Both ballgame and myself have been mostly away from the blog for the past week or more, so we’re a bit light on fresh content. To fill in the gap, here’s a complementary post to the preceding one. Again, give your reasons.
This comment thread is the “No Hostility” thread. Please read this and this for the ground rules. The “Regular Parallel” thread can be found here.
My answer is “no” to either.
MRAism is, or should be, about advancing a positive agenda for men’s rights and welfare. While that’s a spendid activity to be engaged in, I don’t think it describes the focus of my on-line activism, which is to criticise feminism.
Antifeminism can be defined as opposition to feminism. While there is much about feminism I oppose, there are also areas I agree with, in particular, I agree with the purported core value of feminism (gender equality). Indeed the gravamen of my critique is that it fails to adhere to its core value in so many ways. Even for those areas of feminism I an clearly opposed, I think my position is one of reasoned critique, rather than simple opposition.
“MRA” and “Antifeminist” are not the same thing. Reasonable MRAs, like Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell, have more in common with reasonable feminists, like Cathy Young and Christina Hoff Sommers, than any of them do with the more extreme members of their respective movements.
No. As Meadester says MRA is not the same as Antifeminist (such conflation is a feminist smokescreen to paint up all MRAs as the enemy and make feminists look like the perfect victims that have never done anything wrong).
I’m not an antifeminist because despite the vicious train wreck of hypocrisy and double standards it is becoming there are still some basic things about feminism I agree with.
However I’m not an MRA for pretty much the same reason I’m not a feminist. Because while the basic things about the movement are things I agree with there are people on that side who are just way too out there.
If you really want to put me on the MRA and/or feminists spectrums then I am nonfeminist and nonMRA if anything. There’s plenty I agree with there is enough that I don’t agree with to no bother taking on the label.
(Side question – I notice you put MRA and antifeminist together but left feminist along without adding antiMRA. This may be because that term does not come up often in gender discourse but could there be another reason?)
I’m also neither anti-feminist nor MRA. I’m for men’s rights, but don’t agree with many of the things done in their name. I’m for everyone having rights and liberties and being allowed the pursuit of happiness unhampered save by someone else’s reasonable rights (someone doesn’t have the right to be in trans-free bathrooms if they are labeled ‘men’ and ‘women’ for example).
Like most here, I don’t really identify as either.
I DO, however, identify as Egalitarian.
I am an anti-feminist to the kind of feminism which is being practiced by the current crop of professional feminists.
I’m not an anti-feminist, though I am a non-feminist. It doesn’t make any sense to me to derive some kind of identity from being against something. If you are an anti-feminist, then what are you focusing on? It’s the same as being against violence, or even worse: wanting to crush violence
Am I an MRA? I don’t know, I haven’t really thought about it. My writings are mostly about understanding how and why gender roles came about, as well as exploring what the important men’s issues are. To be honest, I also spend a fair amount of time criticizing feminism, but I see no way around that activity, since so many people believe that feminism and working for gender equality are the same thing. They’re not. There’s also no natural connection between feminism and GLBT rights, or the Civil Rights Movement and feminism. These misconceptions must be corrected.
More and more though I’ve focused on creating something positive, as opposed to criticizing feminism, and recently I launched the first Swedish men’s network (Mansnätverket). So far it’s only a Facebook group, but it’s a start.
I don’t have much to contribute (I mean, I’m obviously not an MRA or an anti-feminist) but I think this is a cool idea for paired threads. Would be interested in seeing a statistical breakdown at the end, no matter how small the sample size.
As you know, I would consider myself a feminist. I find no reason whatsoever to apologize for that.
That men might find reason to contest their given place?
More power to ‘em.
If we could do it together, instead of at odds.
More power to us both…
Am I an MRA? Do I identify with this group?
In the old days, when I first found out about how hypocritical current feminism could be, Men’s Rights Activism was an area that filled the void. If we were honest, including feminists themselves, feminism does not address problems men face and some are very defensive, to the point of hostility, when men speak out for themselves. We forget that Gender encompasses a variety of viewpoints and I feel we should be welcoming of those viewpoints, especially from men who are trying to have a say in the debate. That’s what Men’s Rights advocate in places where feminists either are mistaken or willfully ignorant on, such as the biased court system, Male victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, fatherhood, child support, false rape accusations, anti-male sentiment in popular culture, etc.
Plus, I felt it was a safe haven for what happened to me at the hands of uncaring females in my youth. There’s only so much anger I can direct at men before it gets tiresome when, in reality for me, BOTH genders showed their dark colors.
But then I fell out of Men’s Rights after the right-wing neo-cons and their spokespeople (Rush limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck) started advocating on their behalf on occassion. And then there were some extreme MRA’s that hated all things democrat, believing because feminism is from the left that everyone into Men’s Rights should consider throwing their support behind republicans. They also believed men shouldn’t be stay-at-home parents because it was bad for the economy, and all abortion was murder, boys play sports and fight for freedom in the army.
Nevermind that Republicans and neo-cons are no different from democrats. Only their stereotypes of men derive from “Traditional Values” and “The Family”. While the idea behind Men’s Rights still resonate, their alliance with the extreme right has turned me off. I may be for Men’s Rights, but there’s also Men’s Choice involved.
If men want to be house husbands, it’s their choice.
If men don’t want to work full time, it’s their choice.
If men don’t want to play sports as hobby or for professional reasons, it’s their choice.
If men don’t want to fight in the army, it’s their choice.
If men want to be artists, it’s their choice.
Many Male’s Rights Advocates forget that men have choice and responsibility. Just as feminists can forget women have rights but also choice and responsibility.
Hence, why I no longer am fully supportive of both camps.
Now, with Anti-feminism, that’s really a touchy word. In what context do you mean anti-feminist? Because this is a word that gets thrown around so often when used against people who don’t agree with certain feminists screeds. It’s the same as “Misoganist”: Without context, words that are valid become annoying to people who don’t fit the description of that word.
Here’s my answer: No, I’m not anti-feminist as I believe feminism still brings benefits to the gender debate.
Still, anti-feminist really needs a better, more concrete context other than “Doesn’t agree with feminism”. I rank it right up there in the same league as “What about the menz”, “Patriarchal attitudes”, and “Hates women”. All are words that are abused often now as to have become tedious to hear every single time someone applies them to every slight against women, regardless of intent.
And that’s my view. Now back to your regularly schedualed program.
I do identify as antifeminist, no disclaimers, no reservations, no buts.
I do identify as men’s rights supporter, though not much of an activist (yet).
(… and feminists in my country have just collected the required 100.000 signatures under their citizens’ legislation project to establish a non-minus-quam 50% quota for women on electoral lists).
Insofar as I do any activism besides for people in general, my activism is MRA specific. Why shouldn’t it be? Men are still under attack legislatively and culturally by the more extreme and entrenched elements of the feminist movement.
Even though my philosophical position is equalist , my activism tends to label me as an MRA. Short of general charity about the only “feminist causes” I could see taking up at this point in my life are things to help women in societies such as Saudi Arabia.
Short answ….ah let us not do this again. I read through the previous posts and could just nod in agreement. I pretty much feel the same way though I do not reject that label.
In a perfect world, we would have equalism. I see feminism and MRAism merely as a side of the same coin. Nedless to say that feminism simply had too much focus. I believe it is time for a strong men’s right movement to have the fundament to have a fair equality movement in the future.
I remember a recent discussion on national riposte ( http://brandonwalsh.wordpress......activists/ ) that really really went in a strange direction. Everybody in that discussion felt that feminism failed in adressing men’s issues, that everyone should have the right to choose what he wants (equality of opportunity) etc….It felt as if the 2 groups discussing where talking about the same thing but also trying to demonize the other one. It also didn´t help that those feminist there cited and rejected the feminism101 blog at the same time. It was all a bit shaky and wishy washy between “why do you blame feminism for that” and “we don´t really agree with established feminists”. In one word strange. It also didn´t help that one of the MRAs came up with a Nazi analogy which really always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth as a German (or should I say as a human?). Anyhow, you can feel that there is something going in a direction of equalism, which certainly isn´t a bad thing.
Well we will see where this is going in a decade or three.
Besides that the term Men’s rights activist has a real beauty to it compared to feminism. You really can not misunderstand that term. Activist for men’s rights, no “we really fight for everyones right….or not” as in feminism, no gendering of the term, issues based with no need for ideology and really no need to apply the tag or not. Either you are active for men’s right or not, if you call yourself that way or not.
I also am annoyed about the traditionalists or the other crazy folk that the gender debate certainly attracts (on both sides), this usually has nothing to do with men’s rights, ironicly often something with restricting men’s choices.
Ah well…a little bit ranty it got. Is there still anyone reading?
Hey there Meadester btw *winks*….
Feckless: I think a lot of those misunderstandings about feminism would vanish within a shockingly short amount of time if feminists ACTUALLY DID what the dictionary says that they do.
And, no, I don’t identify as an anti-feminist or an MRA.
Feminism: The advocacy of women`s rights on the grounds of sexual equality (OED)
Don´t they already do that?
When I see agitation to shut-down women’s prisons and convert them into men’s prisons, I don’t see how that squares with “equality”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2.....on.ukcrime
Point taken…
Feckless: “It also didn´t help that those feminist there cited and rejected the feminism101 blog at the same time.”
I read the forum as well and this irritated me to no end.
It’s also an example of their Orwellian doublespeak. “They don’t represent Feminism” but “Feminism encompasses a variety of views”.
It’s why I’ve given up on debating them or even bothering to address their point of view because they just love to twist everything around to their advantage by any means neccessary. Notice also that the feminist there believes that the dictionary definition is not sufficient in describing what feminism is. So, she thinks she has more authority over the definition of feminism than a reputable, prestigious text like that.
I’m sorry but feminists like to think they’re educated, but they certainly are no good in the communications department as well as belying a really snobby, snooty attitude to those who they think aren’t educated enough on the subject. So they sight things like “Feminism101″ just so they could get people off their back and dodge the issue.
Carte blanche. That’s what it is.
Sorry for the topic diversion.
Good to see you too, Feckless. I’m not sure what the wink means. I know we’ve teamed up to take on homophobes on Antimisandry.com, but I don’t want to give any wrong impressions – I don’t swing that way! {Seinfeld voice}:Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
(For anyone who doesn’t know, that was a joke, I know Feckless is happily married – to a woman.)
Yeah. Tease the yaoi fangirl why don’t you?
Close but no cigar eh TB?
I did not know what yaoi was; just looked it up. I figured there was probably a gender-reversed equivalent of lesbian porn for a straight male audience, but I didn’t know that gender-reversed equivalent had a name or such a rich history.
Oh yes there is Meadester. Yaoi is male/male whereas yuri is female/female.
So do such things western “Girl-on-Girl” porn and the Madonna-Britney Spears kiss fit into yuri?
Well, wasn’t this a surprise! I came here expecting all manner of rants and ravings against women in general and feminists in particular, but here the comments are pretty reasonable and level-headed. Of course this blog has ground rules for its comments, something we had to institute on our blog after our brush with the Men’s Rights Movement–for which we were labeled cowards and hypocrites–so maybe that’s why it’s different.
Of course the majority of the people here don’t seem to identify with the MRM (or antifeminism), so perhaps my opinion of MRAs is still valid. . . .
Anywho, to be perfectly honest, I came here specifically to address Feckless’s complaints against our blog, Rational Riposte.
Concerning the OED, yes that one line definition is on the Feminism 101 blog that I linked to. There is also a question, the fifth question under their “Feminist Fundamentals” section, that asks, “Why do some people talk of ‘feminisms’?” I guess it was asking too much to hope you would see that on your own. Also, I’ll point out that feminism is a movement that has been going strong for at least one, if not two, centuries (depending on your definition). To boil that down to one sentence and expect it to be satisfying in the least is, not to mince words or anything, idiotic. I was a philosophy minor during my undergrad and the easiest way to get a failing grade was to point to a dictionary in all sincerity and say something like, “As we can see, Merriam-Webster defines ‘love’ as . . . therefore . . .” It’s called an Appeal to Authority and, yes, it is a logical fallacy.
The discussion about those definitions also continues in the comments, reiterating that even “established” definitions in feminism are under constant reassessment. While Feckless would label that “a bit shaky and wishy washy,” I would label it “nuanced and carefully reasoned.”
Now, concerning “sexism:” I will admit that I only read the “short answer” to that post before I linked to it; however, I still think their distinction between sexism (as gender-based prejudice + power) and plain ole prejudice is an important one. That distinction acknowledges that sexism has the backing of oppressive systems, which makes it much more potent and also something that must be systematically accounted for.
THAT. SAID. I freely admit that there are areas in our society where women are the dominant authority. Child custody is an excellent example of this. Here, it is women (and, yes, even self-identified feminists) who have defined the laws by which the system operates, and that system does act unfairly towards men as a consequence of those laws. In this case, I hope the MRM does affect some change so long as they do not directly oppose feminism everywhere else.
I addressed many of these issues in my own response to the Men’s Rights Movement, which you may happily read or ignore here: http://brandonwalsh.wordpress......-activist/
Factory’s (the man I was responding to) response was typical of my experience with MRAs. That is, he called me a Nazi. Well, wait, that’s not fair. What were his exact words? Ah yes, “Much as you may not like it, Fidelbogen, myself, and many others look at Feminism in EXACTLY the same light as NAZIism. You may believe it’s farfetched, or asinine, or a mischaracterization in the extreme, but I don’t. I fully, 100%, totally view Feminism as an evil ideology, bent on the destruction of men.”
Ahhhhh, words to warm a mother’s heart.
I’m glad Nazi references make Feckless uncomfortable (regardless of his nationality) because they need to stop. Unfortunately, many MRAs don’t share that opinion.
In short, I am, to borrow a term from ballgame, an “egalitarian feminist.” I am a feminist because I focus on women’s issues (I am, after all, one man and can only do so much), but I believe in equal rights for all. And I will continue to do so, regardless of how many people call me a hypocrite.
I noticed two typos in my post, but my edited post was marked as spam. I’m supposed to contact an administrator. . . .
Yuri and yaoi aren’t necessarily porn, even the hint of relationships is enough.
The ‘soft’ but still-perverted enough kind is called ‘ecchi’. The porn is called ‘hentai’. You could say “yuri hentai” to be equivalent of lesbian porn.
I attempted to respond to Feckless’s objections to my blog. I wrote a response but I noticed some typos and, when I fixed them, my comment was dubbed “spam.” I was told to contact an administrator, but there’s no link anywhere that I can find to do that.
So that’s awesome. . . .
Did my editing of typos count as a second response before Feckless had a chance to respond? ’cause it was all the same comment.
Sigh . . . I guess I’ll try tomorrow.
I am an egalitarian – first and foremost.
I figure if that means that I am called an antifeminist then that says more about feminism then it does about me!
Seriously, this is something I have been struggling with myself. I don’t see myself as an MRA per se in large part because (in general anyway) their politics have skewed far-right to the point where they are missing the point – IMO. However, often my first concern in gender discourse is men’s rights and I am of the camp that believes that in the current world, men are in worse shape rights-wise then women.
In terms of anti-feminist, that’s a tough one. I don’t know that Farrel, McElroy, Hoff Summers, etc. would really consider me an anti-feminist.
Chris,
The spam thing happens to all of us. Likely you have to remove your hyperlinks if you have them and figure out some alternative way of directing us to your links.
Schala:
I was going to point out the same thing. Although Yaoi originally _did_ mean gay porn for women, it seems to be encompassing light romance as well now. (Which was Shounen-ai.) I think the all-inclusive term is ‘boy’s love’ or ‘girl’s love’ which also covers western works too.
As for the topic.
No. I don’t define myself as an MRA and as for anti-feminist. *sigh* Feminism introduced me to my mantra for self-cultivation, ‘equality first’. Unfortunately, being a good scientist, I realized it’s hard to have equality when you’re measuring only one side. My worldview evolved from there.
I’m not so much an anti-feminist but a woman profoundly disappointed with feminism.
I believe I am a men’s rights activist AND a women’s rights activist…MRA+WRA = human rights activist…or egalitarian. I’m not anti-feminist and in many cases prefer feminist stances to “traditionalist” stances, but I wish everyone would go with “egalitarian” as a label.
Welcome to our blog, Chris, (and welcome back, Pelle and Lance).
I’m sorry you fell foul of our spam filter, from which I have retrieved your comments. Thank you for your kind words about us.
“I’m glad Nazi references make Feckless uncomfortable (regardless of his nationality) because they need to stop. Unfortunately, many MRAs don’t share that opinion.”
Yes. Feckless didn’t say it, but Nazi references are often frankly racist when directed at Germans. And that’s only one problem with them. However all utopian social reforms movements share a tendency to become totalitarian. Perhaps comparisons to Puritanism or Maoism would be more accurate and and carry less of an emotional charge.
Question for you Chris – as an egalitarian feminists, how welcome are you across the femisphere? Are there blogs where you and your contributions are unwelcome? I think Ballgame has had that experience, and I know that egalitarian feminsts like Renegade Evolution have had a very rough time. For that matter there are the notorious examples of Christina Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia’s treatment by other feminsts and their eventual expulsion.
And I am curious as at your caveat about being able to do only so much as a feminst because you are a man. I think you are right, and that it’s not necessarily a bad thing, just that it calls feminism’s claim to egaltiarianism into question – calls it into question, doesn’t immediately refute it.
Chris: “I am a feminist because I focus on women’s issues (I am, after all, one man and can only do so much), but I believe in equal rights for all.”
Keeping in mind that this is the NoH thread, I do not mean this to sound hostile in any way and I am merely asking the question to understand your position better, and to the admins, if this conversation should be moved to the other thread, please feel free to do so!
I ask this question for a number of reasons but most importantly because I believe that common ground will become increasingly important as MRAs (and egalitarians) continue to gain notoriety and as more people question mainstream feminist ideology.
