Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vikarion]

I'm up writing this a bit late, since I'm not feeling too well. All below is my opinion.

I suppose my perspective is a bit colored. I don't know how to write to the general experience of humanity, or of people in the west. I've spent a bit more time reading everything from skepchick to return of kings to feministing, to...well, jezebel, unfortunately. I've watched plenty of youtube videos, browsed forums, and generally tried to extract what I could from the arguments and personalities.

This has filled me with the most impressive internal edifice of apathetic disgust I have ever constructed.

The manosphere:

[PUA]
When it comes to the Pick-Up Artist community, they give me the same feeling as a multi-level marketing company. All the buzzwords, all the hype, all the condemnation of people who don't follow the system. Many of them are constantly insisting that men measuring their worth by the approval of women is pathetic, yet also condemn "betas" for not getting sex from women by following the rules for attracting them. Many of them strike me as being very masculine, as thinking of themselves as very "badass". Alright. That's nothing to me.

The ideal for many seems to be the utilization of women for sex. They criticize "betas" and "omegas" for trying to "nice" their way into a woman's bed. It does not seem to occur to them that some men might want an emotionally intimate long-term relationship. Or perhaps it merely disgusts them. If so, why is it not a weakness to desire sex so much that you will construct lifestyles around bedding women? These people strike me as immensely driven to seek women, and as such, immensely vulnerable to them in many ways. It's pathetic and disgusting to see people - in my estimation - so weak and thinking themselves so strong and capable.

[MRA]
As for the issue-based MRAs, eh, they have some factual points. If you go by a recent CDC study, domestic violence against men, while lower than that against women, is still around the one-in-seven to one-in-ten range. False rape accusations, while not higher than false reports of other crimes, probably do average around 5%. And so on.

Yet, though I try, I cannot bring myself to really care about these things as issues. If false rape reports happen, I can limit my exposure by making sure I'm never alone with a woman, or by having an audio or video record if I ever am. I can prevent most opportunities for domestic violence by avoiding marriage or cohabitation. I can prevent child support and custody issues by either being celibate or using multiple layers of protection. These are not difficult propositions, and I probably will invest some attention in being aware of potentially dangerous situations for me. To the extent that I have been made aware of this, I suppose I should be grateful.

But if bad women or bad things happen to other men, well, what did they expect? Did they really think that women were nicer, kinder, or more loving than men? Did they really think that they could rely on being treated more fairly or decently by women? If so, their foolishness, not mine. I figured this out largely by age 12 or so. And I cannot get a consist answer on what they want to do about it. Some want "pure equality", where, I suppose, every battle must have a casualty count of exactly 50/50 and men don't get to have urinals anymore. Or something. Some want to return to "traditional values", which, as far as I am concerned, can go to hell, as I have no intention of being obligated to support a stay-at-home mother and a number of children only limited by her capacity to have them. And some just seem to hate the status quo.

[MGTOW]
I think I have the most understanding for Men Going Their Own Way. There is one guy with a story about waking up with his girlfriend trying to strangle him with a cord. I think that this might tend to put one off the idea, if you will. On the other hand, many of them seem some of the most bitter, disappointed people I've ever read or listened to. What did they expect, again? Nor am I a fan of the "eventually the world will crumble without us" attitude some have. The world neither notices nor cares when an individual bows out, either in death or alienation from society. To assume that one matters in the grand scheme of society is almost always to appropriate far too much importance to one's own being. They will not be missed.

I do find it interesting that some women seem to find this group exceptionally unpleasant or frustrating. Perhaps it's the air of "taking their toys and going home" - to wit, no sooner are women achieving equality in some areas more than a few men decide to stop interacting with them any more than they have to.

If I fall into any group, it's this one, but I'm not sure I like the company. Assign the label to me, if you like, but I don't care about MGTOW or other men.


The Feminist side:

I cannot label feminists so easily. There does not seem to be a monolithic feminism, but rather, quite a lot of them. Or, rather, quite a lot of feminists, each with their own definition of it. This creates difficulty in labeling.

I am a single white man, and I therefore, according to various feminists, am a victim or a perpetrator of the patriarchy, am and am not a proponent of rape culture, am and am not a slut-shamer, a potential rapist, a creep, a biological mistake, a victim of class warfare, a sexist, and so on and so forth.

I cannot get a definitive set of rules out of this sphere, and I am tired of trying. One thing I am abundantly clear on, and that is that while the definition of feminism might be the belief that the sexes ought to be equal, it never means only this in practice to practically anyone. I cannot even get a definitive answer as to whether a male could be a feminist.

I find the sensitivity and concern in many feminist circles to be both odd and absurd. To me, the phrase "trigger warning" is self-parody. And I'm not too thrilled with the advice they seem to enjoy coming up with, like "Why you should date a single mother", or how I should be examining my life for evidence of bias and privilege, or how my suppressed feelings lead to anger and violence. And so forth. Not just from online, but even from my feminist friends, some of whom have asserted that I would be quite a catch for a single mother. This did not induce in me the mentality that I believe they intended, however.

There also seems to be a belief that being a victim somehow gives them moral sanction or moral superiority. This is puzzling to me. So you were victimized. So what? The fact that someone hurt you gives you no claim on me, unless I did it. It may be that women are raped, abused, cheated, and otherwise harmed by men. I won't claim otherwise, but it's not something I personally have ever considered, much less participated in. Claims, then, that address a sense of communal responsibility are completely insensible to me.

