.
Source
Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.
Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.
Source
Furchtgott-Roth cites a 2005 study by economists June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill, which found that for the most part “the gender gap is attributable to choices made by women concerning the amount of time and energy to devote to a career.” They continue: “There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles.”
Source
Most people think that equal pay sounds fine, but assume that the issue at stake is the rate of pay for the same kind of work. But as the ONS said in its monthly Economic & Labour Market Review, published last year just before the Government committed itself to forcing the Equality Bill through, the gender pay gap ‘does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs’.
According to ASHE, in 2007 a gender pay gap does not open up until women reach about 30 years of age. From ages 18-29 there is hardly any difference and, according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS), women aged 22-29 are paid on average slightly more per hour than men. As the ONS concludes, having children is the decisive factor, not being a woman. Historical data confirm this conclusion. Based on the New Earnings Survey panel data, in 1975 there was a pay gap from the age of 18 onwards, but in 2006 no such gap existed until age 34. Why? In 1975 women tended to have children in their 20s and by 2006 it was more common to have them in their 30s. As the average age of child-rearing increased so too did the age at which the pay gap kicked in.
Source
According to highly acclaimed career expert and best-selling author, Marty Nemko, “The data is clear that for the same work men and women are paid roughly the same. The media need to look beyond the claims of feminist organizations.”
On a radio talk show, Nemko clearly and forcefully debunked that ultimate myth – that women make less than men – by explaining why, when you compare apples to apples, it simply isn’t true. Even the White House report: Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being explains why. Simply put, men choose higher-paying jobs.
Source
Women doing part-time jobs are compared with men doing the same jobs, but full-time, so the gap between their incomes isn’t a gender gap but a time gap; an “hours worked” gap.
Source
One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap “may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” In the past, women’s groups have ignored or explained away such findings.
Source
In an updated research project, we determined 15 common majors for men, 15 common majors for women and 15 common majors with roughly equal numbers of men and women graduates. Similar to AAUW, we find women tend to major in various Design/Art majors, Education, Nursing, and Public Relations, while men tend to major in Engineering, Finance, Computer Science, and Economics. Majors common to both include Accounting, Journalism, Biology, History, English and Mathematics.
Source
The data show that women scientists are confronted with choices, beginning at or before adolescence, that influence their career trajectories and success. Women who prioritize families and have children sometimes make “lifestyle choices” that lead to them to take positions, such as adjunct or part-time appointments or jobs at two-year colleges, offering fewer resources and chances to move up in the ranks.
These women, however, are not held back by sex discrimination in hiring or in how their scholarly work is evaluated. Men with comparably low levels of research resources fare equivalently to their female peers. Although women disproportionately hold such low-resource positions, this is not because they had their grants and manuscripts rejected or were denied positions at research-intensive universities due to their gender.
Also, females beginning before adolescence often prefer careers focusing on people, rather than things, aspiring to be physicians, biologists and veterinarians rather than physicists, engineers and computer scientists. Efforts to interest young girls in these math-heavy fields are intended to ensure girls do not opt out of inorganic fields because of misinformation or stereotypes.
Also, fertility decisions are key because the tenure system has strong disincentives for women to have children – a factor in why more women in academia are childless than men. Implementation of “flexible options” to enhance work-family balance may help to increase the numbers of women in STEM fields, the researchers say.
Source
Other Sources
The Wage Gap is a myth. 1 2
Women tend to choose majors that pay a lower national median pay.
Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces
Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.
Women in some cases make more than men.
And their husbands dont have a problem with it either.
Women CHOOSE to stay away from STEM field
There is no STEM gender gap in the U.S
Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men
How’s that for the evidence, then? Poor men are at a disadvantage in terms of access to wealth and employment and defending their own wealth, and, from where you are, you’re placing the blame for their disadvantages squarely on men themselves. “You are the patriarchy, so any disadvantage is your own fault!” Whilst simultaneously blaming these same men for every problem the women around them face. That’s not to say women don’t face problems. Just that vocal radical feminists only want to talk about non-problems, rather than actual issues women are currently facing.