As an egalitarian, I often find mainstream feminists’ response to male feminists to be questionable at best. A recent comment on feministing (see link below) is an excellent example. From what it sounded like, the “pro-feminist” men’s group questioned the scientifically unsound feminist concept of “gendered violence” and the sentiment of the feminist response seems to be that these men aren’t allowed to form their own opinions. That to do so is itself anti-feminist (instead of an opportunity for evolution). That instead of expanding the movement to account for different views, these men need to be trained. I found it interesting that the LW on the one hand thought it great that these men wanted to get involved and add their views, but in the other demanded that these men be challenged and be pressured to disregard their views in favor of the party line. That is of course without recognizing that in fact as men become involved, it may be that some of the ideology of feminism will also be challenged (and that this challenge may actually be a good thing).
Keeping in mind that the feminist movement has been for the most part devised and perpetrated primarily by and for women, and the philosophy originates almost completely from the experiences of women (one could argue from the experiences of a tiny minority of women – but let’s not get off track), it only stands to reason that as men get more involved that their experiences will come into play and the movement will evolve.
I guess the question I am trying to put my head around is how can a thoughtful man – with perhaps his own views – embrace a movement in its current form that seems so dead set against and even hostile towards points of view that fall outside of the orthodoxy? Is your desire to “sign up” out of a strong sense of chivalry (help the women first)? Is it out of a self-loathing (buying into the mainstream feminist belief that men are privileged and women are victims)? Is it out of a misunderstanding of, or perhaps a better understanding of, the movement? Again, this is not meant to be hostile in any way – I am just trying to understand. I believe you and I have run into each other in the past, and you seem like a thoughtful guy and probably better able to answer this quandary then most!
http://community.feministing.c......html#more
Incidentally, thanks for the welcome back Daren! It has been awhile since I have commented here or at GS.
And I am curious as at your caveat about being able to do only so much as a feminst because you are a man.
Yes the whole, “Can a man be a feminist?” question. This is part of why I don’t bother with argument over titles. I’ve seen some threads over this and it usually comes down to whether or not a man can be called a feminist. Some say that if said man is working towards equality for women then yes he can be one. Some say that by virtue of not being a woman a man cannot be a feminist despite his efforts towards equality for women. It’s like asking if I, as a black guy, can call a white person my homie. In my opinion one’s race is not a criteria for being a homie so as long as said white person is doing what a homie does (pretty much what a friend would do) then yes I will call them my homie.
In regards to feminism I don’t think one’s gender should be a criteria as to whether one can be called a feminist. It would make a difference how much weight that person’s voice carries in gender discussion (just as one’s race would make a difference in how much weight their voice carries in race discussion) but I don’t think it should matter in regards to the title itself. And mind you depending on the exact topic that weight will change.
In the end its an argument over the title and not the work and such discussions usually end up leading to people putting more weight to the title over the person doing the work. As if it is more important to make sure someone is labelled feminist than to make sure that person’s work is advancing the goals of gender equality.
Meadester: I know Feckless is happily married – to a woman.
…but secretly dreams of you….hrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
(This is one of the cases where I should have looked up the word. The German “winken” simply has nothing to do with the English “wink”)
—————-
Typhonblue: Yeah. Tease the yaoi fangirl why don’t you?
For some strange reason I am thinking about Lelouch and Suzaku now….in bondage.
(Code Geass Reference)
—————-
Now on with
Chris: I came here specifically to address Feckless’s complaints against our blog
Complaint? Where? I merely stated my opinion about that discussion.
About shaky and wishy washy, I do believe among mainstream feminists (leaving all different branches of feminism aside) there are 2 different worldviews. Category A falls in line with the OED, is more ideological and really more about empowering women. Category B believes feminism is there to fight all inequalities and is really more like equalism. I think the feminism101 blog falls into category A and the book you cited (by Bell Hooks) into category B (believing that feminism failed to address men’s issues). During the discussion to me, it looked like both of you were switching groups. Linking to feminism101, saying you don´t really agree with them, distinguishing between “established” feminists and that what you do believe in. Honestly, after reading your post here, I still don´t know where you stand because I don´t thing “feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have” (from the short answer) fall in line with “it is women (and, yes, even self-identified feminists) who have defined the laws by which the system operates, and that system does act unfairly towards men as a consequence of those laws”. Those views are not compatible.
On the definition of feminism, it all seems to boil down to, “you can´t define feminism”. What I ask myself, if one has such a hard time defining this term and if you believe you are different to “established feminists”, why even apply that label?
Chris I really would like to hear your definition of feminism (in your own words). I am expecting an essay right now.
Besides that I guess we can all agree on that MRAs as well as feminists often do not say very nice things about each other.
Anyhow….probably Merry X-Mas (or Shèngdàn kuàilè!) to every reader (depending on when you read this (different time zones and such))
Feckless, i am so jealous – your machine does tone marks!
Women can’t be sexist, nonwhites can’t be racist, etc. because they lack the institutional power that men, whites, etc. have. That’s one of my favorite arguments that flat out isn’t true. Prejudice refers to false beliefs about people and mistreating them on the basis of those false beliefs. ANYONE can be prejudiced. How much “power” (whatever that means) they have is irrelevant. And even if you don’t have power over the group of people that your victim is a member of, you still have power over that individual person and whoever else you choose to victimize that is a member of that group. That does a lot of damage.
I know that no one here is arguing that line, but someone mentioned it and I wanted to bring it up.
For the record, I DO identify as a men’s rights activist, as well as a women’s rights activist if you want to talk about the literal defintion. I believe in equal rights and equal respect for men and women—–>men’s/women’s rights activst. If you want to talk about the more nuanced definitions, I don’t identify as MRA. There are a lot of misogynists that occupy the extreme end of the MRA movement, and I don’t want to promote those ideas. Not to mention that, as a woman, I don’t even feel safe around people. Then there are the pesky issues of reciprocity and consistency. Why would I want to work with someone on their issues if they aren’t willing to reciprocate, i.e. fight for men who would just as soon see me as their servant? And consistency, as in I fight to equality. They don’t. i have no reason to work with them.
It’s a shame. People like that damage the MRA movement, which has a lot of really positive goals and ideas. As someone whose best friend for many years was her father, who made up for her mother’s deficiencies, the parenting rights of men especially mean a lot to me.
Anyway, I don’t *really* identify as feminist either, ala Kate Harding, Feministing, etc. I could devote a dissertation to why I don’t like those types, but one of the biggest things I don’t like about them is that they are all sound and fury. They talk constantly and angrily, but mostly about nothing. And for people that are devoted to creating safe spaces and promoting diversity, they are awfully, awfully clique-ish.
Chris, if you were an “Eglitarian” as you claim to be, then you would avoid places like Feminism101 like the plague because they posit that males can’t have a voice in gender issues due to their privledge. Being eglitarian means accepting both points of view, not driving one view away in favor of another.
Oh my goodness, so much to respond to! I guess I’ll respond to ‘em as I got ‘em.
First off, heh, I’m glad I wasn’t just being an idiot when it came to the spam filter thing. Lesson learned: the typos remain.
And thanks, Feckless, for the X-mas wishes. The “probably” gave me quite the laugh. Truth be told, I am an atheist, but I still celebrate Christmas (’cause it’s part of the culture, blah blah blah, and, you know . . . presents!). I’m a socialist, too (Eeeeek!). Ahhhhhh, if only I were gay, then I’d be the complete unholy hat trick. . . .
And speaking of time zones, because of China’s, when I post something on here I actually post it “yesterday” (time travel–yes!).
But back to the topic at hand. In response to Jim, I honestly don’t have that much experience on the femisphere. My girlfriend and I only recently started our blog and I’m generally more of a “lurker” than a “commenter” when it comes to other blogs. When I do add a comment or two, I’ve been generally well received–though that must be tempered by the fact that I won’t bother if I judge an environment not conducive to my voice being respected (or even acknowledged). Concerning Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia . . . ehhhhh, their libertarianism is enough to induce in me involuntary eye-rolls, though I admit to possessing little knowledge of both. For instance, I believe my only knowledge of Sommers comes from her appearance on The Daily Show. My girlfriend tried to read one of Paglia’s Salon.com columns and she just couldn’t get through it. It was tangent after tangent, followed by unsubstantiated bold proclamations, followed by more tangents. We were left with the impression that she thrives off controversy, something she reveled in with the radical feminists of the sixties and seventies. Which is not to say the radical feminists didn’t deserve it; that’s just not someone I would want leading my charge.
I’ll segue into Lance’s question now because I feel like Jim’s last paragraph leads nicely into it. I guess I should have used the word “person,” as in, “I am, after all, one person and can only do so much.” But it’s not like that little vocabularic slip-up would belie the fact that many feminists think it flat-out wrong for a man to be identified as a feminist. These feminists produce in me a profound ennui. I do get where they’re coming from. I mean, I can understand why, on the face of it, they would want to keep the woman’s movement out of male hands, but even a casual interrogation of this belief should illustrate its deeply flawed thinking. I think it’s the legacy of essentialist bullshit a la French theorists like Hélène Cixous and Luce Irigaray. But this doesn’t address the question. I signed up with the feminist movement because I believe that the marginalization (if not outright oppression) of women is a grave social injustice, one that I guess I find more pressing than its siblings (the oppression of men, homosexuals, blacks, the impoverished, etc.). I see no hypocrisy or ludicrousness in this, just as it would be silly to storm into a homeless shelter and decry the volunteers there with, “You’re not homeless, you traitors!” I also hold to the idea that all forms of oppression spring from the same foundation. As a feminist, I try to break that foundation wherever I can. And by maintaining my identity as a feminist, I try to remind people that men can be feminists, and I think, when more are, the whole idea that that was ever in question will become more and more laughable.
My experience has shown me that the feminists “on the ground,” if you will, can get over the fact that I’m a dude. Some are suspicious, some question my motives, but when it comes to the doing they’re ultimately supportive. Maybe I’ve just gotten lucky with the feminists I deal with. I think it does call into question the egalitarianism of some, but I don’t walk with that crowd.
I agree with what Danny says about it.
If I had to define feminism, how would I define it? . . . Well, to save you from an essay, I’ll take a nod from bell hooks. I think feminism is one facet of a greater ideology that struggles for equality in the world. bell hooks offers, “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” That definition doesn’t pin men as the enemy and doesn’t label women as victims. Its goal is an open, free society. Something else I’ve mentioned on Rational Riposte is that I believe feminism, fundamentally, should not be about choice. Feminism should be about creating the environment in which choices can be freely made. Take abortion as an example. Feminism (my feminism, I guess) does not require that every women choose an abortion. Rather, feminism requires that that choice be offered to all who may need it. It’s about freedom . . . or should be.
So I guess I don’t completely agree with, “feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have,” but that doesn’t mean the distinction between prejudice + power (what I might call institutional or systemic prejudice) and plain ole prejudice is a bad one. I think, Feckless, you are hung up on particulars. For instance, in the Feminism 101 quote, they are talking universally, but in mine I’m not. I’m talking about the women who have fought for a great amount of change in the particular case of child custody laws. In this instance, it is men who are now on the receiving end of that institutional prejudice. In other areas it’s blacks or homosexuals or the poor or, oftentimes, women. And if you ask any marginalized group, I believe they will tell you that institutionalized prejudice is a bitch to overcome. That’s why I do support programs like affirmative action, which has been labeled by many as “reverse discrimination.” I reply that systemic problems require a systemic solution.
I agree with Adrianna that anyone can be prejudice. I disagree that the amount of power they have is irrelevant. Not practically speaking anyway.
Heh, but yeah . . . “MRAs as well as feminists often do not say very nice things about each other,” is one hell of an understatement.
As far as avoiding any website “like the plague,” I have yet to hear a satisfying argument in favor of remaining consciously ignorant of any worldview, even–and especially–one I don’t agree with. And I think being an egalitarian means synthesizing points of view, not accepting hook, line, and sinker. That synthesis necessarily involves bringing together, editing, and yes even deleting portions of each, otherwise they would have already been together.
And there are still things on the Feminism 101 blog that I like and agree with. It is called Feminism 101. A jumping off point for discussions (like this one!), perhaps? C’moooon, it’s not like they’re yelling from the mountaintops, “All hetero-sex is rape! All hetero-sex is rape!”
Anywho, now that I’ve thoroughly hijacked the direction of this discussion, let me just say: No. I do not identify as an MRA or an antifeminist
All right Chris, I’m going to give you another reason why I think feminism is all wrong for men.
When it comes to male domestic violence and sexual abuse, feminism nowadays still adheres to the duluth model: Where all sexual abuse and domestic violence happens to women only. Disregarding the fact that men can be victims (and ARE, no matter what the myths).
There are still modes of belife that men cannot be sexually abused because it involves penetration and their own reactions to the experience negates any harm. Feminism now, when confronted with this reality, either dismisses it as nothing compared to women’s experiences or would rather not here about it. Very rarely are you going to find feminists disgusted with this and fighting against these outdated tropes.
This extends also to how female criminals and abusers are treated in the media and court system. If a man is charged with the henious crime of rape and violence against a woman, it follows that the incarceration time will be huge. Wheras with a woman, incarceration will amount to a short stay in a facility where they’ll receive treatment and released back into society quickly. “She couldn’t have done it on her own. A man was likely involved” and “We must know about her past. Something must’ve happened to cause all this” are the excuses brandied about. No man would receive the lenience afforded by the court system and media if he were charged with rape or domestic violence.
The situation with Tiger Woods is a recent example. Granted, he had a number of affairs and it’s possible his wife responded with extreme hostility and wanted to hurt him for it. Swedish feminist commentators (as his wife is of swedish culture) are treating her as a hero for women.
It sickens me, even if Tiger did a bad thing. That doesn’t deserve such a harsh reaction. Domestic violence should NOT be celebrated as a way to get back at your spouse for wrongs commited against you. I would say the same if it were a man who went after his wife for having an affair.
Plus, I was abused by both genders in my life. Get it, Chris? BOTH genders. However, feminism101 and its ilk posits that women have no institutional power and I should look at it on an individual case. Meanwhile, I’m free to catagorise all men as bullies who enabled what happeend to me as a collective.
To me, this is counterproductive to addressing very negative experiences. Especially if women and girls share equal responability in treating me like dirt. I’m not going to find anything in feminism now that will look at these experiences from an honest angle.
Did you also know, Chris, that one feminist told me it wasn’t my job to defend the patriarchy, all because I told her that not all masculanity it bad? This is another issue I have with feminism: Their complete demonization of masculanity as something that needs to be fixed. Thier link of masculanity with war, violence, and all societies ills just rubs me the wrong way as an egilatarian.
Men need to define what masculanity means to them without being harped on for society’s ills because of their paradigm. And feminism doesn’t allow it, especially nowadays. If you were honest with yourself, Chris, you would realize that feminism doesn’t want men as human beings. They only want them as allies so long as they tow the line. They figure if a man is privledged, then their own experiences are NOTHING compared to what women go through.
Imagine if you were a male victim of domestic violence and sexual abuse. You seek help, only to be told the above or to be laughed at and told “Man up. It’s no big deal. You should feel great. Way to go!”. What would you think? Not happy thoughts, that’s for sure.
That’s a long lost of things I’m not happy about and feminism isn’t the place for people like me. I want to be addressed as a human being, not as some member of the oppressive class.
Chris, I believe you misunderstood the comment I made about a person’s power being irrelevant to whether or not they could be prejudiced. All I meant by that comment was that everyone can be prejudiced, period. I do not believe, nor did I claim, that all people were equally oppressed by each other in all societies.
I wrote it because a lot of people believe women can’t be sexist against men because they do not have as much power as men. But that’s not true.
Sorry for the confusion.
I wrote it because a lot of people believe women can’t be sexist against men because they do not have as much power as men. But that’s not true.
Personally I think people that believe that are trying to alleviate women of the emotional charge of being called racist or having their actions, words, etc… called racist.
Sexist no?
White women can definitely be racist by feminist standards.
I am a self professed MRA. And blog on WordPress, Twitter and elsewhere. The MRA Movement has no discernible Leaders. As it is harder to find a target when there is no leader Per Se. The Men’s Movment is a very big tent. And the Men within the movement frequently disagree. But one thing is certain Feminism has been put into practice and into Public Law in the US. It defines the life experiences of men. And it rules our conduct in Family life and place in society. The rubbish and lie that Feminism is about equality has long been disputed. The Feminists continue to promote Hatred of Men, Boys and Gender Distrust. As a result Men have withdrawn in a massive relationship strike. Now know as the Marriage Strike.
Dr. Stephen H. Baskerville has written on the abuse of Government toward Fathers in his book “Taken Into Custody”. I read Feminist blogs frequently. Which refers to MRAs as “Rape Enablers” and Abusers. Fine by me. It is better to know my enemy. Feminists want the subjugation of Men. But will not raise a finger to the oppressive behavior of Moslems. As to the charge of the NEOCONs taking over the movement. It was Zen Priest a MRA now living in Mexico who stated that Conservatives Fund Feminism and Liberal promote it in an unholy alliance. Death to Feminism.
Yeah that was the wrong word Schala. Instead of racist that should be sexist.
At one time, I would’ve thought it rather sexist to assume that men are superior when it comes to acquiring and abusing power while women are (and have always been) ineffectual at these tasks.
The idea also lies not far from the core of feminist theory, so I was obviously wrong.
[...] posts and comments. The particular post from which we were linked to was entitled, “Do you Self-Identify as MRA or Antifeminist?” The consensus so far is overwhelmingly in the negative for both. I went there to respond to our [...]
Randall: “As to the charge of the NEOCONs taking over the movement. It was Zen Priest a MRA now living in Mexico who stated that Conservatives Fund Feminism and Liberal promote it in an unholy alliance. Death to Feminism.”