As well, I find the dichotomy between what I perceive as really problematic and what is often talked about to be jarring. I once watched a video of an Iranian girl shot in the heart in a protest against the oppressive and misogynistic leadership of her country. If I were a feminist, I don't think you could get me to ever stop talking about that. Instead, just before writing this, I had the misfortune of encountering a two or three page article on how men who wear fedoras are awful and creepy. Well then. 



To end...

I will take the unpopular and possibly amoral step of saying once again that I'm not too interested in equality. If I were, as Peter Singer has noted, I should be sending all my disposable income to third world countries. This, if I have any say in the matter, will not be happening. If the only way I can live in a comfortable dwelling with food and water is to be a single white male with privilege, then, as far as I am concerned, privilege it shall be. Hopefully this is not the case.

I am slightly suspicious, too, about how convenient I appear to be to some of these people I know personally. When my friends and acquaintances were having fun, going to parties, getting laid, and sometimes having kids - often out of wedlock - I was working. I have kept working, as they've drifted away, or had their crises, or broken up and gotten together with new people. Now that I have my own business, now that I can afford to simply walk onto a lot and buy a car with cash, now that I want to buy a house...well, now I am a good catch, a great guy, someone who is mature and responsible, and someone who would make a great partner. Uh huh, sure. I do not want to have a relationship with a woman, and I hope I never do. As such, why do I need to concern myself with how I interact with them on anything but a professional level?

There has been an enormous amount of time and energy deployed by those concerned with gender issues to the creation of extremes of artistic rhetoric, and I must confess that, after imbibing on only a small amount of it, I wish to be un-involved. If the goal is to make me have respect for others by dint of them being male or female human beings, I find it unconvincing. If the desire is to make me care for them, they are actively discouraging. After reading and listening to this incredible contradictory, conflict-ridden, and manipulative body of works, I am convinced that I'd be wiser to stick my hand in a garbage disposal than to attempt to develop any interests in the area of relationships.

[Kala]

This has filled me with the most impressive internal edifice of apathetic disgust I have ever constructed.

I can understand that.  Though, if I'm completely honest, spending too much time on the internets ingesting vast swathes of stupidity produces more despair and despondency in me than apathy. I start going, oh god, what a world, what's the point, HUMANITY YOU ARE DOOMED, I might as well give up now.

(does it stop me looking at youtube comments? no, it does not.  Fuck, it doesn't even stop me replying to youtube comments and becoming Part of the Problem  )

I am a single white man, and I therefore, according to various feminists, am a victim or a perpetrator of the patriarchy, am and am not a proponent of rape culture, am and am not a slut-shamer, a potential rapist, a creep, a biological mistake, a victim of class warfare, a sexist, and so on and so forth.

Not me, if that's any help. I would have to know you personally to apply any of those labels to you. (though potential rapist is probably not inaccurate - *everyone's* a potential rapist, aren't they? I'm a potential rapist! I mean, I wouldn't, but I have that potential. Granted, given I'm female and 5'2, it's a potential less likely to be ascribed to me by others...)

I cannot even get a definitive answer as to whether a male could be a feminist.

Yes.  A man is a feminist if he believes in equality between the sexes. Forming a distinction between that and egalitarianism in that context is semantics - or unwillingness to be associated with a group that negative connotations, as far as I can see.  (Which is fair enough).

Painting men as the enemy is unhelpful, as is anyone who does so.

To me, the phrase "trigger warning" is self-parody.

Mm.  I'm of two minds, here.  When it's something frivilous that could upset someone, it's seen as being considerate or polite.  And that's fine.  I do not think it should be socially mandated though, and when it gets to the extent of this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/wellesley-college-creepy-man-statue-debate?CMP=twt_gu

it really gets ridiculous.  There's a lot of things in that article I agree with -

+1 for

Do women have the right to live free of the intentional infliction of emotional and psychological violence? Yes. Do we have the right to move through public space without being harassed or assaulted? Yes. Do we have the right to move through public space without having our PTSD triggered by a source with no intention of triggering us? No, we don't. That's an impossible standard, and a dangerous one.

Theoretically, I agree - particularly when so many people seem hell bent on disavowing intention entirely as irrelevant. Though I'm uncomfortably aware I say this from the perspective of someone who has never been raped or suffered PTSD.  I don't know for sure if I would retain the same stance if I had.

But I'm on much firmer ground with this:

Our schools would be poorer if all potentially triggering material – hell, if all offensive, sexist, blatantly feminist unapproved material – were removed from them, and if students could not engage with troubling material.

I don't know where places like tumblr or jezebel are getting the idea that "problematic" or "troubling" automatically equals "wrong".  That's just...no.  That approach would only work if there was only one interpretation to everything, ever. Someone taking offence from a peice of art should not override all other considerations; it's no more or less valid than someone else taking joy or seeing beauty in it.

"Problematic" or "troubling" means you can see 'problems' in it if interpreted a certain way - usually an issue that's complicated to be unpicked, or an underlying concept, such as "this troubles the narrative".  It doesn't mean anything is inherently evil or bad. E.g Heart of Darkness has problematic representations of race in a colonial narrative.  Doesn't neccesarily mean the book or Conrad is racist (though that interpretation is definitely there).

Pointing out something is problematic and stating why in a reasoned argument? Fantastic.
Stating something is problematic so should be avoided, removed or banned? ...Less so.


I do get all ranty at the prospect of someone taking offence being seen as the most important thing.  a) being offended doesn't automatically make you right and b) Wanoah's signature. 

Sure, let's be considerate.  But don't get to the point where it's stifling.

how my suppressed feelings lead to anger and violence.

Uh. Moving away from gender politics entirely - isn't that kind of how suppressed feelings work, though? You try to control something hard enough and push it down over a period of time and it will eventually come out uncontrolled if there's no method to vent it?