LikeLike
Thanks for the links, Slavswife. Will peruse them in time.
from where you are, you’re placing the blame for their disadvantages squarely on men themselves. “You are the patriarchy, so any disadvantage is your own fault!”
Wait a sec. Where do I say that exactly?
LikeLike
When you say there is no institutional disadvantages to men, although there are, and place the blame of institutional disadvantages on the patriarchy, I infer that you must be of the credo that believe women’s institutional disadvantages are “patriarchy” and that men’s institutional disadvantages are “patriarchy backfiring”, rather than both being easily attributed to class violence.
For example, if you are forced to acknowledge men go to prison more readily and for longer than women do, rather than attribute this to a society which expects men to be held responsible for their circumstances and women to be a victim of circumstance, you attribute it exclusively to society expecting women to be frail, ignoring the forest for the one particular tree you have set your sights on. Men are to blame for the patriarchy, the patriarchy is to blame for the suffering of men, therefore, like almost all of modern society, you position men as a group as responsible for their suffering and women as a group as faultless in theirs. Considering how much radical feminism goes into language theory, I am a little surprised you don’t seem to give much thought to the context, implications and culture surrounding that sort of expression.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I can process your reasoning here, Slavs, including your various inferences that go way beyond my ken.
You posited that the working class men are “undeniably” disadvantaged vis a vis working class women. That I do not agree with this does not mean that I believe the working class men have a glorious, worry-free existence. Far, far from it. It is just that they do not have it worse than the working class women. Really. And unlike you, I know what working class life is like, for women and for men. My late father, my husband, and one of our sons are as blue collar as it gets (though my husband less so these days).
The “institutional” disadvantages for the working class men come from laboring under ruthless capitalism, and not from feminism (whatever that would mean); although I know that this is inconceivable for the manospherian internet warriors (almost none of whom are working class or know what the working class life is like) who push this false narrative of men’s victimhood in the hands of women in general and feminists in particular.
Your links (and your blog) indicate that you gather a lot of information from manospherian sources, in this instance erroneously believing that the manosphere represents men of the working class and their interests.
For example, if you are forced to acknowledge men go to prison more readily and for longer than women do, rather than attribute this to a society which expects men to be held responsible for their circumstances and women to be a victim of circumstance, you attribute it exclusively to society expecting women to be frail, ignoring the forest for the one particular tree you have set your sights on.
Slavs, please think, rather than jump on the antifeminism manospherian bandwagon.
And read, calmly.
Where did I “attribute it exclusively to society expecting women to be frail”?
I posited that the disparity in sentencing can be seen as a function of paternalism and chivalry. Did not attribute it exclusively to those factors, and qualified my point with the (my) lack of data.
Is there evidence that the gender disparity in criminal sentencing started with the advent of feminism?
If there is, then it would suggest that feminism may have something to do with it. If there isn’t, and women have always received lighter sentences for the same crimes, then obviously feminism does not have anything to do with it, does it. I cannot find data on those disparities prior to feminism. If you can, please do, and we could settle it (possibly).
I realize now that living in GB, and having no direct experience with the working class life, your views on the matter (of working class) are 1. theoretical and 2. colored by the GB specifics (that kind of help you’ve received as a young girl is not available on this side of the ocean).
LikeLike
Unlike me? Unlike the person who has lived among and ascended through the working class across several EU nations? America is not the be all and end all of the first world, nor is it some terror-zone compared to other first world countries. If you had spent any amount of time living outside it, you might get to see for yourself what the measurable differences make from nation to nation. I understand that you have not been able to, but to make your stance so America-centric as to exclude a perspective on the basis of nationality when all else fails,. is intellectually dishonest. I have provided a solid argument and credible sources which, even if they are used by the manosphere, should not be discredited by association either. Perhaps you should look for more information, rather than for evidence only to support your personal perspective?