Then why are you still letting neo-con mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity speak for you guys when you know all to well how they are the most toxic and detrimental force to the movement? You know I’ve experienced many Men’s Rights Advocates who outright admit they listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and treat any other media as “Liberal Biased” without anything to back up their claims except, likely, their favorite stations telling them so. And these are the men who preach about a more “Reasonable” approach with Men’s Rights?
As much as it dismays me to have feminists letting their extreme fanction speak for them, it is equally disheartening to find that the Men’s Rights movement (save for Glenn Sacks) welcoming Neo-Con talking points willy nilly along with members holding such ignorant bias towards anything left-leaning. I’ve stated that republicans also hold men back with their “Family values” preaching, assuming all men fight for their country in the military and play sports like all boys do. It’s not just the extreme left.
Death to feminism? No, death to extreme talking points from both sides I’d prefer.
MRA – I can identify with their issues, like father’s right, DV, men’s health. Those are very humble requests. I’m not really an activist however.
Anti-feminist – yes I consider myself anti-feminist. I think the concept of patriarchy is harmful to the cause of gender liberation. I believe feminism is out-dated, bloated, and should be abandoned. We need something else. That’s not to say everything feminism is useless, there are definitely valuable insights in feminism, but the framework they use, the way they philosophize, the behaviors of their avocates, are all very wrong. The biggest impedence however comes from feminsts’ lack of interests in analysing harmful behaviors that may reveal power of female gender. Feminists don’t explicitly state women can never be perpetrators, though they may subtly minimize, avert or dismiss it. This goes back to the very obscure rad fem’s concept of patriarchy.
One of the central tenets of feminism, the patriarchy, in its most significantly meaning, is a structure of power dynamics of how one gender has more power over another and thus enable oppressions. However in a complex society power comes from multiple origins. Power is fragmented and resistant to intersectionality. Power emerges in discourses, practices and interactions in our society. By adopting patriarchy as the paradigm of power in gender dynamics we are constricted to a certain framework that looks for sameness accordingly and leaves out others. The notion of patriarchy is hegemonically white middle-upper class cis het women.
Feminists, at least a significant amount of rad fem, treat patriarchy as a ‘theory of everything’. They use patriarchy to explain every gender dynamics: “Why some women are put on a pedestal? Because men objectify women and treat them as sex trophy.”. This kind of thinking ignores agency of women and over-simplifies men sexuality. Objectifying is an instrumental rationality but if men feel the need to do favor, has duty and bear responsibility to the objectified, it’s not mere objectifying, the relation is reciprocal and is interwined. If we go on to ask, why men objectify women, feminists tell us patriarchy made men do it, aka patriarchy hurts men too. This argument mistakenly treats patriarchy as a origin of power. Alternatively they demonize men, which is just inappropriate and totally insensitive. To understand power we examine discourses, practices and interactions in our societies. The patriarchy concept doesn’t help us better understand our societies if it cannot relate to these contexts in our everyday life.
Looking at gender norms critically is radical, shoe-honing everything into an abstract concept is not. Feminists when dealing with questions of “why men do this”, always seems eager to drop the ball. Radical approach only applies to white cis het women, it seems. Others, especially ones who have/had penis, are to be subjected to the paradigm of patriarchy. This is why I think rad fem, while it has some diversity, all smelt the same.
Feminists when dealing with questions of “why men do this”, always seems eager to drop the ball.
Drop? More like throw it. When some feminsits try to explain such things it sometimes sounds like they desparately want to just say, “Men are evil.” but either don’t want to sound that way because they really don’t think that or don’t want to sound that way because it would reveal their own hypocrisy.
As I’ve said before one of my big problems with feminism is that as its members are today they are too quick to speak on the lives of men truth and logic be damned. When confronted they ask why should they be expected to do the heavy lifting for men which is total misdirect. I don’t care if they speak on the lives of men or not but if they chose to they could at least have the decency to speak on the lives of men truthfully. These days I just see too much dishonesty/misdirection/willful ignorance/selective memory when they do.
They are amazingly humble requests. It’s also amazing they have to be requested at all. I mean, really! MRAs are asking:
1. That they have the right to choose what happens to their genitals.
2. That they have the right to be in their children’s lives.
3. That they have the right to have their victimization acknowledged(DV, sexual assault, etc.)
4. That they have equal right to health spending and social services.
Then you look at what many feminists are apparently asking for and/or defending:
1. They have the right to derail activism about genital mutilation in our own culture with racist, poorly researched condemnations(white people do this kind so it must be okay; dark people do that kind so it’s far, far more horrific!) of genital mutilation in other cultures.
2. They have the right to exclude fathers from their children’s lives.
3. They have the right to dominate the discourse on human vulnerability.
4. Most health care and social services should be directed towards women. (I’m not sure what other conclusion I can take when I see a feminist examination of homelessness that concludes since women constitute a minority of homeless, the resources for the homeless aren’t tailored for them and thus they should be focused on for additional resources. No, Daran, no reference. It was an exhibit in my grad department.)
I do take some heart in the fact that the average person(who likely has seen a brother, father, son be chewed up by the system) is starting to become aware of the problems men face.
But I’m with you Eagle. I can’t call myself an MRA when so much of the discourse is dominated by neo-cons who think bullshit like ‘there was a golden age, way back when, where women were women and men were men and everyone was happy.’ I hate moral cowardice and I’ve noticed the future is never made by people who are in love with the past.
Plus I’m a queer liberal* so… yeah.
*It’s possible to accept other family structures whilst also accepting that a child has as much right to a father in his or her life as a mother.
TyphoneBlue: “But I’m with you Eagle. I can’t call myself an MRA when so much of the discourse is dominated by neo-cons who think bullshit like ‘there was a golden age, way back when, where women were women and men were men and everyone was happy.’ I hate moral cowardice and I’ve noticed the future is never made by people who are in love with the past.
Plus I’m a queer liberal* so… yeah.”
I don’t belong to any political camp. Just rather call out ignorance and inflammatory sniping where I see it, no matter what side. And Men’s Rights have fallen into the same trap Feminism has: Extremists. Only they’re the “The good ole days, liberals are scum, boys and men should do this and that” kind of extreme, side by side with “Men can’t be raped. You’re priveledged thus your expriences don’t count.”
When a feminist streotypes Men’s Rights Advocats as being in bed with the right-wing, they’re not far from the mark.
I think it’s because right-wingers throw them a bone now and again. I’m pretty sure they know that some of the disenfranchised men that exist in the men’s rights movement would rather have a little hope in the political process then none.
Then they kick them in the teeth just like everyone else. Except republicans do it when men fail to live up to the (impossible)standard they set for manhood, rather then just for being men. Which, since the standard republicans set for manhood seems to have very little to do with actual masculinity, is not really any different then persecuting men just for being men.
One camp says to guys, ‘we’ll accept you as long as you castrate yourself.’ The other camp says, ‘you have no place at all.’
Hmm…
I used to identify as an MRA but after reading MRA blogs and forums I cannot say I am in the same camp as these men.
I’ve gone through a bad ex-wife, but also an amazing wife of 12+ years. I was very interested at first to connect with other men regarding child custody etc.
I have been very put off by the hate speech, make me a sandwich kind of rhetoric.
I would call myself agnostic. I came in disagreeing with much of feminist rhetoric and left being if anything more disgusted by the male version.
In a perfect world we would have personal responsibility, but via the internet we know have nothing more then a bait and switch game.
I am truly curious how it is that an individual can slide from “I believe in equality between the sexes” to “I believe most health care and social services should be directed towards women” while sincerely believing that the two positions are one and the same. Surely, it helps if such a person fails to compare the levels of health and social services currently being delivered to each sex to see if a change is needed, and in feminist circles there is a palpably active hostility towards making that kind of comparison in an apples-to-apples way. It is certainly not the case that they are incapable of doing so.
My gut response is to say that such a state of mind is far easier to achieve if one has an axe to grind against men. Which, unusually for a male-dominated/male-supremacist society, is perfectly peachy to have.
Wow. What a bizarre mistake on my part.
Um… carry on.
What’s also unusual for a male-dominated society is the fact that men’s rights issues will probably only make incremental process or progress of the ‘one step forward, twenty steps back’ kind for generations upon generations. It’ll probably take men millennia to make the changes feminists made in thirty years.
If ever there was proof that women have more influence in society, the relative strength of feminism vs. mras is it.
You probably already said this, Typhoneblue, in a different way but I’m just sick and tired of their “Idea” of masculanity.
Every single piece of theirs supporting men, from Dr. Helen to Rush Limbaugh and extremists right-wing MRAs, cite firemen, policemen, soldiers, construction workers, garbagemen, athleats, architechts as examples of fine men who are what masculanity is about. “Fighting the war on terror for freedom”, “Playing sports, being competative”.
Maybe they forgot about all the male writers, poets, chefs, painters, movie makers, actors, playwrights, sculptors, mentors, and teachers. Men who, while they have played with toy soldiers and guns possibly when kids, never picked up a real weapon in their life yet fought for a different freedom. Men like Ghandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc whose words still ring true in a potential present day advocate.
Sorry, but their idea of masculanity is as repressive as the left-leaning extremists. Any support from them isn’t real at all.
This thread brings to mind a question I’ve been wrestling with for a while now, which is: When gender roles have been deconstructed, what then becomes of the definitions of words such as “feminine” and “masculine?” I’m thinking specifically of Eagle31′s initial comment on the matter, when he wrote of “Men’s Rights” and “Men’s Choice.” When all of men’s choices become masculine, does that term then simply become synonymous with “male?”
The same, of course, goes for “feminine”/”female.” Do these words, which are so steeped in gender roles, survive? Should they? I’ve brought it up to MRAs before, who complained that feminism was trying to “feminize” boys. But when confronted by that indictment of their position–that their claim lay founded on gender roles they had earlier denounced–they either ignored it or brushed me off as delusional. But I thought the commenters here might have a little more to add. . . .
I think they should survive as there is a biological part to the masculine, feminine paradigm. But, do away with the stigma attached to people who lean towards one paradigm getting in touch with the other paradigm. That’s what I mean by Men’s Rights and Men’s Choice.
Men can still engage in what are considered masciline activites, just don’t criticise them for doing so and also support their choice for expressing and being a part of things considered feminine. Vice versa for women. Both idelogical camps nowadays are so adverse to this.
The words don’t have to be steeped in “Gender Roles”, Chris. Variety and choice is the answer, not getting all worked up over whether a paradigm oppresses the other, which has been the biggest mistake feminism has made towards the masculin paradigm as well as agency and responsability in ones choices. I envision also Men’s Rights Activists are going to make the same mistake if they’re not careful.
I have trouble imagining a world where masculinity and feminity are no longer prescriptive rather than descriptive. A world where guys can like pink and wear dresses without being diminished in any way whatsoever and while being fully considered male members of society.
I’m all for it though, but I think human’s tendency to categorize added to people’s incredible amount of interest in *knowing* what someone’s sex is at a glance (androgeny makes many people angry if they can’t guess wether you are male or female).
Why do you think kids clothing is so extremely gendered with pinks and blues clearly delimited…while adults (well, especially women) have less stereotypical choices that aren’t “screaming” man or woman? Because they lack much (or any) physical cues to have people tell wether they are male or female. So parents and everyone wants to make sure you cut their hair a certain way and never ever dress boys in pink, or you could anger someone who would coo what they thought was your daughter but was in fact your son. Why so much anger at such a minuscule detail (especially in a newborn)? The need to put stuff into boxes.
Some could argue that children want to also clearly delimit themselves…but well, they learn much of that from society. Some people surely want to delimit themselves, but society makes it a mutually-exclusive thing when it’s a spectrum thing. So a girl will wear plastic thingies in her hair, and all-pink just so she doesn’t get mistaken for a boy, and a boy will stay the heck away from it so he doesn’t get mistaken for a girl. That’s society telling them they MUST delimit themselves so sharply, that pink is for girls, that anything the least-bit about caring for yourself or looking good is for girls, unless it’s written “for men” on the box.
What’s the difference between coloring products for the hair between men and women, besides the abyssmal selection on men’s side? Nothing. Hair isn’t gendered and hair coloring products aren’t specially atuned to ‘caring for your hair’ (the chemicals in it all but destroy it). Same for shampoo and other products. You got long hair, use stuff for long hair, not for some gender.
I wish men had more options in the clothing department without being forced to be openly gay (or open to be considered as such by others).
“Sorry, but their idea of masculanity is as repressive as the left-leaning extremists.”
No shit. Been there; that was my childhood when I was trying with al my might to pas as staight. Those assholes have noting for me. Nothing. and increasingly, they have nothing for a lot of straight guys. that’s the genesis of the MGTOW wing of the MRM.
MGTOW – not only does this play out in the immediate practical matter of not getting trapped as a support slave to some woman and whatever kids, by whatever other man, she decides he should have to raise with her, or more and more often, without him other than his money and labor, and on into a deeper issue – why should his manhood depend on some woman’s approval, what she considers to to be a “real man”, on whether on not he “gets laid” – translation: some women confers permission for sex and emotional intimacy? This all flies in the face of the Trad MRA’s, who inist that a man should be in the fields and a woman in the kitchen. I stumbled into one of these catfights over on Pelle’s blogs.
Which one of them fights, Jim?
Just kidding.
In my mind I think about our view of gender roles in three stages. At the first stage you believe in traditional gender roles and you don’t like anyone challenging that notion, since you want biological sex and gender role to be one and the same thing. At the second stage you seriously challenge gender roles. Some go as far as wanting to reverse the gender roles, and others question whether there is any innate component whatsoever to gender roles. The thing about this second stage is that you cannot bypass it, and if you are an MRA who is stuck in the first stage, then you will likely believe that men’s activism is about going backwards in time (it’s not).
Women and feminism are almost completely dominating this second stage where gender roles are challenged, and since most men have been clinging to a first stage view of gender roles, we have become weak and unable to defend ourselves against even the most unreasonable of feminist claims (“all men are oppressors” etc). Even the men who have entered the second stage have embraced feminism since they have believed that that is the only way forward (it’s not).
So for me a core component of men’s rights activism is to create some sort of balance at the second stage. Men need to be able to challenge their own gender role without become feminists, and without becoming weak push-overs who let women decide what is politically correct to say and not.
I also believe that there is a third stage. Once you’ve really explored the second stage, and how gender roles are constructed, and so on… Then it is possible to reconnect to the fact that there are some innate differences between men and women that do affect our life choices (on a group level of course, for individuals any kind of biological makeup is possible). However there is a lot of confusion out there. If you say that you recognize that there are some innate difference between the sexes then a lot of people will believe that you are operating from a stage 1 view, and people will doubt that you’ve been through stage 2. I meet that kind of resistance and misunderstanding the whole time.
Pelle:
Even the men who have entered the second stage have embraced feminism since they have believed that that is the only way forward (it’s not).
Quoted for the futha fuckin truth.
I am so sick of feminists smuggly saying that men should join feminism if they want to challenge gender roles as if feminism is the only game in town that does that. Nevermind the hypocrisy, double standards, double speak, and lies.
Its as if they think that no matter what good you try to do or accomplish none of it matters unless it is done under the banner of feminism. Its like they are more concerned with trying to market a brand then trying to make the world a better place.
You know for activists that are concerned about helping all people they sure as hell are specific about who gets to speak, who gets help, what label you operate under, etc…
If you say that you recognize that there are some innate difference between the sexes then a lot of people will believe that you are operating from a stage 1 view, and people will doubt that you’ve been through stage 2. I meet that kind of resistance and misunderstanding the whole time.
Just to make sure I’m on the same page could you give an example of such misunderstanding? By innate are you talk strict biological differences and the effects it has on laws and culture?
Oh and Im pretty sure we have gone WAAAAAAAYYYY off topic now. Don’t recall if there was a December Open Thread (but hell as close as it is to Jan. might as well wait and move them to a Jan. Open Thread).
Pelle makes a good point here, particularly about people assuming you are at “stage 1” because some of one’s vetted positions on gender happen to align with traditional roles. For example, you can reject the Equal Pay for Equal Work argument on the grounds of faulty research methodology, yet people who are at “stage 2” will often assume you’ve arrived at that conclusion out of some misguided belief that women should not be paid the same as men – because they are women. That can be tremendously frustrating, as it preemptively shuts down so many avenues of potential cooperation and progress.
Incidentally, one area where this dynamic is currently on display is in the realm of professional tennis. Somewhat recently, I believe Wimbledon became the last of the four Grand Slam tournaments to change their prize money structure such that women are paid the same prize money as men. It has been hailed by many in the sport as a great leap forward for equality, particularly as tennis, along with figure skating, is consistently one of the highest-rated and most-watched women’s sports, competing with or even surpassing viewership for its male counterpart.
What is consistently left out of the discussion, however, is that women’s GS matches are best-of-three sets, while men’s are best-of-five. Forgive my lack of mathematical rigor, but that means male players are playing potentially 67% more tennis for the same amount of pay, or to flip it, female players are playing potentially 40% less for the same pay. The only way it could possibly be equal is for every men’s match to be won/lost in straight sets and every women’s match to go to the maximum number of sets. Anyone who has spent any time following the sport knows that doesn’t happen.
The principal counterargument I have seen for this is that, since women’s tennis “is more exciting” or brings in roughly equal or slightly more money than men’s tennis (I have not checked this), it is right and just to pay the athletes the same amount of money. In other words, entertainers are paid for how well they entertain, not for how much time they spend on stage. I can’t completely dismiss that (NBA/WNBA comes to mind), but then why go for equal pay at all? Why not go for winnings proportionate to revenue? If it is about a statement for equality, which supporters claim it is, then you cannot call for equal pay without simultaneously accepting equal work. Isn’t this a cornerstone of the women’s movement?