(Not saying you personally, but as a general principle?)

I will take the unpopular and possibly amoral step of saying once again that I'm not too interested in equality. If I were, as Peter Singer has noted, I should be sending all my disposable income to third world countries.

Heh Well, yes.

As an armchair activist, there are a lot of ideals I hold extremely dear...provided they don't inconvenience me in any way and require very little effort. ¬.¬
I don't think it's hypocritical though; it's simultaneously possible to want equality but not want to give up your own privilege in the process. Or to put it another way, to want others not to experience hardship and injustice, while also wanting to remain free of those things yourself.

edit:

as an aside, singledom and self-reliance is absolutely a valid lifestyle choice and I have no interest in attempting to convince or convert otherwise.  but something I have to keep reminding myself when I'm inured in the first part of my post, is that not everyone is a shit.  I'm sure you already know that, it's just that extreme viewpoints on the interwebs making you feel like you'd be wiser to stick your hand in a garbage disposal than develop a relationship, sounds a bit like something I'd think (cept mine is more like, kill myself or become a complete misanthrope and remove myself from society entirely. BECAUSE IDIOTS).

[Vic Van Meter]

Two things come to mind here after reading all that.

1.  I strongly recommend people go out and donate their time to help causes even if you don't have the money to ship to foreign countries.  I don't usually want to put on my stainless steel crucifix and tell people that it's important to help out, and I think people here are more charitable than they probably let on here, but it's that man-on-the-beach-with-the-starfish-story scenario.  Maybe taking a day to help out at a local shelter, working one night a week at a desk in a free clinic, or taking a week in a foreign country to help build modular shelters doesn't seem like much, but it can make a lot of difference.

I guess I'm still something of a socialist at heart if I have some evil conservative leanings.  I do ship off a bit of money to help fund a free clinic here and I'm probably buying a condo instead of a single-family home because I think the suburbs are a horrible waste of space and money that definitely doesn't need my money (I can, and have, written essays on it).  But even if you don't have any extra money laying around, there's a lot you can do to help the standard of living of the less fortunate.  There's only so much you can do for the homeless and even less you can do, due to distance, for the poor of Haiti, but even us penniless armchair warriors can do our bit.

Just my 2 cents there.

2.  I wouldn't be so quick to discount the idea of relationships; women aren't like swimming pools that come with a set of standard benefits and maintenance chores.  They're all different.  Hell, people wonder where the Hell I got mine.  I don't often have to deal with the standard relationship bullshit with her, and I've been with her for 10 years.  I met her at work and started dating her when I was eighteen.  She's a lot different than the women I dated before her (I think the only woman that came close to being as awesome as she is was a French foreign exchange student I dated for a few months).

The upshot of all that being that I didn't have MUCH time to be in bad relationships and I seized the opportunity early, but I had a few.  I especially liked the girl who, after I broke up with her after a year-long relationship, told her mother I'd talked her into sex in the last week and then left her, so her mom came to my house and tried to chew out my mom (at which point my mom reminded her that we had stayed in a motel room overnight after prom and that she was on a depo shot, both of which her mother knew).  Also the one that decided to track me down on my friend's phone and yell at me because my phone battery died.

Just saying, having bad relationships doesn't mean relationships are bad, especially other people having bad relationships.  You can afford to be picky; last count there were over three billion women around.  I highly recommend a good relationship, though.  A bad relationship can make your life harder, but a good one makes everything you'll ever go through easier.

[Kala]

Heh.  I was being a bit facetious - I do actually volunteer with a couple of things I believe in (though no one has to; I claim no morality tokens) but I am also, genuinely, a very lazy coach potato -.-; 

There is a wide, wide chasm between how idealistic I am and how much I am actually, personally willing to do.  (Though I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is if I had any; but it's quite easy to click a button, allocate spare funds and then feel better about things).

Was talking politics with a friend the other day.  I was all apathetic about the situation my country is in and somewhat grumbly and despairing (it's a theme).  And he was like, wtf.  You have democracy. Not trying to change things using the democratic system is an insult to countries with people who are under dictatorships and being oppressed. And I'm like, meh...politicians are all liars, no one represents me, we're essentially reduced to a 2 party system that resemble eachother so whatevs, I'll vote but it's between the lesser of two evils which shouldn't be how it is...and he was all, you could do more than you do, you could make a difference, intelligent people being apathetic is what allows corruption, GET OUT THERE AND CHANGE THINGS!

He was all fired up, but rather than feeling inspired it just made me feel tired. Because I do not have it in me to engage with others to that extent and to try that hard.  Just thinking about it left me feeling drained.  Which then made me sad.  Lol.

[Vic Van Meter]

There's a sadness about the political system.  One of the times when Constantin's rhetoric about democracy was kind of my own.  Democracy, in theory, should create the best decisions because well educated people are selecting the best of professionals for any particular job.  In practice, pig-ignorant asshats can issue-vote for people who are only professional about getting elected by politicizing minor issues.

I'm not breaking new ground with that assessment.  It's better than an authoritarian government in practice, but only marginally, and only because putting one guy in power for two decades only seems to work if you've got natural resources for your peons to plumb.

However, our countries really aren't built on the strength of our governments, they're built on the strength of communities.  People living in sub-saharan Africa can't count on their government for anything, but they can count on each other.  And until our governments can actually step in and make good decision on behalf of all of us to keep people from falling through the cracks, they are sort of outsourcing that job to us.