And I never said the disadvantages of working class men came from feminism, but that the advantages of working class women come from feminism and disadvantages to both come from plutocracy and corruption (a different process than capitalism, although they are linked). Neglect is not the same as harm. Feminism does not hurt working class men, it simply neglects them. I do not believe feminism is inherently a problem to anyone, I just believe it is currently being controlled by the wrong voices.
LikeLike
If you had spent any amount of time living outside it, you might get to see for yourself what the measurable differences make from nation to nation. I understand that you have not been able to, but to make your stance so America-centric as to exclude a perspective on the basis of nationality when all else fails,. is intellectually dishonest
I’m not sure how you managed to miss the part of me being an immigrant, but you did.
Anyway.
Do you believe that feminism should advocate for men too, working class and not?
LikeLike
If feminism wishes to achieve gender equality, then advocating for men accompanies advocating for women.
Take, for example, advocating for a man’s right to non payment of child support. If we argue that men should not pay for a child they did not want from the get go, then we would also have to reignite debate about women’s access to family planning facilities. We would be forced to conclude that current family planning facilities are not sufficiently accessible and that men and women alike are bearing the burdens of raising unplanned families. Both issues could be addressed at once.
LikeLike
Unlike the person who has lived among and ascended through the working class across several EU nations?
What does that mean, “ascended through”? Did you actually work, or did you go to school on the government’s assistance?
“Living among” working people is not quite the same as working yourself, as I’m sure you understand.
LikeLike
Both. I went to school on government assistance, and I also left welfare with no university degree to start a life of my own, rather than risk becoming an unemployed, debt-ridden graduate who would repeat my family’s cycle. I ascended through the working class because I started beneath it (welfare, not able to legally work), continued through it and am now finally self-employed, building a business and, although my salary is only equivalent to minimum wage, enjoying enough free time for my lifestyle to be best described as lower middle class. In short, I have seen the spectrum.
LikeLike
I see, Slavs. Congratulations on your impressive path out of that early misery. (There is a story there to be told, I’m sure.) Hope you continue to grow and evolve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” And unlike you, I know what working class life is like, for women and for men.” That is a really weird and kind of patronising statement, based on what she’s written. I’m not sure I’m going to agree with everything she’s saying, but I find it odd you’re being so dismissive. I know you’re very familiar with manosphere – do you see all these arguments there? I think a lot of what she’s saying makes sense so far, my only objective is sense of ‘fight back’ against feminism rather than accepting it alongside her views, and acknowledging how equality movements can and will evolve with need.
LikeLike
Slavs is a stay-at-home wife, with no personal experience in the world of blue collar work. I don’t know how it is patronizing to point out this fact. It is relevant since she positions herself to be a champion of blue collar men here.
Yes, I do find it amusing to be lectured on the plight of the working class by someone who has no direct experience with blue collar work, and argues that working class women have it better than men. I’m sorry, but this does not chime in with my experience or that of working class women (pretty much anywhere in the world, is my guess). And I actually know what life for working class women is like.
Some of the things she says make sense, others not so much. And those are taken almost directly from the manosphere — for example, the argument for what the spherians call a “financial abortion,” which is the option for the fathers to abandon the offspring they “accidentally” produced.
LikeLike
I see Roughseas’ latest post is about a “Male pretendbian”. That is TERF-speak for trans woman- it is not clear that the woman in question is gynephile, but TERFs might not care about the difference.
TERF- trans-erasing radical feminist. “pretendbian” rather than lesbian, someone pretending to be lesbian; the pretence consisting in being male really rather than pretending to be attracted to women. “Gynephile” meaning attracted to women, in case “homosexual” confused anyone. We used to use the word “transbian” in case people said “You are not lesbian” meaning “You are not a woman”.