Now, to get back on point…because this issue is only being discussed in “stage 2” rhetoric (A Great Day for Women’s Rights, A Major Step for Equality Between the Sexes), anyone who points out the aforementioned double standard, even from a gender-aware “stage 3” perspective, is seen as coming from a “stage 1” perspective (Against Women’s Rights, Anti-Woman, etc). It does not allow for the idea that maybe “stage 2” isn’t the end-all-be-all of the gender discussion, and that taking such a patently, predictably oppositional stance against anything resembling traditional roles can easily work against true equality.
For the record, I think the Grand Slams should be modified so that all matches through a certain point, say, the Round of 16 are 3-setters, and from the Quarterfinals upward, best-of-5 sets regardless of gender, with winnings remaining fixed and equal across the board.
Happy new year….btw
(slightly…no seriously drunk)
Conservatives seem to think that the only needs men should have are the needs of women.* A man who has his own needs is a pitiable non-man.
Liberals don’t think men have needs.
One establishes the standard of stoicism, the other is a worldview that simply assumes stoicism.
*Came to this realization when I read a rant by a conservative women about how ‘manly men’ had been replaced with whiny, wimpified pantywaists. She was essentially saying that men were no longer strong and stoic enough to serve her needs. And this ‘I want my eunuchs to shut-up, put-up and hall my valise’ is a ‘pro-man’ attitude? I rather think the lack of discourse on male vulnerability is what got us into this mess, lady!
Typhone: Conservatives seem to think that the only needs men should have are the needs of women.*
Oh, I’ve seen that for a long time. One of the top peeves that conservative women seem to have about feminism is that men don’t hold the door open as much as they used to.
In the Conservative worldview, individual men should financially support individual women. In the Liberal worldview, men as a group should put their money in a big pot to divvied-up among women as a group. Big difference.
MRAs are championing for men’s vulnerabilities to be acknowledged, believed and helped.
The conservative conception of gender is exactly _why_ male vulnerability is absent from the gender discourse. They are responsible for the ‘women’s vulnerability is a call to arms/man’s vulnerability is a call to mock’ attitudes that have lead to this current situation.
They gave feminists a cocked and loaded gun. And now that feminists have pulled the trigger, they’re deflecting responsibility.
Hell, that doesn’t even capture their culpability. It’s more like this. They created the cocked and loaded gun–female defined manhood–and started firing it at men.
The latest bullet out of the barrel is third wave feminism.
And now they’re saying, ‘we’re not the ones that did the damage! The BULLET did the damage! And now our cherished notions about male invulnerability are being challenged by you guys bleeding all over the floor! WAAAAHHH!’
typhonblue: “Conservatives seem to think that the only needs men should have are the needs of women.* A man who has his own needs is a pitiable non-man. Liberals don’t think men have needs.”
Yes, and this is why men shouldn’t rely on either party. With regard to male victims (of DV, sexual harassment, etc.), many (not all) liberals believe that men are evil and are incapable of being victims, while many (not all) conservatives believe that men should be stoic at all costs and shouldn’t be claiming to be victims (“like a bunch of women”).
@Danny
“Just to make sure I’m on the same page could you give an example of such misunderstanding? By innate are you talk strict biological differences and the effects it has on laws and culture?”
If I say that research indicates that there are some innate differences between men and women, then people immediately believe that I am against progress, and against challenging gender roles. Which isn’t true at all… People may also believe that I want separate laws for the sexes, which I don’t.
Do innate differences between the sexes affect culture? Of course. Innate factors and cultural factors constantly interact and affect each other to create the world we live in.
@ZenTurtle
Excellent logic around sports and prize money. That kind of logic is routinely shut down since feminism has an ideological monopoly.
Typhoneblue: “Hell, that doesn’t even capture their culpability. It’s more like this. They created the cocked and loaded gun–female defined manhood–and started firing it at men.
The latest bullet out of the barrel is third wave feminism.
And now they’re saying, ‘we’re not the ones that did the damage! The BULLET did the damage! And now our cherished notions about male invulnerability are being challenged by you guys bleeding all over the floor! WAAAAHHH!’”
Perfect oppertunity for a quote from the movie Collatoral.
Main Character: You…You KILLED HIM!
Assassin: No, I shot him. The bullet and the fall killed him.
Well, Darran, now you have a thread that’s devolved into ‘conservatism sux.’
Some very interesting comments. To begin with I am definitely an anti- feminist of the Phylis Schlafly variety. I am also anti Men’s Rights for the the same reason. I think Schlafly has it correct. She and other traditionalists feel that it is not as simple as equality between the sexes. And, while what I am about to say is considered heresy, the reality (IMHO) is that throughout the history of civilization, there has always been an unspoken acknowledgement of the inherent equality of the sexes–otherwise known as mutual dependency. I could go on and on about this specific point, but this group is much more knowledgeable than most so I will not belabor this point. Of course, the most well defined example of this unspoken equality is the Law of Primogenitor which had been codified in England and Europe, but is well defined in various practical versions in almost all civilized and uncivilized societies. Unfortunately, our definitions of what makes genders equal is not the same as previous historical definitions and hence there appears to be a disconnect between traditional definitions of equality and ancient ones. Many on this board (at least it appears to me) have embraced an unnatural definition of gender equality and that is of great concern to me. I believe that the short term negatives of our modern perverted definitions of gender equality have been clearly seen and aptly demonstrated. What has not been clearly seen or discussed is the long term ramifications of these “unnatural” definitions of gender equality. We really have no idea as to where this will take us and what it means in our ability to survive as a vibrant society. As Schlafly wisely points out, we have already seen some of the deleterious effects of this unnatural imbalance in the amount of latch key children we have today; the lack of family cohesion and the breakdown of the traditional family unit. The results are ever greater crime and more and more unhappy people. As most of you are well aware of, a recent survey on female happiness has shown for the first time in the 40 years since they have been asking the question, women have indicated a marked dissatisfaction with their lives. We’re seeing many more single households (close to 20 per cent of the USA population is single and unmarried) and our young are completely hypersexualized with the results being more and more date rapes, gang rapes and a complete lack of moderation on the part of our young. Our children as young as ten start acting out as adults and play sex games and worry about “being sexy”–before they even hit puberty. This I believe (and seems to be the consensus as well) is as a direct result of the radicalization of the 60s’ Feminism. We now have the state taking over the duties of Fathers (as enumerated in Stephen Baskerville’s book: “Taken Into Custody” and literally imprisoning men for non payment of child support. We have the reintroduction of debtor prisons for these men which pretty much all of Western Society had found discriminatory and unfruitful about 200 years ago. Many of us believe that women tend to be more hysterically oriented than men. Many of our policies in the USA seem to be based on both overreaction and hysteria without regard to moderated rational thought, and that I believe is a direct result of Feministic rationalization. From where I sit, this country–as has Europe –has become completely effeminized. And while we’ve literally discarded the ideals of masculinity with the misguided assumption that Feminism of and by itself will effect a kinder softer and more egalitarian society, the reality is just the opposite. The hypocrisy is both alarming and frightening: We want women sexually liberated and to be free from male sexual dominence–so what does this bring us? More pornography than at any time in the history of the USA. And, a culturally accepted acknowledgement that Porn and Sex are perectly okay no matter how you like it. And its Zenith? Well, Jenna Jamison, the notorious porn star wound up writing a book titled: “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star.”–it was a New York Times Best Seller for over 20 weeks. Now was it men that were buying these books? And what man would be interested in having a relationship with a porn star?–maybe a 16 year old, but no man that I have ever met would. And from a Men’s Right’s perspective, the idea of both sexes being equal is devastating to women. Can you imagine what will utlimately happen if men ARE truly equal to women and there is no double standard? Will men offer to go to war to get blown up if women are considered truly equal to men and what will happen to our volunteer forces if men suddenly decide that women must go the the front lines just like men? Women by and large have no interest in becoming cannon fodder–but what if the Courts say they must? Will we have a large scale defacto boycotting by men if 54 % of the Armed Forces are comprised of women? Be careful of what you wish for. We’re already seeing considerable tensions in the USA Military because of these serious issues. Most recently the complaint has been the high number of women that wind up becoming pregnant while in Iraq and Afaganistan. As a former USA Marine, if I were asked to join the Marine Corps today, I can honestly say that I would opt for prison. And today if someone asked me, I would tell a young man that whatever he does, he should not enlist since there is no way that he will not be discriminated against–just on the basis of his gender. Any non combatant job will be given first to the women in the Armed Services which is now projected at almost 20 per cent. Wtih the imminent recension of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, His odds at not becoming a casualty of war are seriously reduced– and with no neglible benefits. The safest jobs will go first to women and then to gays. And that is just the beginning. There has been report after report that academic scholarship has declined in an effort to be more inclusive to women. Even large businesses are being affected. Last year Sweden enacted the hand of social engineering by requiring that businesses must lhave a certain percentile of women on their Board of Directors or they will be penalized. Universities are pumping out far more degrees in Law, English, French Literature, Psychology, Journalism and Sociology, with ever more counselors, guidance counselors, health care providers when what we really need from the economy’s standpoint are engineers, mathematicians, computer designers, computer programers etc. Women are making up 58% of the undergraduate degrees, but only about 19 per cent of technical degrees. Furthermore the problem is that once they get into industry, they usually opt out for child birth and from what I read, want to work less hours and have less stressful jobs than men. The bottom line is that these ideas of egalitarianism do not appear to be working in either gender’s best interests, nor of society’s.
Faultroy, while you seem to not be for either camp, you still offer the same old arguments against equality that seem to fit the Men’s Rights camp.
Let me list them:
A) Who will fight in wars?
How about we DON’T fight wars, period. Unless it’s a last resort. You can’t use war for a solution to every conflict.
I have no interest in joining the military. Thinking men should fight wars is, frankly, insulting. Am I less of a man because of it?
B) Traditional Family Values
No thank you. My mother and father were pressured to get married due to people imposing their idea of traditional family values, essentially giving up both their dreams. The relationship was terrible, rife with arguements and conflict that were pretty truamatising for me as a child.
I don’t want that kind of world.
And your ideas in favor of double-standards is also abhorrent due to the very fact that men can suffer from domestic violence and sexual abuse at the hands of the opposite sex. Yet, they aren’t taken seriously, told to man up and live with it compared to what a female victim goes through. You seriously want to keep double-standards like that, which are a danger to the lives of men in serious trouble who are fighting for whatever scrap of support they can get, alive?
Keep tradition, the military, and double-standard support relegated to the dark ages. Men have enough problems as it is without having to listen to the old “Fulfill your role” argument.
Faultroy, while you seem to not be for either camp, you still offer the same old arguments against equality that seem to fit the Men’s Rights camp.
Let me list them:
A) Who will fight in wars?
How about we DON’T fight wars, period. Unless it’s a last resort. You can’t use war for a solution to every conflict.
I have no interest in joining the military. Thinking men should fight wars is, frankly, insulting. Am I less of a men because of it?
B) Traditional Family Values
No thank you. My mother and father were pressured to get married due to people imposing their idea of traditional family values, essentially giving up both their dreams. The relationship was terrible, rife with arguements and conflict that were pretty truamatising for me as a child.
I don’t want that kind of world.
And your ideas in favor of double-standards is also abhorrent due to the very fact that men can suffer from domestic violence and sexual abuse at the hands of the opposite sex. Yet, they aren’t taken seriously, told to man up and live with it compared to what a female victim goes through. You seriously want to keep double-standards like that, which are a danger to the lives of men in serious trouble who are fighting for whatever scrap of support they can get, alive?
Keep tradition, the military, and double-standard support relegated to the dark ages. Men have enough problems as it is without having to listen to the old “Fulfill your role” argument.
Huh, what happened there?
Speaking out against traditionalism here is well. I find it hard to believe that “live the way we tell you to live” is the key to a better life. It isn`t.
Besides that, there really is no significant happiness gap for men and women
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl.....04969.html
@faultroy
“Last year Sweden enacted the hand of social engineering by requiring that businesses must lhave a certain percentile of women on their Board of Directors or they will be penalized.”
No, we did not. There is no such law in Sweden, although their may be one after the 2010 elections if the left wing parties come to power. Norway, a neighbouring country to Sweden, did pass a law to have at least 40 percent women on every Board of Directions–in January of 2006. Spain passed a similar law in 2007, and other European countries (for example France) have considered such a law.
mmmmm, I’m gonna say faultroy’s (and the indelible Phyllis Schlafly’s) rejection of both feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement is a good argument for our continued need of both.
Oo–oo–oo! Can I quote Conservapedia?
There is no entry for the Men’s Rights Movement . . . so sucks for them, I guess. Too off-topic?
Someone came over to my blog and left a comment attacking me for what I said here. I didn’t mean to be offensive. This comment contains a breakdown of what I actually meant, although since my first comment wasn’t moved to the Open thread, I assume the mods here didn’t think I was being a bitch.
I read Clarisse’s post, and I get the general sense that she embraces the substance of certain traditional female prerogatives while disavowing that they are traditional.
I don’t identify as a feminist, MRA or antifeminist (as a group). But I’m universally hostile to any position argued, justified, or explained with the concept of the ‘patriarchy’.
The patriarchy is in my opinion and untestable hypothesis which is simply used to explain everything short of natural disasters as ultimately being the fault of men. I am hard pressed to find a single thing which is viewed by feminists to be
1.) Capable of being affected by human beings
2.) Considered by to be bad/evil
3.) Considered to be the fault of something other than the “patriarchy”
You can pretty much put anything in the place of patriarchy and its the same problem. You may as well call it Satan. Except by identifying it as the ‘patriarchy’ you can justify any injustice against men. Whats more the theory serves no purpose except to villify men. You cannot predict anything, the theory is in no way capable of telling us more about the world, and you certainly can’t “fight it” because there will always be something wrong with the world and thus by definition there will always be a patriarchy. Thus I have a major inherent problem with one of the core tenants of feminism. While at times I might find myself on the same side, it extremely is rare that I find myself there for the same reasons, or advocating the same solution.
My objection to many of the anti-feminist/mra positions is that they use much of the same untestable theories and viewpoints of the feminists. So I don’t identify with them either, and again while I might agree with some of their positions I rarely agree with their reasoning or proposed solutions.
Could you elaborate?
EAGLE 31 SAID:
Faultroy, while you seem to not be for either camp, you still offer the same old arguments against equality that seem to fit the Men’s Rights camp.
Let me list them:
A) Who will fight in wars?
How about we DON’T fight wars, period. Unless it’s a last resort. You can’t use war for a solution to every conflict.
I have no interest in joining the military. Thinking men should fight wars is, frankly, insulting. Am I less of a man because of it?
Hello Eagle:
My apologies if I did not make it clear about MRA’s. The sites that I have visited in terms of Men’s Rights Advocacy have run the gamut from traditional males that are merely interested in contact with their children and supporting the status quo to Men’s Rights Advocates demanding the same level of equality across the board that the Second Wave Feminists have. I don’t see my position as being similar to these MRA groups in the sense that I feel I am consistant with traditional concepts of equality in that there has always been an implied equality and this equality has been predicated on mutual dependence. My perception of gender equality is based more on Natural Law. The Male Lion of a Pride does not concern himself with equality, nor does one of the lionesses. She does not resent the fact that the male is primarily there for breeding and territorial integrity and feasts on her kills without bringing meat to the Pride. His dominance is only based on his ability to perform. When he has fulfilled his useful purpose, he really has no reason to exist and therefore since he is too large and ungainly to hunt efficiently…once deposed, he faces a pretty poor prospect of existence. I think it works pretty much the same for men. I think this hand-wringing of modern Feminists and MRAs is really nothing more than the death throes of a totally and hopelessly effeminized society–it reeks of pure decadence.
As to your point about my supposed argument “as to who will fight the wars.” The wars will be fought by Women, Homo and Hetero men, but my point was a qualitative one–while everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else, who is going to be left thinking about the enemy? There is no question in my mind that it will become so convoluted that we will be arguing more about who is on first then actually being combat ready. To prove my point, you may want to download and read about the Dept. of Defense’s Report on Rape 2009 and the Military Sexual Assault Prevention and and Response Manual. It’s already the biggest clusterf”"ck that one can possibly imagine. We are supposed to have these women defend our country. They’ve (the DOD) done everything for these women other than changing their diapers. It is totally ridiculous. And lastly your question pertaining to the Military and your rhetorical question “…am I being less of a Man…? (by not having any interest in the Military)…Eagle, that is not for me to say, but for Society–and that is actually my point. I think you asked a valid question. And my answer to you would be the question that you asked is the answer. When we become completely effeminized, the men will say exactly as you do. Why should I go? Why should I sacrifice? What’s in it for me? –and in this world of effeminization, you would be perfectly correct to ask those questions and demand valid answers. Note the dramatically different perspectives in our lines of thought–from your perspective, everything is about you as an indvidual; from my perspective, nothing is about me as an individual, since I look at it from the standpoint of the collective. That is a dramatic difference between Masculinity and Effemininity. Our current crop of Feminist are giving an unceasing whine–I’m not treated fair, I’m not getting my needs met, I’m not feeling good about myself; I’m not happy; I’m feeling fat-and it’s your fault. I’m feeling anorexic and it’s your fault. They never ever say “You know,
I’ve really screwed up my life.” Effeminity never takes personal responsibilty for anything. It is always someone else’s fault. MRAs are singing the same song. It’s women’s fault, it’s society’s fault. Curiously, they never mention that the onslaught is really male on male. Ninety per cent of the Judiciary are men. While men make up 49 per cent of the population, they make up ninety per cent of Congress, even more of the Senate, and it is the same for state governors and so completely down the line. The fact, the average MRA is too blind to see, is that all of these laws and inequalities have been generated through the enthusiastic and aggressive actions of males, is never discussed and completely overlooked. And this mindset is the same one that blinds Feminists when they accuse men of Philandering. You never hear of Feminists
criticizing the women that actively and consciously tease, goad and manipulate these men into compromising positions–that is the height of Effemininity–and that is why I cannot support MRAs since their positions are really effeminent positions. Honesty is a masculine trait not a female one. My passion is horses. It is very interesting to see that 96 per cent of the horse owners in the United States are women. As a matter of fact, the largest breed organization in the World is the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA). What is interesting in the AQHA is that 87% of the membership is women but 99 per cent of the top horsemen are men. Furthermore my personal experience is that women have difficulty getting along with female horses (mares) and I’ve been pondering this for many years. Anatomically women have better bodies suited for riding. They’re (on average) lighter, with a center of gravity in the pelvic area with narrow shoulders which theorectically would make them much more efficient in terms of balance then men. No one would dispute that women on the whole are much prettier riders than men (this has nothing to do with their looks, but everything to do with how they sit a horse) Yet in the higher echelons, men dominate. Even in the upper levels of Dressage, men completely dominate. The majority of the riders are women, but they are invariably coached by men. In the Dressage world, there is not one Dressage Master equiped with a Vagina (nor has their ever been in the history of Dressage about 600 years old) and women outnumber men about 9.5 to one. I believe the reason for this is because women are too busy worrying about training from their own perspective. In my own coaching, I always have to stress that it is not about you to these totally self absorbed clueless women, but the horse. Men by their nature are much more understanding and tend to ride the horse that walks into the arena. The average woman is so involved in multitasking, she really does not have the ability to focus. I’ve asked other top professionals about this–usually I get blank stares. Then the men give a sly grin and say: “I’m not touching that question with a 10 foot pole!”
