Once Upon A Time..."Because it is unwise to risk the good we already have, for the evil which may occur."
We hope you get out there and vote-- a lot of people fought (against ideas like these!) for your chance to do so!
Me: Interesting that you post that. http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/system-failure/
B.R.: Interesting how? I read your link - Mark Minter's spitting a lot of sexist delusion there, my friend. What's your take here?
Me: Specify.
B.R.: "You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. They see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives." This is an idiotic perspective from a man who has personal issues with the women in his life. This is a clear example of a man who has an insecure relationship to femininity. This is hate-bred ignorance from a place in American history that is quickly dying off. This is the mind of the past, shut off from the potential of the future. This is a completely unfair perspective, from a man who is choosing the pretense of emasculation over the optimism of equal rights for both genders.
Me: Femininity or feminism? There's a big difference. I don't happen to agree with everything he says, but your a priori dismissal is unwarranted. The real question is not how much he might offend feminist sensibilities, but is there evidence that what he is saying could be true.
Me: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.
B.R.: Femininity, not feminism. He clearly doesn't understand feminism, but that's a result of his dysfunctional relationship with femininity. He seems to see it as a threat to masculinity. My dismissal is warranted by his article. I didn't start attacking him out of nowhere. He's not just offending feminist sensibilities, he's offending women's role in America, women's role in gender relations. I don't fall in line with the quotes provided by Morgan, Solanas, Dworkin, Stone, MacKinnon, Gearhart, French, or Greer. I see relevance in what Brownmiller and French are saying, but I'd have to read their comments in full context to decided whether I agree with them or not. Look, it's understandable for many men to be threatened by the rise of female politicians and the fall of ignorantly sexist views (like those of Akin and Mourdock). But to respond to that threat by generalizing women as anti-man is pitiful and pathetic. Have you tried to find some feminist views that are actually fair to men? Because not only are they out there, but they represent the majority of feminism. The militantly anti-man quotes you posted above represent the radical side of feminism, just like the New Black Panther Party represents the radical side of the civil rights movement. Focus on the radical if you want, but you won't have an accurate picture of the whole. Moreover, you'll be encouraging hatred instead of progress.
B.R.: I don't mean to be accusing you of sexism or ignorance - you've simply put forth an article and quotes that activate my aggression. I want to hear what you really think about this stuff, and I'll really try my best to not put words into your mouth.
Me: We are arguing past each other. The writer is reacting against real and documented hater/feminist attitudes that are extremely common. And it is feminism, not femininity. Femininity has very little to do with feminism. Femininity is the specific condition being rejected/transformed/redefined by the feminist movement. If you haven't experienced them, you need to get out more. Or better yet, why not ask some of your feminist friends if they agree with those quotes. I have a feeling you might be surprised with their reactions.
Me: My reaction is that there is substance to what he says. You focused on one paragraph, but he lays out his case in a logical progression. I don't think it's fair to reject his controversial conclusions without understand his process as laid out.
O.F.: Having not yet read the article: Is there a normative definition of "femininity" that you're working with, Rich? Important to understand whether we mean the same thing by it. I would then be curious to see how women react to that definition of femininity. I think that the challenge put forth by feminism is, at the very least, to reexamine received assumptions about what qualifies us as 'masculine' or 'feminine'. And because we're dealing with polarity here, it cuts both ways. What if I don't naturally feel inclined toward the prevailing definition of what it means to be 'masculine'? Am I less of a man? According to whom?
B.R.: Yeah...our terms are very different. I'd like to put more time into explaining what I mean by femininity, which really is what I mean instead of feminism, but today's not the day for it. As for my rejection, you asked me to specify, so I picked a paragraph. I'm not saying that every word of Mark Minter's opinion piece is wrong or full of crap, but the piece as a whole is based on deep misunderstandings of gender relations, women's roles in society, and the ways in which Americans are "supposed to live".
B.R.: I wanna keep talking about it but I'm running out of time. My definition of femininity here is based on the feminine SPIRIT, the feminine ENERGY which resides in all human beings to one degree or another, and which is the other side of masculinity. My view here is that Mark Minter has a dysfunctional relationship to femininity, and so he sees it as a threat, rather that as the complimentary opposite of masculinity.