People do more than they think they do.  Being the friend that convinces another friend not to try meth is a million times better than the system trying to deal with someone that's already descended into addiction.  I know I've always been appalled at the state of American health care, so I donate money to my nearest hospital and I volunteer at the free clinic doing whatever non-medical people can do (mostly pulling records and dealing with whatever insurance is available; most of our patients aren't uninsured, it's just that their insurance doesn't even cover the basic costs of care).  I did a free study at college in which I designed a plan for quick-erected modular housing that costs less than 100 dollars a shelter.

I mean, I know I can't change the world.  That's not in question; the problems are too big.  But I've made a difference to a few people, at least, and that means a lot to them.

[Vikarion]

I'm going to regret posting this in the morning, but I shall, I tell you, post nonetheless. 

First, I think that some MRAs and some feminists are pretty much congruent in their goals: actual equality for all. When I listen to some things they say, if taken at face value, I could implement what they both advocate and make both sides happy.

But I'm not coming up with my objections to being called a feminist out of thin air. It isn't just radfems who argue that men can't be feminists - it seems that, for some feminists, men can support, but, as Churchill referenced regarding himself and the church, must buttress only from the exterior. If feminism was about strict equality in all areas, I could be convinced to call myself one, but as I argued before, feminism, as with MRAs and every other advocacy group, focuses on a particular section of the body politic.

Is this an unjust interpretation? Perhaps. But I think that the MRAs have points about male disposability. As I've said, I don't really harbor a lot of hang-ups about my mother abusing me. I can tend to fairly logical, even sociopathic levels of detachment, and viewing myself from the outside, I can understand that what happened (to my family) is merely the result of a mentally ill person (my mother) inflicting harm on another in search of validation. I get that. What I don't get is that apparently I deserve it until I tell someone that she also did it to my sisters, and then, suddenly, because my sisters are female, that makes such abuse indefensible. If it was me, well, toughen up and carry on, you privileged pig. But the instant my sisters are harmed, that's intolerable.

Again, all I have is my own experience. And, again, I don't care. From my perspective, all I care about is the fact that I "won". I got my sisters out, my dad out, I protected those who I felt possessive and caring for. My mom ended up alone, deprived of victims. Understand, then, that I need no sympathy.

What I find interesting, then, is that "feminists" seem interested in only implicating men as abusers. I use quotes because I've met some who don't. But, for the majority of people, if I wish to speak of personal abuse, I am best off by pointing out that my mother attacked my sisters physically. It doesn't matter that I was abused by more people than my mother, or that I was abused much more than my sisters, physically, with striking, with objects - only when violence was inflicted against a woman does it become real to the hearer.

Why is this, if society values men over women uniformly? I have always considered myself to be typical, non-special, ordinary. Usually a safe assumption. I have to ask myself: if men truly do have all the privilege, if men are really all that's wrong with the world, why is my experience so out-of-phase? Why are the experiences of others I know so different from the feminist narrative?

Who is a feminist, as at least one has claimed, to tell me that they will determine whether I was at fault or not?

- - -

Allow me to approach my incredulity from another angle: I'll be blunt. My mother threw a pewter platter at my face - just to pick one of the heavier day-to-day objects. My parents hit me. Quite a lot, in the face. I was whipped with deer brush switches to raise welts because I was "talking back" - because the regular spankings with wood paddles weren't enough. My hands were paddled for less important infractions. I was punished for reading, I was grounded for trying to learn. I was told that they were going to send me to prison or military school for being "rebellious" and reading instead of doing chores. I was put to work for hours in the sun clearing land and doing roadwork as early as eight, and every bit of schooling above fourth grade I had to conduct myself. All of this was primarily, if not totally, at my mother's instigation.

Today, I make well over 50K, own my own business, and work like a demon to do this. I'm planning to buy a house, I have a circle of friends I have chosen, and enough money in the bank to pay cash for practically any item I might care to buy. Just tonight, before coming home, I was tasting scotch with a retired United Airlines mechanic executive who paid me five grand for restoring his maple kitchen to its original glory. Yes, I am fucking awesome, thank you very much. Also, turns out that I really like Mallacan 21-year-old. 

I got here by an extraordinary amount of pain and will. I worked as much as 106 hours over eight days. I worked clearing land as an amateur lumberjack to keep my apartment when the 2008 recession hit. I've worked with a cold in 30 degree weather, I've scaled scaffolding while taking Vicodin/Norco to recover from a surgery I paid for without assistance. I've injured myself and worked for weeks while limping from spot to spot. I've come home and thrown up from toxic paints, I've sobbed chlorine tears after bleaching houses, had my skin bleached and burned by oxalic acid, and slept overnight for three or four hours on a few dropcloths in my shop to get a project done.

Then I read an article like that "debate about some statue" one. What do you think someone like me is going to feel, going to think, about something so pathetically superficial, so grandly unimportant as that? Well, I can tell you what I think. I think that some rather silly and self-involved people have way too much time on their hands.

And how do you suspect I will feel when one of these academic writers, blissfully untainted by actual time among the plebes, deigns to tell me that everything I am, everything I have, is only and undeservedly mine because I am a white male, that I belong to an oppressing class, that I have wittingly or unwittingly contributed to systems to keep minorities and women down? That I am the victimizer, that I am the destroyer, that I am the incarnation of macho pride? These are not merely emotional impressions derived from feminist works, they are often the works themselves in printed word.

Well, if you wish, believe that too.

When I was a child, even when I was a teen, I had a fantasy that there might be someone out there who would care about me, as me. Someone who I could be weak around, someone who would want to be around me just because they liked the person that I was. I hate that I ever had that idea, and I am ashamed of it. That's not why I try to help some people. I don't care if they're cute, I'm not looking for a date. If my motivation is male sexuality, it is remarkably well-hidden.