She also uses WATM and WATTW, which I don’t understand at all, and Google does not quickly explain, as both could mean non-gender related things.
There we go. Someone I was moderately friendly with, sucked down the TERF rabbit hole and suddenly deciding that I and all I stand for are wildly threatening and harmful to her. I get weary of it.
LikeLike
1) It’s not my post. It’s a reblog. Please be accurate.
2) I expect no empathy on here.
3) @ vw, actually radfems do not blame men, they blame the system, big difference.
4) TERF – trans exclusive rad fem.
5) no idea about the rest of your definitions
6) WATM is standard in feminist theory
7) There you go again, deciding what I think.
Jeez Clare.
LikeLike
Is the term “male pretendbian” as a description of that trans woman grossly offensive, or isn’t it?
LikeLike
Not. My. Term. I didn’t coin it.
Can you possibly point me to the many posts you have wriiten about women’s rights please?
LikeLike
It is in the title of your post. Do you repudiate it, then?
http://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/womens-oppression/ is a recent one.
All those page views from Gibraltar on my blog, ten in the last week. Are they you? After your last comments, “male pretendbian”, supporting gender stereotypes, is how you see me, no?
LikeLike
Clare, it is a reblog. Therefore the title gets repeated.
LikeLike
Is it offensive, or not?
LikeLike
When have I accused you of oppression or personally denigrated or derided you? As you have said I have done. Please deal with the personal first.
LikeLike
Is it offensive, or not? If you had used a racial slur which people used of a commenter, would you be surprised if that commenter took it personally?
As for personal denigration, here it is.
LikeLike
As you choose Clare.
LikeLike
You don’t find
“Next you will want to be a Little … OK maybe not”
or
” Just know, you are damaging women.”
personally offensive, as well as cisplaining? “I hope I never offend someone unintentionally”.
LikeLike
Clare, could you possibly go pick on someone else?
LikeLike
Really, you call me a pervert like that, and an oppressor, and you think it’s me picking on you?
Ruth’s comment on Merv’s blog- here we are, debating this on three posts at once- makes some sense. We have responsibility for our own responses. Yet I would hope some phrases are beyond the pale in civilised company, and hate-speech like “male pretendbian” is one of them.
LikeLike
Just remind me again when I descrobed you as ‘pervert’. Prove it Clare. Just prove I ever said that.
LikeLike
“Little…”- little what, exactly?
You left it in, to be perfectly clear what you meant, but were too cowardly to write “Little girl”.
There I go, judging. It is a game I deprecate, playing the “I’m not as queer as them” card- but I do dislike the “little girl” dressers. And the adult babies. And I don’t want to be compared to them.
So I quoted you. You don’t think what I quoted is just the teensiest bit offensive? Just like you don’t think “male pretendbian” is remotely objectionable?
LikeLike
‘Little’ is an acknowledged term in BDSM speak.
I am sure you read this:
LikeLike
So, what did you mean by “little…” exactly?
And- I am delighted that you dodge the question about “male pretendbian”. It shows that you are quite happy with offending all trans women.
You don’t have any power to trigger me. But you do show yourself as a transphobe, and disgust me.
LikeLike
And I described you as a pervert, just, when?
Please do state that.
LikeLike
*described* obviously. Or maybe not. Who knows.
LikeLike
Message to Clare and Roughseas: I’m happy to delete this entire thread if you both want me to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s pretty off topic, and I apologise for that. Sorry violetwisp.
LikeLike
No need to apologise to me. I’m never concerned about off topic discussions (unless it’s Arch salivating around female bloggers, yuck). It’s just so unpleasant generally, I thought you both might be wanting it erased. I’ll leave it if you don’t care/don’t agree.
By the way, I was being extremely sarcastic when I said I was annoyed people were calling me Violet. You seem to have taken that seriously. Also, as a result of this, I saw where your objection to your name being used came from. I’m suspecting it was never a problem till that moment.