O.F.: Just read it, and would agree. For a post on a blog named "Rational Male", I don't see his rationale being very well backed up. Yes, dynamics between the sexes are in flux. Yes, the patriarchy is waning. Cool by me! I do not share this man's fear that a new matriarchy is going to make me obsolete or a second-class citizen, and I don't think that he makes a very clear case. This is very emotional, not rational, writing.
O.F.: NOR do I dispute that there is a lot of hate spewed by misogynists and misanthropes on both sides of this issue. But as Ben said, those are extremes. It doesn't perturb me if someone says "all men are rapists" because they may as well be saying "all men are sheepfuckers". It's not true. There is a legacy of antagonism between genders, but I am hopeful. I see enough beautiful understanding and communication between men and women in professional, collaborative, romantic and friendship scenarios in which NOONE'S sexual/personal identity is lost, derided or compromised. Everyone is honored. This is my vision of the future.
M.H.: This sort of fear happens every time a group of people have held more power over another group, and that power structure starts to change. Would there be something wrong with politicians being something like %90 women and only %10 men? Yes, probably. But its been the opposite for a very long time (and in the not so far ago past, women couldn't even VOTE not to mention be in office -As Ben's original post shows quite nicely.)
Please, PLEASE may the women of this world discover their immense power, working alongside our beautiful brothers to create the kind of world we all want to live in.
Me: I note for the record that no one has chosen to actually evaluate this man's arguments, but rather have analyzed his motives, engaged in long distance psychology, and labelled him in various ways. Does ANYONE have the ability to tell me why this man is wrong with a factual, logical refutation?
B.R.: His words don't necessitate refutation with facts and logic, because they are not BASED on facts and logic. It would be like proving a fortune teller wrong. What I CAN do for you is point out specifically which fear-based statements of his are utter sexist nonsense:
"Women are going to win and impose the changes on society that they wish and there is nothing you can do to stop it."
"the men lost."
"Now, I am going to tell you in no uncertain terms, if you have a dick then you are on your own and the forces of the world are arrayed against you. You can expect no political support, no social support, no support in the workplace, no support in the courts, with the police. Whether you realize it or not, women are a bigger enemy to you than any Arab, any Iranian, any Chinese."
"When there are cuts or spending deals to be made, expect the deal not to cut things that would have a more direct effect on women and pushed towards cuts that will affect men. "
"You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. They see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives.
And they are earnest and driven in structuring society and the law in such a manner that you are no longer needed.
They are now avoiding marriage in droves, deferring pregnancy and motherhood, and using men, more and more, as forms of recreation and, less and less, as a necessary partner in the scheme of life as they are defining it. Their job and their female friends are more important to them than you are. They are celebrating and defining single motherhood as the form of child rearing preferrable to a two parent household.
And you should expect the bad behavior of women in relationships and in social situations to only get worse."
"You owe nobody anything. You owe women nothing. You owe society nothing. All of those things, those forces, those structures wish to impose a slavery on you and you need begin to reject it right now. You need redefine to yourself, “What it means to be a man.” And you need to begin to live that declaration of what it could, should, and would to be a man if you filter that determination with the first filter.
'I will be nobody’s slave and nobody’s fool'.
We will stop being men that are useful to women, useful to society and start being men that live life on their terms. You have a power that you give away. We voluntarily let chains be placed on you because we think that is what “The Good Man” does."
"So when future historians look back on this PostModern time and make generalizations of this age, let them say: 'It was time when the men started being men, free men, that lived free, and no longer accepted the roles as slaves that society and women had imposed on them.'"
If you need me to show you with facts and logic WHY the above statements are fear-based sexist nonsense, then perhaps it is you who "should get out more".
I did find something of use that he said, though, something I agree with:
"You need to question any value, any moral, any religion, your patriotism, your chivalry, your male code of conduct, any generalization, any stereotype, any caricature, anything that is an artifact from the Modern Era."