I care about oppressed women and I give to them on Kiva and other sites because I know what it is to have to struggle, to not have a net beneath you, to have no option but to work and to fight for survival. I don't give to women because I care about them as an oppressed minority without privilege, I give to them because I recognize a fellow struggler. I want them to beat the system, even just a little bit. I want my tribe to win, just a little. And my tribe, as I see it, is all those who just wanted to live a life without hunger, without persecution, without too much pain, and were willing to work as hard as they could if they could just have a taste of that. We of the dirty hands, and leathery faces, you might say.

I find much of the MRA movement to be without compassion or perspective. I get not caring. I don't care about anyone, even myself, all that much. But I don't get not wanting to help anyone of a gender. I don't understand making that mistake, from either the feminist or the manosphere side. What is it to me if a hardworking person has a penis or a vagina? It is their struggle, their will to survive, that I find worthy. I come first, in my mind. But why not others, if I can spare a hundred here and there?

- - -

This response is mostly to the subject of feminism, because that is what was essentially responded to. Again, all I have is my own experience. But that experience doesn't seem to count. Look how, in this thread, however bad I've had it concerning marriage-shaming, well, that's not important compared to how bad women have it.

I've been told that I'm selfish, that I'm a sinner, for not finding a woman to support, for not being, essentially, a workhorse, a walking wallet. This, from a couple, when I was helping a couple move from one house to another. Does this experience count? How bad do I have to have it before it's worth considering? It's not that I think it needs to be considered - I consider it frivolous. Why is it, however, that it is automatically frivolous, while any encouragement to marry directed towards the generic woman is assumed important? Why is the experience a concrete male has to be compared to the generic marriage pressure directed towards "all women" and then discounted as not being serious enough, that no matter how bad it is, someone else has it worse elsewhere, rendering it moot?

I don't know. Admittedly, I don't know in an apathetic yet argumentative - heh :-P - sense. It seems to me that women should toughen up, even if I'm correct. I certainly don't intend to start caring about C's comments about my selfish single lifestyle. If people want to just see me as a tool for their needs, that's fine, so long as they pay me in cash for services rendered.

In conclusion, well, there is no conclusion. I can come up with as many reasons, if not more, to avoid being an MRA. I'd say that I wished to live a simple life and be left alone, but there are so many reasons that that doesn't even connect to my situation that I won't bother.

So let me put it this way: when I say I don't care about equality, I mean that I don't care about enforcing equality. I'd rather spend spare money on some produce grower in Ecuador, who I can lend to. It's simpler, for me. The world might be a better place if some rather entitled people whining about statues had the same idea.

[kalaratiri]

If you write a book, I will read it.

[Vic Van Meter]

To be fair, it's hard to enforce equality, and there truly are limits to what we can do.  One of the more interesting discussions I had was with a former law student I knew from my WoW RP days.  We'll say she was a bit of a radical feminist at the time and we had a really long discussion, once, about the nature of equality.

The situation I posited was based around a debate on abortion.  If women can choose not to have a baby, then by any measure of equality, men should also be able to choose not to have a baby.  It's hard enough as it is, with women essentially being able to decide the abortion issue on their own and men still being held to the standard women were in the early 1900s (if you had sex, and a woman's pregnant, it's your fault and you'd better get ready to raise it).

But consider, just implementing that, the natural biology and unequal footing of the original condition of our species is going to make that essentially impossible.  I mean, if both parents want to keep or abort a baby, that's fine, but men can't decide the issue of abortion just from a sheer practical standpoint.  If they want to abort a child, and the mother wants to keep it, I suppose we can install a legal framework where the father can completely absolve himself of legal responsibility (essentially meaning he never had a child).  But what about the other way, if a man wants to keep a child and a woman wants to abort it?  It's her body; you can't force her to be pregnant nine months and deliver for someone else's sake because it tramples her right to her body.  But that does mean that a father has an unequal say in that matter.

There's also the question of whether we can have equality when there are two sexes (and a lot more genders).  I can say all I want that I treat all people exactly the same as me, but that's not true for anyone.  In the most basic sense, I'm a heterosexual man, and all the perspective I can ever have is from that position.  Will I seriously treat a woman exactly the way I treat a man?  It's impossible to say yes to that; how can I?  I find women attractive, and that's made me do things for them I wouldn't normally do for men.  It's made me behave differently around them.

I remember high school.  No matter how much you try to avoid it sometimes, it's seriously a bunch of men and women competing for each others' attention.  The only thing that's changed now is that I know how vicious women can be towards each other.  I kind of thought it was just us guys having those primal issues.  Anyway, the point to all of this is that we can try, and that's it.  That's all we can do.  We can treat women as financial and social equals as best we can, but some things are just inherently tied to our gender.

With that said...

Income isn't what it used to be.  When my wife and I graduated in 2008, she immediately got a VERY well paid teaching job in Houston, and I ended up graduating right around the recession when having an architecture degree was about as useful as have an extra roll of toilet paper.  I had to work in retail for around 15-18k/yr for about four years.  I was something of a drain on my wife's resources; I could only pay my half of the rent and that was it.  In the meantime, though, I certified in Revit and kept looking.

When we came back to Ohio, it was because I'd gotten a job in a background checking company.  She gave up her job (the reason they paid her so much was because her school was dead smack in the middle of Hell, oh the stories we could tell) and came back with me to work in a day care.  Our pay was about equal then, though less than what we made collectively.  In short order, though, I started working at an architecture firm, and suddenly I was making more than she was.  Since, I've gotten a MUCH better architecture job and my wife is now teaching at a charter school, which pays better (and she tutors on the side).  While she has a lot more debt than I do (my education money was enshrined in the divorce decree), she covers her own bills with some to spare and I've never been in much debt.