LikeLike
I’m not usually either, but when they start getting personal and unpleasant and detract from the post, that’s the only time I’ve deleted comments, or taken posts private. You’re right, it is unpleasant, and I would say take it down, it adds no value. And then I can comment about radical feminism rather than trans.
Arch and sexism. Hmmm. Let’s not go there. Shame, as I liked his sense of humour.
I figured you were. But just in case …
It was always a problem. As I said, being a weak and feeble woman, I didn’t want to make a fuss. But when people who specifically say never want their real name used on the internet use mine, I guess it hit the red light button.
LikeLike
Okay, no consensus, I’ll leave it. Sorry for kicking up the dust …
LikeLike
Of course. Would you ever disagree with clare?
LikeLike
I stated at the start: if you both want. I don’t delete anything usually, I was offering because I thought you might both regret the conversation. Like I said, I now regret kicking up the dust …
LikeLike
Bear in mind she’s the only blogger I’ve met. Maybe you treat people differently when you’ve seen a real person. Maybe you wouldn’t be as happy reblogging such nasty pieces of work if you’d had a coffee with her.
LikeLike
I’ve met a few internet people. It’s been interesting. Fifty fifty I guess.
Thanks for letting Clare use my name. That shows shedloads of disrespect, violetwisp.
LikeLike
I didn’t notice. Would you like me to **** it out?
LikeLike
Ta. Yes please.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Maybe you could **** out the offensive word on your blog now. Of course, that would still leave the problem of the content of the post … I see how people are put off by Clare’s reaction to things like this. What I don’t understand is that I’m sure people like you would accept her reaction if she was a black person in a world where n*****r was still being used, or a gay person having to put up with p**f posts about paedophiles. Clare is what she says she is, not what other people are trying are trying to create for the label ‘trans’. Your reading material is depressing, and extremely offensive – why can’t you see that?
LikeLike
Message to Clare and Roughseas: I’m happy to delete this entire thread if you both want me to.
LikeLike
About twenty years ago I tried out a Scottish Country Dancing demonstration group in Falkirk. The founder had retired from running it week by week, but I went to her flat so she could check me out. We compared common acquaintance: she knew Bob Walker, who had spent some time with her group, but wanted to do a shocking thing:
he had tried to introduce English people!! to her group!
I actually did not stay with the group because I was not prepared to slam my knee down on the floor at the end of one particular dance, preferring to descend quickly but lower myself gently the last inch or two. I did not like what she said about having only Scots in her group, but would have gone along with it. However, had she said she did not want “fucking English scum” in her group, I would not have gone along with it.
Words matter. If someone is not horrified by the term “male pretendbian”, I want that to be clear. I do not want it hushed up anywhere.
LikeLike
Okay, no consensus, I’ll leave it. Sorry for kicking up the dust …
LikeLike
On Pink’s thread on this you would read the consensus that if someone is upset it is for them to deal with their feelings. I don’t think it is quite that. I feel there is a level of offensiveness that one should not cross, such as, using terms designed to mock, exclude and deride mostly harmless people. To me, “male pretendbian” crosses the line.
LikeLike
Oh, and:
**** comments elsewhere about trans women “claiming to define who women are” and then brings up autogynephilia, a standard TERF tactic for bringing down obloquy on our heads.
It’s like the protocols of the elders of Zion: false claims that harmless people are damaging the Normal people, for the purpose of whipping up hate.
So, no. Reconciliation is not possible here.
LikeLike
That’s sad. You could win her over if you accept her in the way you accept others who think the same. Or not. But it’s you who has to balance how much it damages you being exposed to that kind of bigotry.
LikeLike
Pingback: what is the patriarchy? thoughts on radical feminism – part 3 | violetwisp
RS: “Would you ever disagree with clare?”
Your false belief that you are being harmed leads you to cause actual harm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! “Male pretendbian” is not remotely objectionable, but use of a first name is “shed-loads of disrespect”?