Pelle Billing said:
No, we did not. There is no such law in Sweden, although their may be one after the 2010 elections if the left wing parties come to power. Norway, a neighbouring country to Sweden, did pass a law to have at least 40 percent women on every Board of Directions–in January of 2006. Spain passed a similar law in 2007, and other European countries (for example France) have considered such a law.
I’m pretty sure that you are correct Billing. Since I live in the USA, and I read this about a year ago, I got my countries mixed up. From what little I remember of the article, there was some question as to whether the government was going to follow thru with its requirements, since the government gave the businesses some time (a number of years) to make these changes, however the businesses at the time of my reading had done little if anything to implement the government’s request. The resistance apparently was quite substantial. Thank you for the correction.
@faultroy
Natural Law? Really?
Lions don’t bother with clothing either, so should we do away with that too? Modern medicine, refrigeration, really technology of any kind … or does it only pertain to gender equality, which you define as “mutual dependence” (oh to be a hermaphroditic land slug!)?
Is any case of mutual dependence found in nature fodder for human practice? For instance, the Amazon River dolphin, or boto, readily forms gangs of 3-5 members (usually all male, but sometimes with one or two females) on which they depend for protection. They solidify group ties by having giant orgies, which include the only known instance of nasal sex. Yes–how’s that for a blow hole!
But, I mean, this word “dependence” … couldn’t it be argued that all fertile males and all fertile females depend on each other for children? The sheer number of examples of rape in the animal kingdom … is everyone off the hook if they fall back on the excuse, “Yeah, I know it was rape but I just really wanted a baby.” And where’s that put infertile people who still have the evolutionary drive to mate?
Personally, I’d love to take my cues from Bonobos, the hippies of the animal kingdom and our closest genetic relative, along with their slightly bigger cousin, the Common Chimpanzee. Upwards of 80% of males and damn-near all females are bisexual, every social dispute being resolved with a little hanky-panky. They never go to war, and rape is unheard of. They share everything, so I guess they even justify communism. The most violent they get is when food is a little scarce. Then they resort to hunting smaller animals, such as squirrels and monkeys. Even those hunting parties are made up of equal parts male and female. They’re the most egalitarian societies in existence, and, of course, humans have hunted them near to extinction.
But there’s probably a precedent for that in nature too, so maybe it’s all for the best….
Faultroy: I am a citizen of Norway and know at least a little about the mentioned law requiring publicly listed companies to have at least 40% women on their board of directors. If a company is not publicly listed there is no such requirement – so any mom-n-pops companies don’t have to have 40% women on the board.
It is correct that there were quite a lot of discussion and opposition when the law was being discussed. A lot of companies threatened to move the company to another country. The state on the other hand threatened to de/list (practically dissolving) companies not abiding by the law.
Secondly at the time the law was effective (1. of January 2008) almost 20% of the companies didn’t fulfill the requirement. Most of them were in the off-shore sector. They were given one more month to comply.
As far as I know no companies were dissolved and I think the women representation on boards of directors in Norwegian companies is 40.2% at the moment.
After the law were effective and most comanaies have complied there has been little public discussion.
Chris, although I’m sure you would like to take your cues from the Bonobos chimpanzees I hope you don’t take all the cues as infants and children in Bonobo societies are often involved in sexual behaviour. And their hippie-like image is disputed by some:
“Jeroen Stevens is a young Belgian biologist who has spent thousands of hours studying captive bonobos in European zoos. I met him last year at the Planckendael Zoo, near Antwerp. “I once saw five female bonobos attack a male in Apenheul, in Holland,” he said. “They were gnawing on his toes. I’d already seen bonobos with digits missing, but I’d thought they would have been bitten off like a dog would bite. But they really chew. There was flesh between their teeth. Now, that’s something to counter the idea of”—Stevens used a high, mocking voice—“ ‘Oh, I’m a bonobo, and I love everyone.’ ”
Stevens went on to recall a bonobo in the Stuttgart Zoo whose penis had been bitten off by a female. (He might also have mentioned keepers at the Columbus and San Diego zoos who both lost bits of fingers. In the latter instance, the local paper’s generous headline was “APE RETURNS FINGERTIP TO KEEPER.”) “Zoos don’t know what to do,” Stevens said. “They, too, believe that bonobos are less aggressive than chimps, which is why zoos want to have them. But, as soon as you have a group of bonobos, after a while you have this really violent aggression. I think if zoos had bonobos in big enough groups”—more like wild bonobos—“you would even see them killing.” In Stevens’s opinion, bonobos are “very tense. People usually say they’re relaxed. I find the opposite. Chimps are more laid-back. But, if I say I like chimps more than I like bonobos, my colleagues think I’m crazy.”
http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....ntPage=all
They share everything, so I guess they even justify communism.
From my recollection they prostitute themselves for most things…
Not to mention neither bonobos or chimps are biparental, which sort of removes them from serious contenders as ‘animals we should model our social relationships after.’
How about the cotton top tamarind?
I am a citizen of Norway and know at least a little about the mentioned law requiring publicly listed companies to have at least 40% women on their board of directors. If a company is not publicly listed there is no such requirement – so any mom-n-pops companies don’t have to have 40% women on the board.
I’m not entirely knowledgeable about Norways corporate governance. In the US some boards are very active in monitoring the companies behavior in many however the job is little more than a sinecure filled with a person who is well known or influential but typically is not interested in how the company is run, and end up amounting to yes men. In others they are there to represent the interests of a company with a sizable investment in the firm, but act largely at the behest of another firm, not as individual agents. In both of these cases it seems that it would be both easy to fix, and simultaneously irrelevant.
“From my recollection they prostitute themselves for most things…”
Well, yeah, TD; that’s just standard heterosexuality in some species. /ducks head and grabs coat on the way out…./
If the thread is going to devolve into ‘conservatism sux’, is it necessary to take care to add disclaimers that ‘not all conservatives are like that’? Or is that the sort of special dispensation which is required for statements about feminism only?
HA HA HA – Nooooooooo! But a clairvoyant man named Wind wouldn’t lie to me, would he? Would he?! Damn you, science!
Alas, I must admit that that picture of bonobos makes more sense, and, regardless of what sense it makes, has observational data to back it up. It’s also not surprising that a full blown matriarchal animal society is still capable of much of the same abuses as that of the more patriarchal chimps. Something the radical feminists could do well to figure out. That poor bonobo … why would they bite his dick off and not just kill him?
The Cottontop Tamarin seems cool, sharing the kid and all. I like Killer Whales too, though to fully appreciate their awesomeness you have to condone whale-on-seal violence. Heh, is it wrong that I giggle when I see them playing with their food?
Sigh … well, at least I still have nasal sex.
If bonobos’ and chimps’ societies differ from each other, then wouldn’t human societies likely differ from either of the other two?
Faultroy, you seem to be implying, based on your reply, that indepedance is effeminate and masculanity is owing to the collective. At least, what you perceive masculanity is. On top of this, you say being effeminate is a bad thing.
Maybe we’re from two different worlds, but I don’t belive masculanity owes anybody anything. And I may be, as you perceive, an effeminate male but there’s still masculanity in me. Thing is, Faultroy, I’m exploring alternatives because your version of masculanity doesn’t fit me: Fighting wars, being the “Lion” on the prowl.
There’s nothing wrong with being masculane while addressing your individuality. Otherwise, you’d just adopt some sort of unhealthy cover for who you really are underneath and you fall prey to other people’s ideas of what a man is like.
And why do we have to be on the alert for the enemy? Who is this “Enemy” you speak of? What “Enemy” do we have, if any?
Why don’t we just be on the alert for ourselves FIRST before we even think about labeling anyone else the “Enemy”? Because everyone is capable of destruction and not just “Terrorists”, “Communists”, “Reds”, or whatever enemy the military and governments decide to focus their attention on.
Call me some peacenik or pacifist, which I’m not really as I’ve argued that war is neccessary but only as a last resort when all other avenues have failed, but looking all over and being on the alert for the “Enemy” is lower on my priority list compared to taking care of myself.
Chris Says:
Is any case of mutual dependence found in nature fodder for human practice? For instance, the Amazon River dolphin, or boto, readily forms gangs of 3-5 members (usually all male, but sometimes with one or two females) on which they depend for protection. They solidify group ties by having giant orgies, which include the only known instance of nasal sex. Yes–how’s that for a blow hole!
But, I mean, this word “dependence” … couldn’t it be argued that all fertile males and all fertile females depend on each other for children? The sheer number of examples of rape in the animal kingdom … is everyone off the hook if they fall back on the excuse, “Yeah, I know it was rape but I just really wanted a baby.” And where’s that put infertile people who still have the evolutionary drive to mate?
Hi Chris:
Wow! What a profound comment. The answer to your first paragraph is (1) I don’t know, (2) I’m going to have to take a very long time to think about the implications of your statement. My knee jerk reaction would be yes, or course, but we have to be careful as to how we interpret that practice. As a species, I believe that we are just starting to shed the mantel of correctness and unbiasly evaluating these questions. I don’t think that we are there yet
(I mean sophisticated and unbiased enough to answer the question–but I do think that we are evloved enough to ask the question).
As to your second paragraph, because of my background with equines, I tend to get very nervous when we start talking about other species and their sexual proclivities. We have to be very very careful to always be on guard with respect to anthropomorphism. It is very doubtful that animals see any form of sexual activity the way we humans do. Almost anything we say is inherently either false or seriously misguided since all of our actions and deductions are predicated on our societal values as to norms and abnorms.
The term “Rape,” is a value term. It implies that one “takes something that is not allowed.” The term itself reeks of anthropomorphism. It is very doubtful if there is anything in the animal kingdom that we could equivocate with the
human term “rape.” Even in humans, the term rape does not really mean
“rape.” For example, years ago (about 25 yrs) rape was the term used to describe a man taking a woman into a dark alley with a knife to her throat and informing her if she does not do what he says he will kill her. In the USA,
today there is now rape with no “rape.” for example and individual can be charged and found guilty of rape when one did not rape (i.e. attempt to penetrate or even to threaten to penetrate a bodily orfice (vagina, mouth, anus)). In the eyes of the law the crime is the same. One can commit a sexual assault by not even touching someone–even if you say: “If I get the chance, I’m going to try to f****) you ,” that is a sexual assault in the eyes of USA law. Even if you say it jokingly–if the woman feels like charging you with a sexual assault, it is a sexual assault. One can even “rape” someone that initially did everthing in their power to imply they were interested in sex but if they had alchohol, it completely absolves that individual (of course always a woman) of personal responsibility and of making a poor or misguided judgement. If a woman happens to pass out and awakes with you on top, it is Rape according to USA Law–even if she agreed to it before hand. But the curious thing is that the male, having the same amount of alchohol is required to somehow interpret a “no” from a “no-means-no!” and if he gets it wrong, he is still guilty of Rape!–even if there was no intention of Rape. Under USA law, if a you engage in sexual intercourse and she does not verbally agree it is Rape. If a woman says nothing and she has sex with you–even if she participates, it is Rape. If you are married and you attempt to coerce your wife into having sex, it is considered Rape in the eyes of the law. So under USA Law, if a married woman decides that “she doesn’t feel like it” and a husband attempts to engage in any kind of sexual activity–even if she participates–well, you guessed it–IT’S RAPE!!!! So with these literally wacky definitions how can one use the term “Rape” accurately? It really means what ever a woman or society wants it to mean. Now as to your term “dependence.” I see if from a different perspective. I don’t think animals or humans have any real choice in the matter. I think that Natural Law really dictates the terms and requires performance. For instance when you say: “couldn’t it be argued that all fertile males and females depend on each other for children…” My argument would be that Nature’s Prime Directive is to Procreate. And, like an abcess that it must find a way to burst and relieve the pressure–it (the Natual Law) will go the direction of least resistance.” I think humans–like animals are merely the tools to implement this Prime Directive and therefore there are no value judgments that one can make on the big picture level. But in the strict sense, I would have to agree with your argument that all in all, there is a mutual dependence to fulfill the Prime Directive. Of course from the more narrowed societal level we can enact laws, impediments (i.e. mature males having sex with pubescents) but this is of no interest to Nature. (the old: “If She’s Old Enough To Bleed, She’s Old Enough to Breed” argument) As a matter of fact the case can be made from a biological perspective that Rape is a good thing since it helps diseminate the genetic pool. And I believe that is why we are having such problems with respect to what we define as “child Molestation.” Humans (actuallly Westerners) see this as abhorent, because the child is not of “the age of consent,” but nature (when it takes a younger woman in puberty and gives her the ability to breed) sees it as the child fulfilling the prime directive. Now here I am talking about those “children” that either are in the throes of puberty or have just passed puberty. The issue of the sexualization of prepubescents and (heaven forbid) young children and even infants is a perversion of society and a direct result of the twisting and hypersexualization of young men,women and children and the concomitant loosening of societal mores. It is very interesting that male sexual predators never (well let’s just say rarely) see themselves as doing anything harmful or even wrong. They see themselves as good people and really have no wish to harm the victim (at least that is what I have been reading on this subject. In truth I actually know little of this subject and from the reading that I have done, neither do the experts). And, when a boy or girl is not in puberty, I really don’t think we can even fathom what is going on since by today’s standards it certainly would be considered unnatural deviant if not downright evil. And, at this time we cannot look to nature to give us an answer as to why this bizarre behavior not only takes place, but continues to flourish in ever increasing numbers. Having said this, I think a pretty good case can be made that the problem of Molestation in Catholic Priests is this Prime Directive trying to find its way to the surface and attempting to “burst.” In doing so, it seeks the path of least resistance, and manifests itself in a perversion of intimacy. Note as pertaining to this comment on molestation, it runs the gamut from forced copulation to mild intimate touching. And, in all the reading that I have done on this subject, it is most curious to me how all the psychobabalists talk about the “enormous psychological damage that is done to the victim,” and how the perfect antidote and “best medicine,” always happens to be Money.
faultroy, please start using paragraphs.
faultroy, let me clarify:
There are many examples in the animal kingdom of species that combine sexual encounters with violence. For instance, male ducks and geese will dive bomb potential mates, wrestling them to the ground, and attacking them until the males have an opportunity to thrust their penises into the females. As their penises can, depending on the species, be as long as the ducks’ entire body, penetration itself can be a tad traumatic.
Bachelor bottlenose dolphins will, at times, form herds together, trapping and beating solitary females savagely until they relent to the herd having their way with them.
Bedbugs reproduce solely by way of “traumatic insemination;” that is, the males stab and inject their semen directly into the females’ abdomen, the sperm making their way to the ovaries and fertilizing them, assuming the females don’t die from their wounds.
So, following from your Prime Directive, is any impediment to sex going against Natural Law? And, more to the point, with so many very divergent examples of animal behavior in the wild, how do you come to the conclusion that Phyllis Schlafly and traditional values are correct?
One more question, one more question: You say we must be on guard against anthropomorphism, but you’re using Natural Law to justify what you describe as the “inherent equality of the sexes–otherwise known as mutual dependency,” citing lions as another example. What exactly do you mean by Natural Law? Are you anthropomorphizing the lions or more fully animalizing humans? And, if the latter, what does Natural Law say about behavior only manifested in humans? If humans are an inseparable part of nature, aren’t all our actions, by definition, natural? Argh, that was more than one question!
But your use of “equality” and “dependency” … no, I shouldn’t; I should wait for you to–argh, no, it’s too tempting:
The southern United States during the antebellum period depended on the institution of slavery for economic stability. Slave owners depended on their slaves for cheap labor and the slaves depended on their masters for food, clothing, and shelter. So, does their mutual dependency therefore mean that white slave owners were inherently equal to black slaves whose status in the greater society was literally sub-human?
If not … or even if so, please define “inherent equality.”
And I second typhonblue: please use paragraphs.
Chris: “male ducks and geese will dive bomb potential mates, wrestling them to the ground, and attacking them until the males have an opportunity to thrust their penises into the females. As their penises can, depending on the species, be as long as the ducks’ entire body, penetration itself can be a tad traumatic.”
Ahem, what? I don´t doubt the part about violence and divebombing but penetration in birds? Wasn´t that just touching the cloaca?
Reading through the Wikipedia article (which differs a bit from the German one) apparently ducks have phalli….intersting, you just don´t learn that stuff in school.