Point being, I've been very lucky to be married, because with all those shifts in dynamics, we've never had a fight about money in the ten years we've been together, and since graduating, even in the worst of times for me and when we were extricating her from a bad situation, we never made less than a collective 65k/yr.  We paid taxes on about 85k last year between the two of us.

Just saying, we may not always be treated equally, but in a relationship, don't get a drain on resources, get yourself a partner that will always be working to better your collective situation.  It makes life a whole helluva lot more pleasant when you and your partner are standing on the same patch of level ground.

[Kala]

But I'm not coming up with my objections to being called a feminist out of thin air. It isn't just radfems who argue that men can't be feminists - it seems that, for some feminists, men can support, but, as Churchill referenced regarding himself and the church, must buttress only from the exterior. If feminism was about strict equality in all areas, I could be convinced to call myself one, but as I argued before, feminism, as with MRAs and every other advocacy group, focuses on a particular section of the body politic.

No - I'm not calling you a liar here, I'm sure there are people out there who will identify as feminists, radfems or otherwise, and say men can't be - either because they aren't allowed in the club by default or they don't share the same experiences.  I'm just saying they're wrong. 

What I don't get is that apparently I deserve it until I tell someone that she also did it to my sisters, and then, suddenly, because my sisters are female, that makes such abuse indefensible. If it was me, well, toughen up and carry on, you privileged pig. But the instant my sisters are harmed, that's intolerable.

Again, in my humble opinion, people having that view are wrong, whether they identify as feminists or not.  In fact, it's doubly ironic if they identify as feminists and say something like that - because if they're telling you as a sufferer of abuse to toughen up and carry on because you're male, but harming your sisters is intolerable by comparison, they are also perpetuating damaging gender norms/stereotypes.  (that men having suffered should "toughen up" because they need to be stoic, strong and silent, not have feelings etc)  Precisely the sort of thing feminism is about deconstructing. 

What I find interesting, then, is that "feminists" seem interested in only implicating men as abusers. I use quotes because I've met some who don't. But, for the majority of people, if I wish to speak of personal abuse, I am best off by pointing out that my mother attacked my sisters physically. It doesn't matter that I was abused by more people than my mother, or that I was abused much more than my sisters, physically, with striking, with objects - only when violence was inflicted against a woman does it become real to the hearer.

Why is this, if society values men over women uniformly? I have always considered myself to be typical, non-special, ordinary. Usually a safe assumption. I have to ask myself: if men truly do have all the privilege, if men are really all that's wrong with the world, why is my experience so out-of-phase? Why are the experiences of others I know so different from the feminist narrative?

Again, one answer is how men and women are differently gendered.  Women traditionally seen as 'feminine' - weak, helpless victims.  Men as strong, aggressors, perpetrators.  Gender roles do no one any good.  I wouldn't have said society values men over women uniformly; I'd say they're valued in different ways which are differently weighted and largely depend on these gender roles (and adherence to them).  I'd say that traditionally men are the ones with positions of power in the hierarchy, and there are many vestiges left over from this.  Men are not what's wrong with the world - I don't think that's the feminist narrative (if there is one).  Again, I'd contend that people saying that are simply wrong (at the very least, extremely blinkered).

Who is a feminist, as at least one has claimed, to tell me that they will determine whether I was at fault or not?

No one, though I'd certainly extend that to say, who is anyone to determine whether you were at fault or not?

They can't, as they haven't walked in your shoes and been through what you have.

Then I read an article like that "debate about some statue" one. What do you think someone like me is going to feel, going to think, about something so pathetically superficial, so grandly unimportant as that? Well, I can tell you what I think. I think that some rather silly and self-involved people have way too much time on their hands.

Well, I have a lot less money than you and a lot more free time on my hands, and I think it's fucking stupid as well if that's any help 

Though in retrospect, it was probably not helpful of me to go off and find another apathy-causing example; however on-topic it may of seemed.

I hate that I ever had that idea, and I am ashamed of it.

...Why? Regardless of who it is, wanting acceptance and an authentic connection with someone is completely valid.

I don't give to women because I care about them as an oppressed minority without privilege, I give to them because I recognize a fellow struggler.


But I don't get not wanting to help anyone of a gender. I don't understand making that mistake, from either the feminist or the manosphere side. What is it to me if a hardworking person has a penis or a vagina?

Precisely this. 

Your unwillingness to differentiate between biological sex as a determinate criteria is a cornerstone of (at least one) school of feminism...You don't treat them differently; what matters to you seems to be a different set of criteria re: hardworking and legitimate struggle because you empathise with those traits yourself.  Neither biological sex (nor the gender roles we impose on the sexes) are relevant. 

I think you're seeing the manosphere for men and the feminists for women here.  And I think a lot of people would agree with those definitions.  I used to.

But if I thought feminist meant "for women" or "for women over men" I wouldn't identify as one. Likewise if I thought jezebel or tumblr were any kind of representatives of feminism (because they're fucking terrible). 

I genuinely believe that undermining adherence to rigid gender roles (and sexuality) is helpful to both men and women; and that they should be judged on their individual merits rather than their possession of a penis or a vagina and the social expectations that seems to dictate.

Why is the experience a concrete male has to be compared to the generic marriage pressure directed towards "all women" and then discounted as not being serious enough, that no matter how bad it is, someone else has it worse elsewhere, rendering it moot?