****, how wonderful it is that you are so easy to wind up. I hate you. I want you to come round to a sane view of the situation, but as that seems impossible I want to wound you. I am delighted that I have managed.
LikeLike
Radical Feminism or the Manosphere:
Whichever group would be first to go into Boko Harum, free the girls they’ve imprisoned, raped, and tortured, and then string up and torture every one of the sick, barbarian f#ckhead members of that organization before their lives were ended would be the group that I have my support behind for the moment.
Beyond that, however, my support boils down to whomever it is whining and crying the most to proclaim the extent of their own “Perpetual Victimhood” in everyday life in the west – and then I pick the other one. No solutions to problems ever come out of Losership.
LikeLike
Thanks for popping by VR Kaine! I’m not sure what heaping more violence on violence has ever achieved for humanity, so I wouldn’t want to support either group bent on wayward vengeful torture ventures. Beyond that, I see from your current post convinced that black people don’t make good films and that why they don’t get Oscars, that you’re not in tune to the reality of life (maybe that’s why you think torturing people is a good idea). No solutions to human problems ever come out of turning a blind eye to injustice and inequality. Or vengeful torture. 😉
LikeLike
Well violence got rid of the Nazi’s for one, stopped the Japanese for another, and would wipe out Isis for a third. Are you in favor, then, of just pleading with BH? 🙂 See how that goes!
As for my post re: the Oscars, I didn’t say black people don’t make good films. I said this year yes, Concussion got dissed (and not for racial reasons) but other than that, “Straight Outta Compton” is a shit movie so any ethnic quota that would have been in place would have brought down all of the other movies which were fantastic.
As for being “in tune”, I work directly with visible minorities both at the business and community level and my specific work involves helping them overcome their struggles – including discrimination – so I’m probably far more in tune than most white liberals on the subject. Going to guess that most on the web who whine the loudest haven’t done one single thing to create a job for a minority or helped them put any food on their table. They can try and be all academic, but the “PC Factor” skews their data and – as history has shown – prevents them from ever achieving any kind of solution or result from the people they pretend to care about.
White guilt will lead FSL’s to demand more ethnic representation at the Oscars but then most of them also hate Israel, so it’s a win-win for them to tell Hollywood to stuff it. Btw, do you know why Denzel Washington isn’t a popular actor in the black community, even though he’s been wildly successful?
Rock knows this, which is part of why he’s saying it’s not THAT big of a problem, yet he was supposed to be White Guilt’s poster boy for this years’ Oscars. He makes great points that White Guilter’s have no basis to counter on. What – they’re going to argue with a black man who works in Hollywood as to how racist Hollywood is?
Anyways… ! Looking forward to reading more of the discussions.
LikeLike
“Well violence got rid of the Nazi’s for one, stopped the Japanese for another, and would wipe out Isis for a third. Are you in favor, then, of just pleading with BH?”
What’s BH?? It took six years of intensified violence and 60 million deaths. You can call that a success for violence if you wish but I have no way to evaluate what happened in parallel universes. I do know that Aung San Suu Kyi peacefully protested against a violent dictatorship for over 20 years, insistent that violence would not be met with violence for the sake of the people, and may now be seeing the fruits of that patience. And, of all the ridiculous things to say, who’s wiping out ISIS? Have their numbers decreased or increased since the violent campaigns against them commenced? That’s the worst example ever that almost proves my point – violence breeds violence.
““Straight Outta Compton” is a shit movie so any ethnic quota that would have been in place would have brought down all of the other movies which were fantastic.”
I’ve not seen it. If people like you were evaluating it (white man?) perhaps so. Was it a popular movie with some parts of your country? What are you saying about their tastes? That your taste is correct and they are mistaken? Or can you accept that different people like different things and if you have a panel of all the same type of people they might all come to the similar conclusions?