ThematicDevice: I’m not that familiar myself with corporate governance in Norway. However, most of the publicly listed companies are of a certain size and if the company have over 200 employees then 1/3 of the board members are elected by and from among the employees. Usually it’s labour union members/local leaders who are chosen. The remaining 2/3 are elected by the shareholders. Thus large institutional investors as you say will probably vote in their own representatives on the board. However at least two members of the board must be independent from the shareholders.
In most cases at least the elected employee representatives will not qualify as yes-men. For more info: http://www.nues.no/English/The.....ependence/
Cris says:
So, following from your Prime Directive, is any impediment to sex going against Natural Law? And, more to the point, with so many very divergent examples of animal behavior in the wild, how do you come to the conclusion that Phyllis Schlafly and traditional values are correct
Hi Chris:
Let me say that I view The Prime Directive just as I do the Law of Gravity. The Prime Directive says: “Thou Shalt Reproduce.” It is the different characteristics of the species that decides when, where, how, and in which way it shall reproduce. And we should also recognize within any species, those laws pertain to the entire species and so if we have some variation within the species, we must not consider this to be a total aberration or even a necessary negative. We can see thru the Laws of Natural Selection that an individual of a given species is allowed some lattitude in this process(i.e.interspecies variation). But in all cases, because animals do not have the rationalistic conceptual attributes of humans, we must defacto consider all forms of sexual expressions “natural.” Where we run into trouble is trying to put human value judgements based on our cultural perceptions onto animals and utilizing the interactions of animals as a litmus test as to whether we are or are not getting it right.
And as in my earlier reply, your comments about aggression, violence and coercion are totally species focused. We don’t have any idea as to whether animals see it the same way. Therefore we should refrain from doing this. The female Praying Mantis biting off the head of her male mate would to us appear to be violent and nasty–but to the Praying Mantis it is just the same usual form of procreation. We don’t know the reason for this form of procreation, but certainly we have no right to label it violent or even unsavory and have every reason to believe it is totally natural and fulfills some unknown law of mutual dependency.
Along the same lines, the Schlafly traditional view of male/female gender
roles and interactions is a result tens of thousands of years of practical and natural conditioning and therefore since it has proceeded to give us the society that we have today, we can assume not only is it normal, but in many subtle ways, (at least from an unconscious perspective) mutually beneficial. Note that Schlafly did not invent or even discover these ideas, they are traditional ideas that are deeply buried in Western Culture. She is merely articulating them. And more importantly there are a majority of the people as we are seeing that agree with her.
Furthermore, from the most sophisticated to the most primitive societies, male/female interactions seem pretty much the same. Yes, I am aware that certain societies have had Matriarchal cultures, but I’m not sure how significant that is in the big reproductive picture. From what I understand, the male/female interactions were still pretty consistant with traditional patriarchal societies.
As to your question: “If humans are an inseparable part of nature,” by definition are not all our actions by definition: “Natural?” Yes, all our actions by definition would be natural, but only from the standpoint of the society as a whole. But, the actions of individuals may or may not be. For example let’s take the (what we perceive as deviant) activity of child molestation (and here we are talking about prepubescents). Is there a prime directive in man to procreate? Yes, But does that mean that it is normal and natural to sexually assault children? The answer is no it is neither normal nor natural. The reason for this is that we see no positive benefit for its practice. There seems to be a biologically conditioned response in humans that bristles at both the thought and demands vengeance far out of proportion to the act itself. The innate rage seems to cross gender barriers. Men and Women seem to unite in common outrage. However, it must be also said that Asian societies and some African Cultures do not see some of these attacks in the same light as Western Societies do. This may be because of economic stresses, but I think it would not be unreasonable to say that most societies–when not under duress–frown upon such practices. And it could also be argued that most societies see no practical benefit to doing so.
As to your question on Black Slavery in the United States. 1st: Is Slavery Natural?–in some ways yes. When one considers the Founding Fathers in the United States bequeathing 3/5ths citizenship on these people. That seems pretty magnanimous given that these people looked like the most wretched and primitive of peoples. I don’t think it is fair for us to judge their actions by today’s values. For reasons that are not yet quite clear, the human mind has developed in such a way as to be able to rationalize these
kinds of interactions. What is most interesting is that both perpetrator and victim are equal participants.
1: Some women also rape prepubescent children (hereby defined outside of the misandrist penetration-is-the-only-thing-that-counts-discourse).
2: Wether reproduction is “the prime directive” or not remains to be seen.
It seems as though the ‘prime directive’ is more along the lines of doing your role, whatever that may be, to help (your) society flourish. In many societies, this includes gay men and bisexual women as well as infertile people (who clearly outnumber gay people), and maybe trans people. Who, all exist in nature, I may remind you.
If they were so detrimental to a prime directive, they would have been bred out of existence hundreds of generations ago.
Eagle 31 said:
Faultroy, you seem to be implying, based on your reply, that indepedance is effeminate and masculanity is owing to the collective. At least, what you perceive masculanity is. On top of this, you say being effeminate is a bad thing.
I believe that men and women are comprised of both Masculine and Feminine traits. Perhaps I worded it badly, but the position of the traditionalist is that we should recognize these masculine and feminine traits that both males and females have and both traits have substantial positives and substantial negatives–which is why there is the concept of mutual dependency. As far as my implying that you being independent makes you effeminate, I would argue the opposite. I think that independence is a masculine trait. When I was talking about effeminateness, I was referring to presentation. The idea of males utilizing effeminate strategy techniques in order to obtain either an advantage-in or specific goals. While they are acceptable in women, I think they tend to backfire on men since there are inherent social biases that allows and makes excuses for the whine and histrionics of Feminists that really are not tolerated in Men. Even the Bible- and really a lot of early literature goes- out of its way to underline the duplicity and manipulative nature of Women. It appears all gendered organisms on this planet seem to work in some level of synergy for mutual benefit. The same could be said for parasites. Though we have not as yet figured out what the benefit is for the host.
And as far as me saying being effeminate is a bad thing, I believe it would be a bad thing for the masculine gender to become more effeminate–yes that would be true. But in its own context, femininity is a very good thing–just not for males. The Daoists believe in the concept of the Yin/Yan. This is saying the same thing. The Yin feeds on the Yan,and the Yan feeds on the Yin. The Daoists believe that too much of one element (Yin or Yan) will make you physically sick. I believe it also. They also believe the cure for this illness “is to dip into the opposite fountain.” I believe this as well. Harmony and good fortune is to recognize both states and when both are actively utilized.
As I stated Saddam Hussein was the ultimate Masculinist. But no one would
state that this was a good thing. But it could be argued that he certainly utilized his masculine qualities to the utmost–and was hanged for it! Both genders have a dark side. We just have to be careful since if we lean too far towards one side it could throw everyone into the ocean. You and I would both agree that in the Western World, there has been just a little too much of the Yin (Feminine) for everyone’s good.
Wow, Faultroy, I believe we’re totally on the same wavelength.
That’s exctaly my belife system as well: Men and women possess both paradigms and can access them if they choose to.
Also, both contain their dark sides. I believe, too, these organic parts of ourselves should be celebrated because it’s what makes us human.
Shala Said:
: Some women also rape prepubescent children (hereby defined outside of the misandrist penetration-is-the-only-thing-that-counts-discourse).
2: Wether reproduction is “the prime directive” or not remains to be seen.
It seems as though the ‘prime directive’ is more along the lines of doing your role, whatever that may be, to help (your) society flourish. In many societies, this includes gay men and bisexual women as well as infertile people (who clearly outnumber gay people), and maybe trans people. Who, all exist in nature, I may remind you.
If they were so detrimental to a prime directive, they would have been bred out of existence hundreds of generations ago.
I certainly agree with everything you say. There may be no such thing as a Prime Directive. It is the mark of a good thinker to always leave an element of doubt. After all, so many have come before us and they too have tried to make sense of it and got it wrong.
As far as gays and infertiles being detrimental to the prime directive, I doubt Nature does anything without reason. I certainly do not believe that Gays are “imperfect.” There can be many reasons for this kind of manifestation. Perhaps, gayness is a way for humanity to self correct itself on its ultimate course–kind of like a rudder in a current–I think we’re not even ready to ask the question let alone answer it. I think the idea of equality with heteros though is misplaced. I think of gays as a hyper gender. Homos for example are Hyper Masculine or Europeans would say Uber masculine. I’ve talked to a few gays that were somewhat religious, but by far the majority–85 per cent–are way too sophisticated and uncomfortable with their hedonistic lifestyle to really embrace a paternal father as Christians like to believe.
In the USA, if you look at their numbers in comparison to their effectiveness, their accomplishments are literally astounding. Look at how effective politically they have been. It is literally the Mouse attacking the Lion and leaving him damaged, shell, shocked, bruised, confused and bewildered. If they would have been a little less arrogant, this whole incident in the USA would never have happened. I was following it from the first Salvo. they put way too much faith in the Judiciary. They failed to consider the inherent greed of heteros in wanting something exclusively for themselves. Of course ultimately they will suceed, but they made it so much harder for themselves and the next generation. It may be with their statistically superior intellectual acuity and our society becoming evermore cerebral and sophisticated Gays may play a unique and pivotal role in human evolution that has really nothing to do with their gender preferences.
This is probably on topic…
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/.....-and-isnt/
Thoughts?
mmmmm, crap. I’ve tried to post this already and it isn’t showing up. I’m gonna try one more time. I apologize if it shows up more than once:
Nature does not “do” anything. Nature has no conscious will. The animals in nature, humans included, try to survive as long as possible and mate when they can, driven by instincts to ensure that their genetic material continues on. Over many generations, after making many copies, mutations occasionally occur at random. These mutations are a product of chance, often serving no purpose and can even be harmful to the new organism. So, I guess, you could say if nature did anything it is only without reason.
However, the mechanism of naturally selection ensures that only the mutations that allow an organism to gather more or make better use of resources and breed, successfully passing on its genetic material, are reproduced within populations–or are reproduced with so much more frequency that they come to dominate an environment. Stated another way, these mutations are … selected.
Organisms are driven by evolutionarily developed instincts to breed, but there is no larger purpose beyond that. Humans, however, have developed self-awareness and a capacity to reason, being able to manipulate their environment on scales never before achieved. However, if we could “ask” nature how it feels about that … it might not think that was so great.
As for homosexuals and infertile people, they serve no “purpose” as there is ultimately no purpose in life, besides what you or your culture defines for yourself. We are just discovering the answers as to why people might be gay. Scientists recently discovered a set of genes in humans that can influence who they perceive as the best potential mates. While there is no single “gay gene,” there are “mate with males” and “mate with females” genes. Gay people could simply have more of one or the other. Bisexuals could have both. This could explain why it would not necessarily be advantageous for “gay genes” to exist (from the standpoint of genes wanting to reproduce themselves in a population) and yet we can’t seem to get rid of those pesky homosexuals down through the generations, no matter how hard we try to “cure” them.
But I have to disagree outright with faultroy’s premise that just because humans have done something for a really long time, that makes it natural or somehow justifiable and good. Humanity could have just been wrong and brutal and unjust. Similarly, the way our society perceives men and women, as well as masculine and feminine, could just be sexist. And that means your formula for how much yin and yang a person should have would be built on that sexism. I for one think that societies are slowly getting better (emphasis on slowly), even if that means ditching practices that we have been doing for thousands of years, like slavery or tribalism or sexual discrimination.
The culture and behavior of our ancestors certainly allowed them to survive and breed (as we would not be here otherwise), but as rational, self-conscious beings with a capacity to suffer and feel happiness, life for humans has become much more than simply that.
Wait a minute!!! Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh NEVER stick up for men’s rights. Doesn’t anyone know something about the IMBRA law? Are you not aware of the unholy alliance of Socons and Marxist Feminists regarding the regulation of males to hamper their sociosexual pursuit of happiness? Bill OReilly gave a big speech saying US males who wanted to date the competition of US feminists were “losers” in need of regulation.
I am the biggest enemy of IMBRA online and have the most experience fighting it as the quintessential men’s rights issue (the feminists actually got a law passed bringing a government between men and women saying hello to each other). Believe me, since so many Hillary supporters joined the GOP after Monica, the socons are scared to death of the loud anti-male minority of feminists now ensconced within their own ranks. They will follow me on Twitter but the right wing politicians are terrified of even using the word feminism in any speech.
Sam Brownback, the most right wing member of the Senate, was the man who got VAWA and IMBRA passed and then had Vatican Radio broadcast that all US men who wish to date foreigners are sex offenders bent on fulfilling their sexual fantasies.
You KNOW how anti-male socons can be. So don’t be turning your back on the term MRA because you hate the idea that some of us still recognize that the GOP and Libertarian Party are a better bet than the totally pro-NOW (Marxist Feminist) Democrats.
Heck, Fox News put Marc Rudov up against Lis Wiehl to discuss men’s rights and then promoted Lis Wiehl to a six figure salary announcer position while Marc was left penniless and subject to HER whims on whether he ever came on for some mindless banter (where she controlled what he could say).
On Twitter follow all the #sgp types. Check out @mensnews and @veteransabroad and @objectifychicks @mensnewsdaily etc. You will see that, overwhelmingly, Republicans will follow and RT MRAs while Democrats almost NEVER support MRAs on Twitter. Even Libertarians tend to be total pro-victim-feminist wimps although nobody, I mean nobody, has the guts to argue about VAWA or IMBRA in public.
Chris says
Nature does not “do” anything. Nature has no conscious will. The animals in nature, humans included, try to survive as long as possible and mate when they can, driven by instincts to ensure that their genetic material continues on. So, I guess, you could say if nature did anything it is only without reason.
However, the mechanism of naturally selection ensures that only the mutations that allow an organism to gather more or make better use of resources and breed, successfully passing on its genetic material, are reproduced within populations–or are reproduced with so much more frequency that they come to dominate an environment. Stated another way, these mutations are … selected.
Organisms are driven by evolutionarily developed instincts to breed, but there is no larger purpose beyond that. Humans, however, have developed self-awareness and a capacity to reason, being able to manipulate their environment on scales never before achieved. However, if we could “ask” nature how it feels about that … it might not think that was so great.
As for homosexuals and infertile people, they serve no “purpose” as there is ultimately no purpose in life, besides what you or your culture defines for yourself. We are just discovering the answers as to why people might be gay.
But I have to disagree outright with faultroy’s premise that just because humans have done something for a really long time, that makes it natural or somehow justifiable and good. Humanity could have just been wrong and brutal and unjust. Similarly, the way our society perceives men and women, as well as masculine and feminine, could just be sexist. that sexism. I for one think that societies are slowly getting better (emphasis on slowly), even if that means ditching practices that we have been doing for thousands of years, like slavery or tribalism or sexual discrimination.
The culture and behavior of our ancestors certainly allowed them to survive and breed (as we would not be here otherwise), but as rational, self-conscious beings with a capacity to suffer and feel happiness, life for humans has become much more than simply that.
Hi Chris:
You say: “Nature does not do anything?” Really? So everything is a matter of chance?–Random Chance? So for example: Mutual biologic dependence (for example: bees being utilized by plants and trees to further pollination is merely random chance??? Can you explain the Theory of Random Chance ?
And if nature has no “Will,” and we are “biologic,” but man has always considered himself possessing free will, can you explain how Man has “will,” and nature does not? I mean if man is part of nature, why does nature not have will and man does?
I’m also confused about your idea of Natural Selection since if you believe that “Nature does not “do ” anything,” therefore does it not follow there can be no such thing as natural selection for in order to have natural selection there must be “something” that “triggers,” natural selection, and you have already declared that there is no such thing as “doing” other than random chance. Can you elaborate?
As to your comment about animals –including humans “try to survive long enough to mate when they can in order to pass on their genetic material…” Well, that would imply some form of “purpose” and you have distinctly postulated that there is no “purpose.” So if there is no “purpose” what would be the point of postulating a drive to procreate? You– in an earlier post– wrote about your beloved dolphins indicating they have “group sex aciviities,” which cannot be true since you have indicated that these animals only try to survive and are driven by the “randomness of chance breeding without purpose!” But again through experience we know that primates and almost all mammals are driven not only to merely desire for procreation, but to develop–sometiimes very complicated–social orders that does not appear to be directly involved in mere procreation. Also, you state “…these mutations are selected…” well Chris even a 7th grader understands that if there is only “Randomness,” there can be no “selection.” Selection implies choice and you have already indicated there is no choice–only “unreasoning randomness: can you clarify?
You say: “Organisms are driven by evolutionarily developed instincts to breed..”
This is like asking which came first the chicken or the egg. So in your theory of evolution–when evolution first began–I take it something popped up and said “I am born, therefore I must develop an evolutionary instinct to breed?”"
Of course this happened “at random????”–that is the “Random” chicken
“randomly” “randomly- not-thinks” to “randomly not-decides” “to randomly evolve…” Hmmm isn’t this getting rather complicated ?”
And while you are at it, can you explain to me how evolution actually works? I get the idea of survival of the fittest, and species adaption, but I really never understood “Evolution. ” You see, there is the little problem of Statistical Probability. In this statistical mathematical formula it basically has various laws of probablility. And one of these laws of probablity says that if, for example, you find some paleontological evidence that you believe to be let’s say 4.5 million years old and possibly the “missing link,” statistical probablity would indicate that (for arguments sake) the odds of finding this would be (just for the sake of discussion) 1 billion to one. Well that would mean that discovering “x more” of samples (of anthropological evidence 2 million years old) would be let’s say 1 million to one. And then, finding “x/2″ sample (1 million years old ) perhaps 100,000 to one. Well, you get it, it becomes somewhat like an inverted pyramid. So in essence the law of probability says that the odds of finding a very old “artifact,” is much greater the older it is and the odds of finding lot more artifacts that are not nearly so old would be much much greater. Now the problem with the Theory of Evolution as we understand it today, is that it does not work with the Theory of Mathematical Probablity. But if the theory holds true, than how is it possible that it does not appear to conform to the laws of mathematics? Can you explain this? And why with all these wonderful theories of Evolution has no one to date found not one species that we can say remains genetically the same in terms of its genetic evolutionary history? According to Paleontology, Lizards, Alligators, Crocodiles are all dinosaurs–well if they were able to survive, then what happened to all the other dinosaurs? We have plenty of cold blooded reptiles, why no examples of the unbroken evolutionary chain? It really is totally illogical. If dinosaurs were reptiles and we did not have any reptiles in existence, that would make logical sense. But to say that all dinosaurs were killed of and only the reptiles we have today survived is totally illogical and irrational.