I think this happens a lot, on many different subjects, and is also wrong.

I've heard the phrase first world problems and it's annoying - while sometimes it's genuinely pointing out frivolous grievances (like that statue) a lot of the time it's setting up a false equivalence that suggests because someone somewhere in the world is starving your issue, by comparison, is of no consequence.

Which is profoundly unhelpful, largely because someone, somewhere in the world being starving doesn't actually help.  That someone else's problem is worse does not in any way make your problem better.  (In fact, it's surely just heaping on more misery).

Heard the same sort of thing with depression.  Cheer up!  Other people have it much worse than you!  Get some perspective!
Ok, but other people suffering is not particularly cheery.

But what about the other way, if a man wants to keep a child and a woman wants to abort it?  It's her body; you can't force her to be pregnant nine months and deliver for someone else's sake because it tramples her right to her body.  But that does mean that a father has an unequal say in that matter.

No, the father doesn't have an equal say in the matter - but it's not an equally weighted issue.  It did take two to make the baby; it's her egg and his sperm.  So it's about 50/50 there. But as you prefaced that example, it all takes place in her body - and all the associated discomfort and risk that comes with that.  If that wasn't the case, and it all occurred externally (somehow) he should absolutely have an equal say.

There's also the question of whether we can have equality when there are two sexes (and a lot more genders).

Yeah, I think we can.  Equality doesn't mean sameness.  We can have equal respect and equal rights for people, as individuals, rather than the two sexes and a lot more genders.  It just requires treating them as such.

There's also a fear to offend, and a right to be offended - tip toeing around subjects doesn't help.  Less fear, less offence, more calm discussion.

Largely, I think, the solution involves empathy and education to combat intolerance and fear of difference.

Of course, never gonna happen...

[Vikarion]

If you write a book, I will read it.

That's very kind of you. 

[Vikarion]

Alright, I have a moment again. I've done some more thinking, and hopefully this won't bore anyone.

First, let me apologize for writing from a personal standpoint on the domestic violence matter. I only do so because it seems, to me, to be somewhat of an anecdotal argument for the reality of domestic violence not being simply the fault of men. I recommend the CDC study here for a more statistical argument: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf I must caution readers of the study slightly - the CDC appears not to consider any sexual assault that does not involve forced penetration of a woman as "rape". This is not considered the only definition by some other legal bodies.

The study reveals that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience severe physical violence from a partner. If we expand abuse to any sort of physical violence, the numbers become 1 in 3 for women and 1 in 4 for men. That this is not merely at the hands of male perpetrators can be established by referring to another CDC study, analyzing the rates of violence and assault within sexual orientations. It is interesting to note that the rate of severe physical assault reported by lesbians, at 29.4% weighted, is nearly double that of gay men, at 16.4. This would suggest that domestic violence is not solely a masculine problem.

I bring this up not because it is necessarily disagreed with, but because I would not have you think that I speak entirely without wider implication from my own experience. I also think that this is where MRA's are strongest: when they have actual facts. It's very worrisome when bringing things like this up is responded to with, essentially, dismissal by some feminists. If the ratios for violence are so nearly similar (1:4 to 1:7), then where are all the shelters for men?

I just find that MRA's don't tend to stop there. They keep going, right out over the edge of reality much of the time. While I agree with them that women don't have everything worse than men (hey, the majority of homeless are men, there's one thing), I can't go on from there to agree with the idea that men, as a class, have it worse than women. We don't live in a gynocracy or whatever eyebrow-lifting term they've come up with for the idea recently.

But then, going too far with the ideological walk is the problem I have with feminism, too, and the problem I have with calling myself a feminist. If feminism really was just "the radical idea that women are people too", then I'd have to call myself one. Unfortunately, it isn't, not to most people, not even to most feminists who write about it - and language is not just a dictionary. Acceptance of the label is not just the acceptance of the idea of equality, it is the acceptance, more or less, of many other attached ideas, such as patriarchy, or of objectification, or any number of other things.

I have trouble with many of these things. Take "patriarchy". Any definition I can acquire either doesn't do enough to be useful, or becomes utterly nebulous and unfalsifiable. At its narrowest, it's descriptive: the idea that men are the first and foremost leaders and most capable actors in society. Well, that's bad for women, if they want to be a knight or a president (depending on era), but possibly pretty good if they don't want to be Peasant Conscript 40,212 in bloody conflict 528 over nameless patch of ground 312. It's also true that this sort of ideal is by no means universal in all eras and locations, and certainly isn't much more than a descriptive term - it's an attribute of society, not the driving force, not the organizing system. And in this sense, "The Patriarchy", as a proper noun, doesn't exist, only a set of attributes exist, some or all of which can be changed. 

And then you have the wider, more interesting definitions, where patriarchy is an established system in which all men oppress all women, in which - and I can link feminists claiming this - it becomes the instigator for racism, classism, war, and etc. Now this sort of all-encompassing system is quite another thing to be swallowing, and I frankly cannot, because this is essentially creationism for social science. Is there an ill? It is men. This explains everything, and nothing could possibly disprove it - a state of theory-crafting similar to, as I said, a certain sort of theology. Things get even more worrisome when you start having books published with questions like "Is logic masculine?"

Let's hope not.

But you see the difficulty. Aligning oneself with the term "feminist" may convey a desire for equality, or it may convey an agreement with things that I would hope are evidently irrational to those not blinded by the lure of them. Similarly, since the term "MRA" encapsulates more within it for most people than simply "correcting the areas of society where men are suffering", I will not adopt that. I have been a imbiber in similar theologies, if you will, and that sort of drink always tends to leave one with a headache.