Me: You made three a priori assumptions: 1) They are not based on facts 2) They are sexist nonsense, therefore 3) they cannot be responded to with facts and logic. Do you understand what a syllogism is?
B.R.: 1) His "facts" are the election results and the changing demographics of our nation. That's not nearly enough to back up his fiery prophecies. 2) It's not the sexism that cannot be responded to with facts and logic, it's his LACK of facts and logic. If he was factually and logically sexist, I could respond with facts and logic. There is no data or recorded polling that shows that the majority of women feel the way he claims they do. There is no evidence to support the claim that women and men have biologically different ambitions and priorities, nor that these differences are inherently against each other. But I'm glad you brought in the term syllogism. I do believe he's more guilty of promoting a syllogism than we, and for that matter, he's more guilty of a priori assumptions. He's come to hard conclusions by leaning on nothing but assumption and paranoia.
Me: C'mon. He expressed an opinon. It may or may not be fact-based. There is no requirement for such. Your response was to call him names and brand him. Don't you get it?
B.R.: Apparently not, please help me get it.
Me: You dismissed his opinion on the basis of nothing other than disagreeing with it.
B.R.: How else would you prefer me to dismiss it? You said there's no requirement for facts.
Me: Quite right. Expressing an opinion is not an exercise in reciting facts. But you responded to him and said he sucks. Your opinion, absent facts. Therefore, you and him are on the same level, and neither of you rises to the position of superiority in the exchange, and the debate is moot and without value. In fact, you expressed your own form of bigotry. It is a higher intellectual challenge to actually examine and refute an opinion than it is to to brand someone and dismiss them. I thought you might be up to it.
B.R.: If you display to me the kind of ignorant sexism that Mark has displayed in his article, I'll examine and refute your position. Why? Because I like and care about you as a person, and the exchange of ideas between two people is more important to me than "rising to superiority" over a dude I'll never meet.
Me: We are dozens of posts into this thread, and now you say it isn't important to you? You then feel free to dismiss the opinion of really anyone who isn't in relationship with you with a simple wave of the hand and a label. hmmm.
B.R.: It wasn't a simple wave and label. You ask for opinion. I give opinion. You ask for specifics. I give specifics. You ask for facts to back up opinion. I insist there are none. You say facts aren't necessary for opinion. I agree. You criticize my opinion of his opinion. I step back and say "okay, whatever".
Me: Please don't get offended.
B.R.: I don't really get offended. I just feel like the heart of our disagreement has whittled into semantics. I feel that this article displays a flagrant use of sexism. It doesn't mean every word he says is wrong, but I do feel confident in saying that his predictions are ridiculous and that, as O.F. said, his writing is emotional rather than rational.
Me: If you are presenting to me the possibility that this fellow is wrong, and perhaps would like to give me cause to think, and maybe even be persuaded, then most certainly you have a rhetorical obligation to do better.
O.F.: Rich, as you have stated that you don't agree entirely with the tone or the more extreme conclusions of this article, what is it specifically in his article that you wish to defend? That might help Ben or I to address our rhetoric more directly.
O.F.: and yes, i do know what a syllogism is. if a equals b, and b equals c, a equals c. did you bring this up because you saw evidence of syllogistic (?) reasoning in the above article?
Me: I do a lot of reading on both sides issues in order to conversant on them. Expanding the mind and all. So I don't wish to defend the article, per se, but provided it only as a counterpoint to B.R.'s original post. The horrified reaction to this fellow appears to have elicited the kind of interchange I hoped would be productive.
Ok, so this would take a great deal of background information and reading on your part to bring you up to speed. I really don't want to impose that on you. As a synopsis, my position would be that men really don't understand women. In fact, much has been made of this from both sexes to the point that it is almost axiomatic. As a corollary, women don't really understand men, and to extend the corollary, both women and men don't really understand themselves.
So it is quite acceptable to be doubtful of present trends. Not sexist at all. If a wholesale change to society is the result, what evidence is there that it is better?
Me: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syllogism 3. A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.
Me: I don't plan a defense, since such a thing would require facts and logic, which is a standard from which my interlocutors are exempted.
No comments:
Post a Comment