It also gets even more muddled. The theory of natural selection–according to you– says that morphology changes based on external influences and species adaption. This wouldl mean that all species–the longer they are on earth–the more suited for adaption they would be, and the less the odds of them going extinct? No?–Well no, since it clearly doesn’t work this way since almost all the creatures that are extinct were on this earth a long time, and therefore logic and experience teaches us that Natural Selection actually works in the INVERSE. That is the longer a species is on this earth,
and the more specific their adaption, the less “adaptable,” they become and therefore the more prone to extinction they become? No? I mean everything that we are seeing as evidence that paleontologists are presenting seems to support this rational conclusion. So can you explain what I have missed?
And while you are certainly welcome to disagree with me about my definition of “natural” and “Justifyable and good,” can you explain your definition of what is ” Natural” and your comments about “good, bad and sexism,” since you have already gone on record to indicate that 1) there is only the theory of randomness, 2) since animals–and according to you humans–only strive to
exist and breed–for sheer instinct,” how does “sexism play into all this? Doesn’t sexism imply choice?
To bring this back to the Feminist Arena, this again is a perfect example of
being brainwashed by ideology. It is the traits of masculinity that actually allows us to be constantly open to possibilities. These ideas of Good, Bad, Just, Unjust are mere value judgments that must be analyzed with the discriminating lense of masculine focus. I’m not saying that I don’t believe in Evolution. I am saying that the Masculine side of me wants it proved to me in a tight unified theory. To date no one has been able to do this. So for me, it becomes an intriguing theory, but nothing more.
Wow … you asked quite a few questions in there, buddy. Lemme see if I can’t clarify a few things.
First off, I gotta hand it to you for the selective way you quote me at the beginning of the post. It’s subtle–didn’t notice it at first–and you never delete a whole paragraph outright (that would be too easy to spot, right?) but large sections of my paragraphs do go missing. Let’s see, there’s the beginning section on random mutation arising as a by-product of DNA’s copying process, the genetic evidence for homosexuality’s continued presence in our gene pool, and my retort to your use of the Chinese bullshit concept of yin and yang. Not sure why you deleted the last one. But, again, I tip my hat to you. That is a childish and manipulative way of trying to control what people perceive me to have said.
But on to your questions.
The short answer to your questions (except the last one) is: Yes.
The long answer has to do with the context of my statement as a response to you. You said, “As far as gays and infertiles being detrimental to the prime directive, I doubt Nature does anything without reason,” and this after chastising me for anthropomorphizing animals. Your statement implies that there is a guiding intelligence behind the natural world, that some entity (we’ll call it … Mother Nature) is orchestrating everything that happens in order to fulfill your “prime directive.” This is false. If nature is a symphony with animals and plants as its instruments and Mother Nature as its conductor, it is a symphony of death and decay, hardly a concert working in perfect harmony.
As for bees … Flowers and trees do not consciously “utilize” bees to “further pollination,” as you say. Bees simply use flowers and plants for the nectar they secrete. The plants secrete nectar at sites near where they produce pollen, ensuring that the pollen will collect on the bee’s fur and body when it comes to get the nectar. As a bee travels from one plant to the other, pollination is a secondary by-product of the bee’s primary goal: getting nectar. This happens beyond the plants’ awareness. Even the bees don’t “know” it happens, from the standpoint that they have an intelligence that can reason. However, flowers that produce pollen near nectar such that a bee will collect the pollen as it collects nectar, traveling from one plant to the other, have a much better chance of pollinating than plants that don’t. Let’s make that a little clearer:
Say we have three plants: Plant A, which creates pollen by stamens located in its flowers where it produces nectar; Plant B, which creates pollen by stamens located by its leaves on the stem; and Plant C, which produces pollen by stamens on its roots. OK, plants reproduce by pollination, the process of getting pollen from one plant onto the pistils of another.
Now: when insects visit Plant A for its nectar, they inadvertently get pollen all over themselves, thereby greatly increasing the amount of pollen that leaves Plant A and travels to another Plant A. Plant B does not have this advantage. Insects come to Plant B for its nectar and completely miss the stamens on the leaves. There may, however, be larger creatures that walk through the flower fields and brush against Plant B’s leaves, inadvertently picking up some pollen as they do. But that does Plant B no good unless those animals brush past the pistils of another Plant B. Plant C is straight-up screwed. Being buried underground, there is little to no chance that its pollen will travel any distance–let alone to another Plant C. So Plant A has a clear advantage when it comes to the mobility of its pollen.
Now: let’s say there are three different variants under the species Plant A. One (Plant A1) has its pistils in the flowers near its stamens and nectar; Another (Plant A2) has its pistils on its leaves; and the third (Plant A3) has its pistils in its roots. Insects coated in the pollen of Plant A, traveling to another Plant A, need to get the pollen onto the pistils in order to pollinate the plant. Having nectar in its flowers does Plant A2 and Plant A3 absolutely no good, because the insects are only interested in the nectar in its flowers. But that does Plant A1 whole heaps of good because it’s all but guaranteed to pollinate many times as more and more insects visit it. After one generation, there are way more copies of Plant A1 than any other plant in the field; after two, there’s even more. Assuming the other plants even can pollinate, it will take Plant A1 no time at all to reproduce so much that it monopolizes the resources of the entire field.
Of course, some god or Mother Nature-type intelligence would have had to have designed those other plants, because evolution would have snuffed them out after the first mutation that moved its stamens or pistils away from its nectar. Unless it pollinated by some other mechanism, of course.
Also, there is no Theory of Random Chance, so … that’s that.
I don’t care one way or the other what people (that is, men and women) consider themselves possessing. Our bodies function within the law of causality. Everything we do can be traced back up a chain of causes. If by “free will” you are postulating that humans can somehow act independently of the causal chain, then you are, alas, mistaken. Humans do have a will, it’s just not completely free. I’ll explain.
I love cheese. Love love love it. Now, I have the ability to will that I eat a deep dish pizza this evening. However, my love of cheese is not a product of my will. Instead, I love cheese because it tastes delicious to me and provides me nourishment, as a by-product of the genetic make-up of my taste buds and digestive system. Unfortunately, I live in China right now, and the vast majority of Chinese people are lactose intolerant. They do not like cheese because of their genetic make-up. Thus, it’s extremely difficult to find cheese here and there are virtually no pizza parlors here, let alone a deep dish one. Thus, my choice for dinner this evening (that is, what I can will to be) is actually very limited based on my environment and genetically determined traits. Local control such as this illustrates that humans can make choices but that they are in no way “free” in the traditional sense of contra-causal.
And, just because people have local and very limited control over their behavior and are a part of nature, it does not follow that there exists a greater Natural Will or intelligence that is orchestrating the whole thing. I will add, however, that if there were such an intelligence, humans would have even less control over what they do than they have right now.
Now, before you accuse me of it, I’ll state flat-out: I am a determinist, not a fatalist. If you do not understand the difference, look it up.
At no time did I claim animals and humans “only” try to survive and procreate. Go back and look at my comment if you don’t believe me. Procreation is, however, a common activity for many. However, as a product of evolution, the species in nature have developed very complex relationships and abilities that assist them (as a species) in surviving more comfortably and reproducing their genetic material more often over generations than they could do alone. Now, your paragraph here is muddling together many different uses of the word “purpose” in English. So I’ll ask you straight out: How are you defining purpose here? And what did you mean when you said, “Perhaps, gayness is a way for humanity to self correct itself on its ultimate course–kind of like a rudder in a current–I think we’re not even ready to ask the question let alone answer it” (emphasis added)?
I took “ultimate course” to mean that in your mind, humans have a defined ultimate capital-P Purpose in life, a Reason, if you will, for being the way we are in relation to the cosmos. I do not believe this is the case. The visible universe is a sphere with a diameter of roughly 93 billion light-years. The earth, on the other hand, is 0.0000000013483602 light-years in diameter, accounting for, roughly, 0.0000000000000000000145% of the visible universe. I’d say, to call us insignificant is giving us way, way, way too much credit. The laws of physics do not require us, and the universe will continue, life will evolve on other planets, aliens will have this conversation (but about themselves), long, long, looooooong after humanity is gone. But, hey, that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun while we’re here! At least dolphins get group sex….
Cosmically speaking, however, yes, we are worthless.
Complexity is a product of evolution, which, as shown by my flower example, occurs without any self-awareness necessary. I agree that “natural selection” is an unfortunate term because it implies some manner of consciousness behind the selection. But that’s the term Darwin chose. Rest assured that when evolutionary biologists use it, they use it in a specific context, outside the realm of conscious choice.
It certainly does get complicated when you type while you’re having a seizure. I hope you’re OK.
Nothing pops up into existence in evolution; that’s creationism. A species that has encoded in its DNA the operations necessary to reproduce itself will always be much, much, much, much, much more prevalent in a population than a species that has no mechanism to further reproduce itself, since after that first generation the non-reproducing DNA will just … breakdown and stop. Similarly, a species that has encoded on its DNA not only the operations necessary to reproduce itself but also the desire to carry those operations out will be much, much, much, much, much, more prevalent in a population than a species that has the necessary operations but not a drive to carry them out. Therefore, a species that has the operations and the drive to carry them out will always win out over time in terms of existing–a major change in environment notwithstanding. That’s science, baby. That “drive to breed”–that’s our instinct. Been with us the whole time.
Your next paragraph is long, so I’ll just list your questions:
If you’re serious about learning about evolution, I recommend you find a book explaining the subject in detail. Might I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth or The Selfish Gene or The Making of the Fittest or Why Evolution Is True or Evolution: The First Four Billion Years … in fact, just search Amazon.com for “evolution.” You’ll find lots of useful books. You might even be able to get them at your local library! Hell, you could Wikipedia it if you really wanted to.
I’m … not sure I understand your argument. You say:
OK …
OK …
OK …
Nope, here’s where you lose me. You seem to be saying that the older an artifact is, the higher the probability for finding it is. But it should be interpreted as odds-against For instance, if the odds of, I dunno … me shooting a can in your backyard are a billion to one (that is once every billion times I take a shot, I will hit it), and the odds that you’ll shoot a can in your backyard are ten to one (that is, once out of every ten shots you take, you’ll hit it), over time, you will hit many, many more cans than me. So … the higher the odds-against number is, the lower the probability is of that event happening.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but … that’s what I’m going with.
Well … because it’s … it’s … evolving. That’s what evolution is: changes in the genetic material of an organism over generations.
They died. Lizards, alligators, and crocodiles (as well as many mammals, birds, insects, bacteria, and aquatic lifeforms) were able to survive because they could live off the detritus (that is, non-living organic material) that was created by the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. The creatures that died were the ones that depended on large quantities of living organic material. You can Wikipedia “extinction of the dinosaurs” or “Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event” for a more detailed explanation. What probably happened was an asteroid impact or increased volcanic activity–something that kicked enough shit into the atmosphere to block out the sun and severely hinder photosynthesis, killing anything that depended on that photosynthesis (or whose food depended on it) in the process.
Well … you already named a few: lizards, alligators, crocodiles … also many dinosaurs evolved into birds. Sharks have been around even longer than lizards….
You’ve missed the fact that species only adapt to their local environment, so long as they stay in that environment. If they move or if their environment changes, they are often screwed. Just look at the polar bears. Also, the more a species adapts for its own survival, the more its predators adapt to better hunt it as well. Also, new animals can be introduced into an environment playing all kinds of hell with the balance of the ecosystem. Humans have done that quite a few times (see: the dodo).
Well, like I said earlier, I’m a determinist. Humans have local control but not absolute free will. Given our capacity to suffer and feel happiness, I’d define something as “good” if it maximizes a person’s or group’s happiness and minimizes their suffering. I don’t know about “natural.” Things get too wishy-washy given the diversity in humanity produced by nature. That’s why I don’t use the “natural” argument as justification for an action. That was you. Again, I didn’t say animals and humans “only” strive to exist and breed. Try to read what I write next time.
As for sexism. Sexism is something that restricts humans in general from determining their own lives and making their own choices (within the bounds of what is already determined by genetics and the environment, of course), based on sex alone. That is, sexist ideologies and sexist people attempt to restrict men and women to specific roles within a society based on the (cosmic) accident of which reproductive organs they have. Sometimes sexism can benefit a group. For instance, traditional gender roles in our society state that women are not fighters; therefore, women are not eligible for the draft. Unfortunately, what is beneficial for one sex, is usually detrimental for another (for instance … only men are drafted to fight in wars). I say “humans in general” because I do advocate such programs as affirmative action. The reason is because our society works as a product of many societal forces, all vying to determine the course of a person’s life (again: determinism). Affirmative action, however, works on a systemic level to counteract already racist or sexist societal systems.
In short, sexism, I have noticed, usually increases a group’s suffering, which I define as bad. Therefore, I work to counteract it.
Now … c’mon … be honest … how hard were you looking for proof?
Chris says:
January 12, 2010 at 5:46 am
“… But, again, I tip my hat to you. That is a childish and manipulative way of trying to control what people perceive me to have said…”
Hi Chris: There was no attempt at manipulation, I tried to condense your post to make it as short as possible trying to keep the meaning intact without having people go back to read your post as to what you said. The moderators have been very kind to both of us because this is not directly related to the website’s Mission Statement,” and therefore could very easily be construed as off topic. I’m really not interested in playing children’s games, and I consider myself an adult. And quite frankly you are not important enough in my life to attempt to manipulate.
…”But on to your questions….”
Can you explain the Theory of Random Chance ?
“… I doubt Nature does anything without reason,” and this after chastising me for anthropomorphizing animals. Your statement implies that there is a guiding intelligence behind the natural world, that some entity (we’ll call it … Mother Nature) is orchestrating everything that happens in order to fulfill your “prime directive.” This is false. If nature is a symphony with animals and plants as its instruments and Mother Nature as its conductor, it is a symphony of death and decay, hardly a concert working in perfect harmony.
Also, there is no Theory of Random Chance, so … that’s that. ”
Well Chris: That depends on what you mean by “intelligence” and “reason.” In this sense I defined reason as: “Activity with Purpose.” I was not trying to be anthropomorphic. If there are natural laws in place– then that is my definition. There is nothing wrong with someone attributing human qualities to it but that is not me. When we speak of anthropomorphism, we do not usually include non animals or philosophical concepts. And of course the reason to not anthropomorphize is because it is dangerous to both humans and animals. People can and do always get hurt physically. It is more of a safety issue–at least with me and people that both study and work with animals.
You also have a very simplistic, rudimentary and narrow minded definition of “intelligence”–especially from someone so entralled by science and biology in particular. Many scientists have considerably broadened their definition of intelligence. There are many forms of intelligence and western traditional human problem solving is just one of many forms. 1) creativity, 2) abstract reasoning, 3)sensititivty to external stimuli, 4)survival quotient, 5) the ability for focused work, 6) Intuition, 7) Hunches 8) and the sophisticated reading of body languages are all forms of native intelligence. It was Albert Einstein who, when asked what is the most important characteristic for a world class thinker, said that it was “Imagination.” Furthermore, I would bet my life there are many other forms of intelligence that have yet to be discovered: the working of Ants and Bees are forms of intelligence that are poorly understood.
“…I don’t care one way or the other what people (that is, men and women) consider themselves possessing. Our bodies function within the law of causality. Everything we do can be traced back up a chain of causes. If by “free will” you are postulating that humans can somehow act independently of the causal chain, then you are, alas, mistaken.
I love cheese. Love love love it. Now, I have the ability to will that I eat a deep dish pizza this evening. However, my love of cheese is not a product of my will…”this illustrates that humans can make choices but that they are in no way “free” in the traditional sense of contra-causal.
Now, before you accuse me of it, I’ll state flat-out: I am a determinist, not a fatalist. If you do not understand the difference, look it up….”
Well Chris, this is not Kindergarten, we’re adults so let’s use adult concepts as opposed to Cheese. So, based on your “Law of Casualty,” Can you rephrase the above and explain how your theory fits in the categories of
abstract concepts? (i.e. universes, multi-universes, kindness, compassion, sacrifice, honor? And lastly sacrificing ones life for value-beliefs like the above or to save a friend/s. From my perspective, your definition of the law of causalty just doesn’t seem appropriate–at least not in my life or the life
of my friends. I’ve even seen animals sacrifice themselves for someone or something else. How do you explain this–if people are nothing more than stimulous response creatures or “slaves to the causal chain,” as you indicate?
“…Complexity is a product of evolution, which, as shown by my flower example, occurs without any self-awareness necessary. I agree that “natural selection” is an unfortunate term because it implies some manner of consciousness behind the selection…”
Chris, there are numerous examples of very simple biologic organisms that do not conform to the above theory. They have more genes than humans, and far more complicated DNA structure than humans. So this theory of yours that Complexity is a Product of Evolution is not totally accurate–at least not in every evolutionary case. In any case, your theory is not supported by mainstream biological scientific theory.