As for holding in one's feelings, I don't think that not being expressive necessarily leads one to violence. I think that learning a bit of self-denial, especially in regards to anger, is a necessary recipe for internal peace. But that's me, and as I've noted before, I'm not a psychologist.

In conclusion, I cannot say that I disagree with anything you have said concretely on the subject of equality, Kala, at least in substance. I do have a thought, if you will, that might be illustrative of how I think in general on these things.

When the Soviets took over Russia and the Ukraine, they thought in terms of Marxist classes, and class oppression. It turns out that, looking back over history, that it seems that this is not a very good way in which to be thinking. It's not just the idea of who is in what class that causes problems, but in the very structure of their methodology of thinking - that classes oppress, that one can address these classes as fundamental building blocks of society.

It's not that the concept can't be useful, it's that, taken as operative, as a real thing, it tends to result in a lot of blood and injustice. Because classes are just a construct, like the term "Heavy Attack Cruisers", in Eve. It addresses a arbitrarily defined selection of individuals - but those individuals are not the class, and addressing them first and foremost as members of a class, as acting to do something because they fit within a defined class, is to deny their individuality, their humanity.

This sort of thinking is how you can easily justify concepts like the ultra-expansive definition of patriarchy, and how you can justify maltreatment of men. Men are a class, they oppress women (the oppressed class) and therefore any action against men is justified - or justified at least as long as it is in the service of the oppressed class. What of the individual kulak in the Soviet Union? Well, too bad. He/she was a member of the oppressing class. Never mind that most particular kulaks weren't doing much oppressing, even by Marxist-Leninist standards. They were members of the class that oppressed.

Now, one can go all sorts of places with this, and try to talk about the differences between class of economic station and class of gender, or how we shouldn't go that far with class methodologies, or whatever. But I have a simpler paradigm, and I think it is better, as well as one with which I suspect you have already agreed: people are individuals, whose capabilities and character should be assessed independently of factors which might have affected those attributes. That is to say, when hiring someone for a job that requires heavy lifting, it doesn't matter if more men than women have more upper body strength - all that should matter is whether this particular woman can lift what is necessary. When deciding an abuse case, or providing shelter for the abused, it shouldn't matter that more women are abused, or fewer gay men abuse. All that should matter is who actually did abuse whom, in the particular case addressed.

In short, an individualist method, both personally and publicly, seems to me to be a far better endeavor than lining up behind ideologies which often attach to themselves the undiscriminating methodology of class and gender war.

[Vikarion]

I hate that I ever had that idea, and I am ashamed of it.

...Why? Regardless of who it is, wanting acceptance and an authentic connection with someone is completely valid.

This deserved a response all its own. I'm a bit sorry for referencing it, I think that it was too much of an aside for the post.

I am not necessarily using the right word - if I am ashamed, it would be better to say that I am angry at my naivety, of my immaturity, of my lying to myself.


This universe is a hostile and cruel place. We are born dying, so to speak, and every moment brings us closer to a painful and undignified end. In the meantime, the only constant we can be assured of is suffering, while pleasure is optional at best.

In regards to love, it is at least inaccurate in regards to its object. With love, we feel in ourselves an internal reaction to our perception of another. Can we truly perceive that person, and love that? Not entirely, at best, not even accurately, at worst.

In this perspective, one realizes that one lives and dies in an ultimately alone state, shielded forever from the true persons of others by one's own inability to truly perceive. Think of when someone you cared for turned out to be a different person than you expected. This is, unfortunately, in some way always true. Nor can you truly be known by another.

But what is it to be a true and upright person in this universe? I do not mean "righteous". I mean "upright", and even "honest", perhaps also "stoic and facing reality". First of all, I mean honest with one's own self.

If, as I think seems true, the heavens are empty and we are born of dust and destined to return to it, then life is without purpose or meaning. We may establish our own meanings, but these are arbitrarily established meanings. At its core, the universe has the attributes we expect from a system that operates without reference to human welfare. One's own fate, and the fate of all he or she accomplishes and hopes for, all one's loves and dreams, everything one ever values, will die. One's own self is ultimately of no worth, even in one's own eyes, given a certain time-frame. Only in subjective experience is worth found, but devalued once referenced to rational consideration.

When I thought of love back then, I thought of having someone to find worth in, someone who would be an end for me - not my sole end, but someone to live for, at least in part. Someone whose good would be my higher good. As well, someone who would validate worth in me, someone who might find in me something for which to live. This is, upon consideration, also devalued, also dust in the wind. Sometimes I wonder if this desire for a higher person to live for is the reason there are so many gods.

Then, I will live alone, unknown, and die, unknown, never truly known, never truly knowing, with having come from nothing and going nowhere, without value, and with nothing to find lasting value in.

I think that everyone who faces this existential meaninglessness must establish their reason to continue to exist. As for me, I found that a sort of joyous hatred was a response. If this universe is so hostile, so pitiless, so anathema to life and meaning, then every breath is a boot on its face. Every life saved is spitting in the face of certain annihilation. Every joy taken and fully absorbed is to thumb one's nose in the face of extinction. A quote from poor fiction to illustrate: "Pride, and defiant hate. Spite, and harsh oblivion. Let the great jeweled knot of the cosmos unravel in the dust".

In this context, why do I care about being loved? Now, to love, this I find is the celebration of another's defiance of death and the universe. To aid them, to find worth in the various ways in which they also love life and hate death, this is good to me. But if they love me? That is their business. Who am I to say that I should deserve or want the love or attention of another?