“As for being “in tune”, I work directly with visible minorities both at the business and community level and my specific work involves helping them overcome their struggles – including discrimination – so I’m probably far more in tune than most white liberals on the subject.”
I might just be that kind of attitude that shows you’re not in tune. It’s not to do with individuals getting jobs or finding food. It’s about a whole structure that’s geared towards the profile of someone else – yes, you might get by as in individual, but that doesn’t change the structures that made it so difficult, the same structures that are holding many other people back.
“White guilt will lead FSL’s to demand more ethnic representation at the Oscars but then most of them also hate Israel, so it’s a win-win for them to tell Hollywood to stuff it. Btw, do you know why Denzel Washington isn’t a popular actor in the black community, even though he’s been wildly successful?
Rock knows this, which is part of why he’s saying it’s not THAT big of a problem, yet he was supposed to be White Guilt’s poster boy for this years’ Oscars. He makes great points that White Guilter’s have no basis to counter on. What – they’re going to argue with a black man who works in Hollywood as to how racist Hollywood is?”
You’ve lost me with these two paragraphs. FSL? More weird acronyms that google doesn’t solve. Israel? I’m always a bit concerned I’m dealing with a conspiracy theorist when that gets dropped in. Denzel? Hot when he was young, but very bland and I’m not surprised he’s faded into the background as he’s aged. Did Chris Rock say there was no racism? I thought he said there was – did we see/read different things?
I’m looking forward to more discussions too. Have you met Insanitybytes? I’d love to see a discussion between you too.
LikeLike
Hi VW,
If someone could have convinced the Nazis that peace was an option, perhaps, but look what happened while Chamberlain tried your approach and think how far either the Nazis would have gotten without Normandy.
Then again, we can look at Britain vs. India, and we can take your example, but there you are dealing with two relatively-civilized cultures. I don’t like war, I see it as a last or hopefully unnecessary resort, but sometimes it’s necessary to cut out a cancer of civilization and end a conflict quickly. Had a Normandy happened two years sooner, how many Jewish lives would have been saved? Pacifism when the other is a violent aggressor simply does not work.
Aung San Suu Kyi- an amazing and strong woman, however 20 years? How many rapes and killings have occurred over 20 years while she’s been calling for peace? Peacenicks think all those casualties are worth it whereas Hawks think the casualties because of war are worth it. I’m in between either position, if you’re wondering.
BH = Boko Harum.
ISIS – you said, “And, of all the ridiculous things to say, who’s wiping out ISIS? Have their numbers decreased or increased since the violent campaigns against them commenced?”
If that’s what you believe then you haven’t looked closely enough at what’s happening. What you call “violent campaigns” haven’t been anything of the sort, at least anything effective. It’s like trying to get rid of ISIS with 9mm weapons – might as well use a flyswatter. Just one example: France, after ISIS killed 134 in their country, decided to join the effort and in the first week went after ISIS’s command center. This is 3 YEARS IN. It takes France, of all countries to join the war effort before ISIS’s command center gets attacked? What does that tell you? America isn’t fighting ISIS at all. Obama had to wait for France to come in and do something.
“If people like you were evaluating it (white man?) perhaps so.”
Haha. Nice racist comment, as though every black person loves the movie? I’ll save you the trouble of seeing it. It’s a movie glorifying “musicians” who themselves glorify rape, murder, and cop-killing. Enjoy.
“Or can you accept that different people like different things and if you have a panel of all the same type of people they might all come to the similar conclusions?” Agreed. I don’t disagree that a bunch of 90 year old white dudes deciding which movies win or not needs to change, however two movies being the source of all the complaints this year – SOC and Concussion – I think is way overblown, similar to what Chris Rock said about this year vs. other years.
And if you think there isn’t one black person who’s against glorifying NWA or 2LC – or perhaps a whole community of them – then who’s really “out of tune” here? Have you spent a single minute in a room where you were the minority, or lived in a community where you were the minority by far? What do you think members of black congregations feel about that movie (or do they not count to people because they’re Christian)? Or members of the Black Chamber of Commerce? (or do they not count because they’re Conservative?)