“…Nothing pops up into existence in evolution; that’s creationism. A species that has encoded in its DNA the operations necessary to reproduce itself will always be much, much, much, much, much more prevalent in a population than a species that has no mechanism to further reproduce itself, since after that first generation the non-reproducing DNA will just … breakdown and stop. Similarly, a species that has encoded on its DNA not only the operations necessary to reproduce itself but also the desire to carry those operations out will be much, much, much, much, much, more prevalent in a population than a species that has the necessary operations but not a drive to carry them out. Therefore, a species that has the operations and the drive to carry them out will always win out over time in terms of existing–a major change in environment notwithstanding. That’s science, baby. That “drive to breed”–that’s our instinct. Been with us the whole time.
Chris: I am not sure where you got the above from, but it certainly is not from Science. When you say “Creationism,” I’m not sure whether you are talking about Fundamental Christian concepts of ” Creating out of nothing, ” or whether you are saying that (as Darwin hypothesized) natural selection is always paramount and it is evolutionary natural selection that makes the evolutionary decision. In either case, Darwin has been proven incorrect (Scientifically that is) in proposing that natural selection is a process of evolution on only a long term (multiple generational)basis The current fad theory of many biology scientists is that species can immediately adapt and do not necessarily need natural selection in order to further evolutionary goals. For example some species can incorporate immediate (one generation) gene changes that further their survivability quotient–and it can work just the opposite (by opposite, I mean that an organism can make a decision that immediately affects their offspring to the negative. This is a concept never conceived of by Darwin and thought to be impossible according to his theory). And, it does not have to be a direct result of their environment. It can be because of poor choices. I’ll give you the same courtesy that you gave me: May I suggest you looking it up in “Wikipedia?” Try under “EPIGENETICS.”
“…How is it possible that evolution does not appear to conform to the laws of mathematics? Maybe I misunderstood you, but … that’s what I’m going with…”
Yes Chris you did misunderstand me, but that was entirely my fault. What I meant was more in the line of the Laws of Statistical Probability. That is to say we find paleontological evidence in a haphazard manner. Theoretically,
we should be finding much more examples of younger (less older) paleontological evidence as opposed to the much older (now up to 4.5 million years in primates) artifacts that we have. The statistical odds of finding a 4.5 million year old remains as opposed to 1,000 1 million year old remains is relatively much greater. Satistically we should find a lot more of these 1 million year old remains than the 4.5 million year old remains. That is what I meant by not conforming to mathematical probabilities. The point is that the finds are inconsistent with mathematical probabilities and no one knows why. This should be considered a real problem and concern in discussing the history of evolution and paleontology as a method of suporting this theory.
“…Why has no one to date found not one species that we can say remains genetically the same in terms of its genetic evolutionary history?
Well … because it’s … it’s … evolving. That’s what evolution is: changes in the genetic material of an organism over generations…”
Chris, this of course appears accurate, and I don’t dispute it, but my point is that we see no species that is in the process of evolving. By that I mean according to natural selection, there should be much more multi-varied species within a species. For example with the horse, we do not see horses with vestiges of toes of what we believe to have been (let’s say 100,000 years ago. All of our current species are fully evolved– there should (in theory) be much more inter-evolving species if natural selection is as multi-varied and as consistent as they say. We don’t even see it in the most simplistic or the most complicated of organisms. To say: “Well, they have all already evolved..” is a gross oversimplification. At the best, it implies both an incorrect and an incomplete picture of both natural selection and evolution.
“…According to Paleontology, Lizards, Alligators, Crocodiles are all dinosaurs–well if they were able to survive, then what happened to all the other dinosaurs? They died. Lizards, alligators, and crocodiles (as well as many mammals, birds, insects, bacteria, and aquatic lifeforms) were able to survive because they could live off the detritus (that is, non-living organic material) that was created by the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. The creatures that died were the ones that depended on large quantities of living organic material. You can Wikipedia “extinction of the dinosaurs” or “Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event” for a more detailed explanation. What probably happened was an asteroid impact or increased volcanic activity–something that kicked enough shit into the atmosphere to block out the sun and severely hinder photosynthesis, killing anything that depended on that photosynthesis (or whose food depended on it) in the process…”
Sure Chris, the above makes a lot of sense–to a five year old! Are you telling me that every dinosaur that ever lived has died–what an incredible coincidence!!!!! And they all died the same way–by a big mean ‘BAD ASTEROID,” and they all died at the same time–what another amazing coincidence!!! And Gee, look here– that “giant asteroid’ didn’t kill everything!!! only the poorly designed dinosaurs–everything else lived–how incredibly convenient for humans mammals and everything else that survived!!!! Oh and by the way, we were fortunate–Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were able to evolve as well–hooray for the children of the world!!!!
“…As for sexism. Sexism is something that restricts humans in general from determining their own lives and making their own choices (within the bounds of what is already determined by genetics and the environment, of course), based on sex alone. That is, sexist ideologies and sexist people attempt to restrict men and women to specific roles within a society based on the (cosmic) accident of which reproductive organs they have. Sometimes sexism can benefit a group. For instance, traditional gender roles in our society state that women are not fighters; therefore, women are not eligible for the draft. Unfortunately, what is beneficial for one sex, is usually detrimental for another (for instance … only men are drafted to fight in wars). I say “humans in general” because I do advocate such programs as affirmative action. The reason is because our society works as a product of many societal forces, all vying to determine the course of a person’s life (again: determinism). Affirmative action, however, works on a systemic level to counteract already racist or sexist societal systems. In short, sexism, I have noticed, usually increases a group’s suffering, which I define as bad. Therefore, I work to counteract it.
Well Chris. Your theory (above) sounds to me kind of like the theory of “being a little bit pregnant.” You either are or you are not. What ever happened to your “Law of Causalty?” Remember? Humans are essentially products of “the chain of causalty.” According to you, Chris, ..”everything we do can be traced back to a chain of causes…” Well if that is true Chris. than there can be no “Sexism,” since Sexism would imply that we would have choices above and beyond the “chain of causes.” Furthermore, if by some bizarre chance you were able to muddle these two diametrically opposed theories into making sense and conveniently believed that there is such a thing as Sexism; than it most certainly could not be wrong (as you stated), since it must have in some way fulfilled our biological Dawinian desire for “survival of the fittest,” thru “Natural Selection (of course a term that you would not use, but Darwin did.”). And therefore men and women are doing nothing more than fulfilling our biological destiny. Right?????
My theory is that Sexism is nothing more than a tool used by the weak to
make the strong feel guilty about inherent advantages. We see (and now finally we are getting back on-topic) that when a woman cries sexism, what she is really saying is: “Hey wait, you are winning, and I don’t like it.” For men to even believe in sexism is both unproductive and dangerous and of course thoroughly effeminate. I have been very fortunate in my life and continue to be in a situation where women gravitate to my masculinity. It is the nature of a woman to criticize and dispise the masculinity of men–but like the moth to the flame, they are unerringly attracted to it. The reality is that they obsess about it. They think about it constantly. Everything they do is structured in trying to obtain it, corral it and dominate it…posses it. My luck is being in an industry in which those women that have a predisposition or sensitivity for the horse–because the horse is so incredibly masculine–are of course natural targets. The other part is because of how I am built–my size and my strength. It never ceases to amaze me the physical reaction I get when I touch a woman on a horse to help her with a movement that she is having difficulty with. She literally visably changes when I touch her calf, thigh, leg, stomach or small of back. When I help her on a horse, you can see the anxiety–because of her physical reaction. Women–real women– even the hysterical “neurosiscized” Western women–really visibly and physically react to a male’s aura. Of course I am being a professional and there is no sexual overtones for me. I am interested in technique, but not these women! For most of these women, it is a matter of fantasy. Not only do women want sexism, they crave it. Without trying to be mean spirited or unkind of even making a personal attack, I think only a fool believes in sexism. I certainly do not believe Chris to be a fool, perhaps we are talking about something else, but what a man defines as Sexism and what a woman defines as sexism is something totally different. If you don’t believe in the Yin and the Yan, you don’t know much about women. At best, the term “Sexism,” is an artificial creation by an effete bourgeois populace that really has no place in rational discussion. The reason it is inherently dangerous to men is because men are biologically programmed to be very sensitive to negative and positive comments from women. Men (heteros) crave the verbal validation of women. There is a childlike naivete that can damage their delicate psyches. Believing in sexism can cause all kinds of bizarre dysfunctional problems. I’m talking about social insecurities, neurosis, feelings of sexual inadequacies and sexual dysfunction. If you are a hetero, do not believe in concepts such as sexism. As all women know, men are very easily manipulated–that is their Achilles Heel. When a woman wants to talk to me about sexism, I usually laugh and walk up, grab her around the waste–hard– and stroke her ass an attempt to pinch her breast (in a loving way of course)–that usually ends the topic very quickly. I do this is a mocking funny jokester type way that cannot be construed as sexual harassement all the while talking in a very heavy French accent saying something like “I desire to kiss your neck,” –and while holding her very tightly so she can feel the bulge of my bicep (yes, I have done it a number of times!! all the while trying to jamb my lips onto her neck. You will either get a horrified shriek or a incredible laugh–depending what I get is how hard I continue to pursue my objective–not to kiss her neck, but to have her feel the power of my masculinity. I don’t stop until a woman “gets it.” Then of course I will let go. I’m not interested in physical contact, but mental domination. When a woman sees that you cannot be intimidated by such juvenile tactics, they usually back off. Unless she is Lesbian, a woman, while outwardly angry, secretly enjoys the attention. It validates her femininity. It makes her feel desired and reinforces her primal desire to be a woman. Don’t do this at work however since a woman is also very tactically aware. It will be used to her utmost advantage and you will definitely be terminated. Because I speak the language of the horse, it is very easy for me to utiilize non verbal subliminal
body language techniques that women are especially vulnerable to. Women are very detail conscious in a subconscious way. They react to the slightest
difference in pressure, the slightest turn of your head. If you want to learn the ultimate seduction techniques, learn the language of the horse. I truly believe that the average man only picks up about 40 per cent of what a woman unconsciously conveys. Most women are not even aware of the conversation going on between she and a man. Truly my only regret in my life is that I did not learn the language sooner. I would have bed a lot more women than I have. When you realize that essentially a woman is just a whore than the idea of sexism is laughable. And no, I certainly do not mean this in the negative sense. A woman wants to be treated like a lady but handled like a whore. A woman’s primary duty is to spread her legs. That is what God created her for. I did not learn this from women , but I did learn it from the horse. In my experience the brain of a horse is exactly like the mind of a woman. They think exactly alike–who knew??? Why don’t they teach you this in school?
“…I’m not saying that I don’t believe in Evolution. I am saying that the Masculine side of me wants it proved to me in a tight unified theory. To date no one has been able to do this. So for me, it becomes an intriguing theory, but nothing more.
“…Now … c’mon … be honest … how hard were you looking for proof?…”
Well Chris, apparently a lot harder than you have. You see, it is decidedly a masculine trait to give all things rational measured thought. The Scientific Method is to consider ALL POSSIBILITIES and see if the theories fit in ALL VARIABLES. Much of what Darwin says is Accurate, but some of it remains to be proven and therefore may or may not be accurate. And until it is proven true, a rational person leaves room for other possiblities and the probability that these theories–as we know them today–will be proven either incorrect, misleading or false. Once you get a little older and (hopefully) wiser you will find that there is a very big difference between Accuracy and Truth. For truth allows us to see things as they truly are–and that is the ultimate goal for a thinking rational man.
Certain mammals survived the ‘asteroid’ because they were of small size, able to hide in small holes deep in the ground and required little food. Also many were omnivorous or vegetarian, making the lack of other animals to eat not crippling, unlike dinosaurs which all were carnivorous.
What killed some of the dinosaurs, besides the nuclear winter that followed, was the lack of food to maintain their large weight.
Also: Animals adapt when there is a need to do so. People who live in high altitude have better lungs able to filter oxygen better and avoid the light-headedness most other people would feel atop a mountain. This is a form of adaptation.
If the great north’s ice continues to thin, the few animal species living there will need to move down south and adapt their menu to include other animals, different types of fish, and if needed in their new environment, their claws, fangs and fur may change over generations to adapt to the new climate. Those that don’t adapt will simply die, this is why you won’t see ‘old polar bears’ and ‘new polar bears’, the ‘old ones’ will be dead.
Although this is way of topic I just have to point out that many dinosaurs were not carnivorous, one example is the large Apatosaurus.
To maintain its 10+ ton weight, it had to eat entire trees though. I’m pretty sure elephants also weren’t that widespread after that asteroid thingy 65 million years ago even being 20% of that weight.
Language issue.
One thing I love about Indonesian is the lack of male/female pronouns “dia” works fine for just about everybody.
I’m watching US shows lately , and seeing the charachters struggle over “he” vs. “she” in transgendered cases. It’s almost painful.
What is the big problem?
In Japan, the suffix -san is used for both men and women (and children of both sexes) as a matter of respect (basically everyone but your friends or hierarchical superiors, who may use -kun or -chan, depending).
The basic respect when dealing with trans people is using the pronoun they identify with. Some people have a problem with that sometimes though.
English does have some annoying quirks, ZoBabe. The absence of an indeterminate gender pronoun for persons is one, as you point out. The lack of a distinct 2nd person plural pronoun is another (other than “y’all”, which is a Southern slang term and will mark the user as uneducated).
On the up side, we don’t apply gender to everything like, say, France, where they do it in such a haphazard fashion that “vagina” ends up being male.
ballgame: Considering gendered articles, I was at a fun event last Tuesday, people improvising speeches to given Powerpoint Presentations. One presentation was about German articles, explaining that “der” is a) used for persons of the male sex, as in “Der Mann, der König, der Mensch, …”, which translates as “the man, the king, the *human*”.
If a feminist had been there (other than undecided/ironic me), this could have been taken as proof that the maker of the presentation does not consider women to be human. Undecided me rather guessed that the maker’s grasp of the German language was a bit less firmer than the maker thought (s/he also grammatically neutered a boy).
Oh, and b) was that things without sex (no, not virgins) also can be preceded b a “der”, like “der Tisch”, “the table”.
Also, I can’t think of a common German word for “vagina” that isn’t grammatically female, although the German word for “clitoris” is – but it seems to me that the German word “Kitzler” is widely replaced by “Clitoris”, which is a) far less silly-embarassing-sounding and b) of female gender.
clitoris and vagina are male in French (my first language)
Arm is male, Leg is female, hair (as in one hair) is male, clitoris is male, penis is male, person is female, human is male.
Grammatical gender has little to do with actual people’s gender. The tendency for people to accord it with actual gender is an artifact of the obsession with sex/gender that people have.
First witness: People’s obsession about knowing a newborn’s sex.
Second witness: People’s obsession about knowing a baby (not newborn, but not child)’s sex. And their obsession with being angry if their presumption of sex doesn’t match the actual sex of the baby (because of hair length/style or clothes color).
Third witness: People’s obsession about “sex appropriate behavior” for children, especially concerning toys (dolls vs GI Joe figurines for example).
I don’t identify as an MRA, though I have, at times, called myself a “feminist critic” a few times.
MRA just has *way* too many anti-intellectual and right-wing connotations, unfortunately, to hang with. And I have yet to come across any MRA writers who’s work has particularly resonated with me.
As to feminism, I don’t identify as either feminist or anti-feminist because I find the whole thing such a mixed bag. Basically, I think Ellen Willis and Susie Bright are the greatest, and if that was feminism, I’d be completely on board with it. On the other hand, Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Twisty Faster, and the like make me simply want to hurl. And yet all of this gets called “feminism”. So I can’t exactly say either “Yay” or “Nay” to the whole package. (Of course, when I encounter some particularly belligerent feminists who tell me that if I’m not totally for them, I’m against them, in those situations I say “against” and leave it at that.)
ballgame: The lack of a distinct 2nd person plural pronoun is another (other than “y’all”, which is a Southern slang term and will mark the user as uneducated).
So English-speakers need to figure out “you singular” vs “you plural” based on context? Oh no, not that!
But, to be serious, in Chinese (which I been familiar with for almost a decade and a half now) the pronoun “ta” is a gender neutral pronoun meaning “he” or “she”. OOH, THAT MUST BE GREAT, RIGHT??? Well, a person’s sex needs to be figured-out by context just like singular/plural “you”. With “ta”, if the person is unknown to you and there aren’t enough contextual clues around, there’s simply no way of knowing a person’s sex unless some other information enters. Since there is slightly less information being carried by “ta”, I don’t think it is substantially superior to using “he” and “she”. In fact, just to indicate that this information might have some usefulness, Chinese does make this gender distinction in writing even though the “ta” pronunciation is the same. (他/她)
English is a marvelously flexible and adaptive language (see how many new words that the software/biotech fields have created in the last 30 years alone!) and yet, there just isn’t much demand for a gender-neutral pronoun. Really makes me wonder whether it’s truly worth it.
Incidentally, if “social hierarchies” are bad (and that seems to be the consensus on feminist blogs as well as on FC where it’s just wrong for someone to be obligated to defer to another person, unless one of them can claim a link to discrimination of some sort) I do not recommend the Korean language or the Korean culture for that matter. When two Koreans meet for the first time and it’s not clear who the older one is, one of the first things they trade is how old they are. The younger person starts using polite forms and the older person can use less-polite forms. And- GASP! A social hierarchy has formed! Power disparities! Someone is inferior to someone else! Oh NOES!!!!
Culturally, however, Indonesians just love enquiring about why you got fat, or skinny, or are married, or not, and again, “why?”
So, I’m not trying to insinuate that the market language of Indonesia holds some political apple for English (my first love) to reach.
Just that it can make things easier, day to day.
When it comes to pronouns, I’m 100% with Schala. If a person wants to be she, she is. If a person wants to be he, he is.
If you’re confused…. withhold judgment until you know the person better. In the meantime, try their name?
Or tell dry twats to fuck of as well…
OMFG W, aren’t you just suddenly fascinating?
[I just pulled the comment that apparently prompted this comment, FWIW. —ballgame]