“that doesn’t change the structures that made it so difficult, the same structures that are holding many other people back.”
Really? Because by the nature of my work and the people I help, I’m actually IN that structure helping people and companies so I actually do something about it. I help one company or person or group navigate through it at a time, and the reality is that for as much as there are figurative “structures” that make it difficult (namely racism), there are many actual structures that minorities can take advantage of but don’t.
Here’s the difference: most on the far left will use up all their wind saying “there is a problem” while most on the far right will insist that there isn’t. That’s not where the battle needs to be fought, because both sides are unrealistic and impractical to try and move forward from. It should be, “Yes there is a problem, but here’s to what degree” and then you go after the degree of things. Example: The majority of business owners are white therefore there must be a systemic barrier preventing black people from starting businesses? Bullshit. There must be a lack of capital for black people to start a business? Bullshit. The White Boys Club looks down upon Black Businesses? Yes – sometimes. Sometimes because of racism, however most times because they assume that the Black Business got some handout by government and isn’t qualified and therefore doesn’t deserve to compete. Big companies cringe when they have to hand out minority contracts? Yes, sometimes. Do they hand out lucrative contracts that minority businesses never go for? Yes. Do certain minorities refuse training, or refuse to sit in a classroom because of who from their neighborhood might be in there with them? Yes. Do First Nations people in Canada believe there are Indians and “Dirty Indians”? Yes.
So it’s all nice for liberals to say, “There’s a systemic problem of racism” but after hitting the ENTER key they do nothing.
What I see online are largely a bunch of bloggers who simply read stuff on the Internet and comment about it, thinking somehow that (if they’re not simply comiserating) they’re creating “change” and that they – since they’re so well read – as opposed to other people who have little time to read because they’re “in” it, are somehow “in tune” vs. those who are in it being “out of tune” because they can’t quote some web passage somewhere. Try saying that to a teacher, or someone in the medical field who’s actually gotten their hands dirty helping rather than typing about it. Did anyone here go down to New Orleans or Missippi after Katrina? Doubt it, and if not being fed any number of biased articles or blog posts on a subject hardly puts them “in tune”.
FSL’s – what I call “Fair Share” Liberals. I like Liberals, but I don’t get along with the types who complain that people should get “fair” treatment and won’t admit that a) they can’t actually define what that is, and b) “fair” just means where they themselves don’t have to pay or have consequences. An example: a “Fair Share” Liberal will say we all live on Native land, that it is theirs, and “we” should be giving it back. What they won’t say, however, is why they don’t rent their house out to Indians, or why they won’t simply hand their house over to them (since it’s THEIR land, after all), or even rent a room out of their house to one in need for free. Instead, they want others to pay their “fair share” so that their guilt over stealing Indian land can be appeased.
On the other hand you have the liberals I work with, get along with, and call friends. We can discuss things like Climate Change on an economic basis as well as an ideological basis. We can discuss things like race relations because we both work in the same environments. We likely almost disagree on everything, but what’s great is that we often come to conclusions with one another that are far more comprehensive, which more often than not turns into actions and solutions.
Insantybites – no, haven’t had the pleasure. Are you picking a fight for me, or handing me off already? haha I was enjoying our back and forth!
Oh – and “conspiracy theory” re: Jewish people in Hollywood? That’s no theory, for one it’s mathematical fact and for another, if there’s any doubt as to collusion, just ask a Jewish person what situations they use the phrase “Part of the Tribe” in. Here’s an article specifically about Hollywood, but then pay close attention to the last paragraph.
“I’ve written here before that Jewish kinship networks are important professionally”
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/controversy-oscar-hollywood/
Just food for thought. As always – I enjoy the chat. Thank you. 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLike