Christmas draws nearer, and as is to be expected, things get busier. Grades were finally turned in yesterday. A few small presents remain to be bought; I expect to have them done by tomorrow afternoon. On Sunday, I’ll be off to England for ten days, for a family New Year’s gathering in Exeter.
I don’t know what to do about this fellow who, using various internet addresses, posts here and elsewhere as "Hugo." He is what is evidently to be referred to as a troll, and seems part of the movement of MEN (Misogynistic Embittered Neanderthals, and I say that with sincere affection.) I do trust that my readers are clever enough to distinguish my comments from his! Right?
UPDATE: It is interesting to note that men’s rights guys tend to use the same slurs in coming after pro-feminist men. Their attacks seem to fall into one of four categories:
1. Pro-feminist men are lapdogs; weak, frightened, and under the control of strong, feminist women.
2. Alternatively, pro-feminist men are "wolves in sheep’s clothing", sexual predators using a facade of compassion to attract victims. Pro-feminism is a slick tactic designed to help "score" with certain women.
3. Pro-feminist men are gay, and thus not "real men".
4. Pro-feminist men are filled with self-loathing. To be involved in the feminist movement is likened to psychological self-castration. Pro-feminist men are filled with rage at other males (perhaps rooted in bad experiences with their fathers, or being picked on after school), and thus align themselves with feminists to get revenge.
Most of the vitriol tends to place men in the movement into one or more of these four categories. Feel free to classify the troll attacks accordingly!
Do you have any idea the cognitive dissonance I deal with? I am timid, and passive — yet predatory. I am gay — yet controlled by the women with whom I am in relationship. And all of my work with men and boys is really a cover for my own intense self-hatred. I get a headache just thinking about it!
Anyhow…
Things I’ve been reading:
Ralph Luker at Cliopatria on Martin Luther King and plagiarism (new insight — from an expert — on the old story).
The growing number of "Top 5" posts at Bob Carlton’s place, from bloggers familar to me and new. I still am happy with my own top five, though I have certainly got a few runners up of which I am proud, like this and this.
Jenell Paris has a very interesting review of the emerging church movement’s hot new book, A Generous Orthodoxy. She gently points out some of its shortcomings, along with strengths.
Lisa at Feminist Mormon Housewives has this provocative post on anger, vindictiveness, and forgiveness.
Graham at Leaving Munster provides a useful thumbnail sketch of anabaptism.
Amanda has a fine feminist analysis of "it’s a Wonderful Life".
Lynn, in a long and superb post, touches on mercy and sexuality, among other things.
Think of it this way, Hugo: you know you have “arrived” in the blogosphere when the trolls come out to play.
Merry Christmas and have a great trip!
Hugo why do you flatter your enemies? They so constantly lie to you. They say you will gain women in your quest to appease them, but you do not gain women. They deny you any possibility of a sweet wife (or multiple sweet wives, but they deny you even one). They demand that you submit to domeneering women. They say that you are evil for want of a good female. Why do you flatter them? They hate you and wish you only ill… they seek to keep you captive and obedient, on a hook everlast.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
There’s always the other sort of “ignore”, the one where no one responds to nonsense.
Personally, I would find it flattering. You’ve hit a nerve, and isn’t that what good writing is supposed to do? Touch people in some way?
That’s because the vast majority of the trolls are the same 3-4 guys, who just use a bunch of different posting names to make it look like they have huge numbers. At feministing, many of them “disappeared” after Jessica pointed out to them that using different names doesn’t disguise their IP addresses from her.
Proxies and shells would disguise the IPs, perhapse that is too much effort to waste on feminists though.Jessica isn’t so greatly smart because she can see those IP addresses, don’t pat yourselves on the back. Now on your feminist bulliten boards I can see all the IP addresses that read certain posts, and not by any “hacking”, just by being clever, and I am no admin of said boards. I’m sure none of you will figure it out, but know that you are not safe or anonomyous on those boards.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
I hate to sound as though I’m sticking up for a troll, but it bears noting that the four categories of attacks you identified are not mutually contradictory, unless each is prefaced with the word “all.” Otherwise, there’s nothing particularly odd about arguing that some pro-feminist men are wimps, while others are playing into the politics of getting laid, while others still are either gays or self-loathing straights. The categories are not completely exclusive of each other, either; a wimp trying to get laid may do so by spouting feminist dogma, while a non-wimp will rely on a “manlier” (though not necessarily more successful) strategy than that.
Not saying any of these theories are right, just that they’re not necessarily wrong solely because they are different from each other.
You know this troll would have been much more effective with some subtilty and brains. I was confused for about half a second but as soon as “you” cursed me with plagues I figured it for a troll.
Now a smart troll with this kind of aimless vindictiveness could wreak havoc. But I wonder if trolldom by nature only attracts the adamently stupid.
make that “affective”
doh
double doh, “effective”. Sorry, I was up all night with a nine month old with double ear infections. I have very few brain cells left.
XRLQ, I agree that they aren’t all mutually contradictory. I’m just pointing out the taxonomy of defamation strategies. Some are internally contradictory, some aren’t. Any man who has worked for gender justice, however, has been on the receiving end of most, not necessarily all, of these four.
First thing that comes to mind: don’t the sad gits have anything better to do?
I know you and thisgirl have your reasons for putting up with the trolls, but the few I get just get deleted (so far, by my apparently-prescient anti-spam plugin). The way I see it, I’m not paying for webspace for some sad little person to write misogynistic drivel on.
As for the contradictory attacks…I would say they’re just not very bright, but that might not be strictly true. What does seem certain, though, is that they don’t think very deeply, or very much at all, in fact.
They seem to be heartened in some way by my pointing out that the same I.P. posts under five different names, often referring to each other! Bizarre.
Hugo, at least they haven’t asked you the world’s dumbest question yet; “How would you feel if your mother had aborted you?”. I mean, different stances on the abortion debate aside, that really is roll-on-floor-laughing material right?
Indeed, thisgirl. I wonder what answer they expect to that particular question? After all, I am hesitantly and ambivalently pro-life — but no serious members of the consistent life movement would ever dream of such a question, except as a bit of gallows humor.
Hugo when will you get into thisgirl’s pants (she dosn’t wear skirts). I doubt she will ever let you aquire what you want to have.
http://www.cafepress.com/ribboncandle
Buy a teddy bear for her
Before I continue my no-doubt futile efforts to ban you, ersatz Hugo, can I put you down as using #2 from the above list of slurs?
Hey, other men’s rights fellas — I take your silence in response to this Hugo as support for his tactics. No doubt you will let me know if that is fair or not.
Um, someone kept posting under different names but the same IP address, and you call *Jessica* stupid for seeing that? Huh.
Well, at least we know this “Hugo” guy is the one who kept whining that thisgirl is wowed into bed with him by his abuse. One does wonder how frustrating it must be to want to have sex so badly with members of a sex you hate so much.
Teehee, I love the emails I get saying “You’re an evil feminazi.. you could be saved though.. got any more pics?”
WHY are you guys giving this guy the negative attention he so desperately craves? Each time you respond to him, you reinforce the behavior. I suppose I am doing the same with this post. Nuf said by me on this topic.
Hey, other men’s rights fellas — I take your silence in response to this Hugo as support for his tactics. No doubt you will let me know if that is fair or not.
It’s not fair. You don’t speak out against all the evils in the world. (You can’t because there are too many of them.) I would not equate that failure to speak out with support for the status quo.
Jeff JP
Not saying any of these theories are right, just that they’re not necessarily wrong solely because they are different from each other.
In the abstract, no, but when trotted out one after another when direct at the same person or persons, they are. You can say that feminist men are emasculated/gay/players/whatever, but as soon as you start piling on Hugo for being a pussywhipped, homosexual player, it starts to look silly.
Lord, have mercy on us all. This men’s rights business is disturbing. I’m all for parental rights for men, but this group sounds more like property use rights (the property being women) for male pleasure-seeking without responsibilty-taking for any OOOPS–just get an abortion, honey.
I’m pro-feminist, male, partnered to another man (e.g. gay) with a seemless web pro-life approach to things. Does that make me less a man? Wimpy? Not in the slightest. In fact, from what I can see here, these so-called men’s rights folks haven’t yet begun to grow up: compassion, treating others as you yourself would like to be treated (not as mere objects for pleasure), self- and other- respect, commitment, bridling the passions–these are what make for grown-up men (and women for that matter). But then, my definition of what makes a man (or woman) is rooted in reflection on Christ.
And what is a self-loathing straight (man)? A man who doesn’t think women are there only for his use, but are persons with agency, who properly treated are committed to through thick and thin, who doesn’t ask her to get an abortion if she becomes pregnant? I certainly strive not to treat other gay men merely for my use, having chosen to bridle my passions through committed monogamy. Does that make me a self-loathing gay man? Pppllleeeaaassseee! Lord, have mercy on us all.
Christopher, I like that: “property use rights” rather than authentic “men’s rights.”
Thanks for the terrific, thoughtful comment.
don’t delete my posts fool
“women as property” is really old and tired, and this is not what “men’s rights” is about.
even MFJ does not seek to make women into “property” and MFJ does not represent all “MRAs”.
i am not an “MRA” myself
(for various reasons)
but i do read their stuff.
and from what i saw most of them don’t aren’t “conservative”.
i am not a “conservative” either, i am not religious, and i don’t believe in the awesomeness of marriage.
i also think that having a working wife would be cooler than a non-working one.
it’s all about her approach to marriage, not about whether she works or not.
this is not the 30s or something, “putting women back in the kitchen” is simply impossible because they are about half of the workforce.
MRAs are dedicated to fighting misandry in culture and discrimination (or what they perceive as discrimination) in some areas,
not to “subjugating” women.
i also think that having a working wife would be cooler than a non-working one
Then, when you’re out of college and ready to marry, get a “working” wife. You’re going to run into problems if your wife is at home, taking care of the children and running the household, and you’re firmly of the opinion that she doesn’t “work.”
the real question is why the hell do i need such a wife.
without a wife i will have no children and “household” to take care of.
however, without me this wife still would have to do all these things, but without my paycheck !
ask any single mother, it’s true.
Hm. I did ask a single mother once how it was after she kicked out her husband for his multiple affairs, and she said it was pretty much the same as before, except she had less laundry to do.
Having done both, I think the breadwinner thing is definitely the better gig. It’s great to have somebody else do my laundry, make the meals, and vacuum the carpet. I’m not, however, dumb enough to jeopardize my excellent setup by telling my spouse that he doesn’t “work.”
shinrikyou,
The problem I see is in thinking only of how your wife benefits YOU. That is the underlying gist of my critique in using “property rights” as a metaphor for this USE model of relationship, which has indeed grown quite old and tired. And it’s not about conservative or liberal…USE can be seen in both stances. Besides, these labels mean so much, they mean nothing at all these days. I’ve been labeled both, and really find that neither fully applies.
From here though in matters of sexual responsibility, liberal these days seems to often mean libertine, not a generous and thoughtful application of handed-on values (the essence of tradition) to specific persons in specific circumstances in given historical settings. And conservative seems to often mean a hardened application of yesteryear’s understanding of tradition to vastly different circumstances and historical settings.
Growing up, my mother was a working woman. She nursed us, changed our diapers, watched us all day, did our laundry, cooked our meals, got us off to school, did art with us, read us stories, got us to bed on time. So if you’ve ever worked with little ones on a day-in, day-out basis, you find out real quick this is the most exhausting and rewarding work there is. I discovered this as a teaching assistant for two years working with first and second grade children.
And mythago is correct, studies show that in general women who hold down a job outside the home are most likely to also do the vast majority of the work at home. So when all of those husbands and fathers start carrying their weight at home after a long day at the plant or office alongside their wives who’ve just come home from a hard day at the plant or office, then we can talk misandry.
i also think that having a working wife would be cooler than a non-working one
Make sure you have plenty of batteries on hand, then.
So which is it? Should shirinkyou want a working wife or one that stays at home?
BTW, I believe it’s a possiblity that many feminist men are deeply homophobic and self loathing.
I base this on the fact that many of them express extreme discomfort both with the presence of other men and their own bodies. But they aren’t the only subset of men who do this, the traditionally “masculine” straight man also has a tendancy towards this.
Just to continue the comment… there is a difference between feminist men and “masculine” straight men. The MSM(hehe) seems to project his homophobia outward while in the company of his male friends in order to mask their intimacy. Feminist men avoid other men entirely so their homophobia need not be overtly expressed.
So which is it? Should shirinkyou want a working wife or one that stays at home?
He’s welcome to want any division of household labor he likes, whether it’s both of them sharing the breadwinning and housework, or one of them acting as breadwinner and the other working at home. And he’s welcome to choose either role, so long as both of them are satisfied; it’s certainly no one else’s business. Either he’ll find a woman with whom he can reach a satisfactory agreement, or he won’t.
But whichever division of labor he prefers, stay-at-home parenting is work and not freeloading.
Moreover, I have a bit of a problem with a man who both claims (over in the Manpower thread) that birth control is no benefit to him, and (in this thread) that childcare is no benefit to him. Unless he wants to spend the rest of his life not having sexual intercourse, he is either going to need birth control, or someone is going to have to take care of the resulting children. (Of course, if he really does prefer sex acts other than intercourse, I’ll withdraw my remark about his inconsistency.)
I’d be interested in finding self-proclaimed “MRAs” who don’t follow the trend set by MFJ and ManPower; I haven’t found any yet.
Feminist men avoid other men entirely so their homophobia need not be overtly expressed.
Actually, I know quite a lot of feminist men/male allies of feminism who enjoy hanging out with other men. They also aren’t afraid of women and don’t bash women.
Sheelzebub says(in quotes):
“Actually, I know quite a lot of feminist men/male allies of feminism who enjoy hanging out with other men. They also aren’t afraid of women and don’t bash women.”
And how do they act when you’re not around? In other words, how do they act when they are alone with other men, no women around?
Most of the feminist men I know actively avoid being alone with other men, without the company of women. (A woman provides a safe outlet for sexual energy, thus the phenomena of a sole woman being the focus of attention for a group of men. They are probably projecting the homoerotic energy generated by their intimate contact with eachother onto her.)
Typhonblue, given that you have read my blog - and I trust you have - are you accusing me of lying about my fondness for other men? Or of not being sufficiently pro-feminist?
I treasure the men in my life today. I spend lots of time alone with other men — a weekly 6:00AM breakfast with one friend and accountability partner, long runs with what is usually (not always) an all-male group, and membership in a couple of different church-affiliated men’s groups. And then there are the teen boys I work with.
And guess what? When alone with other men, we don’t degenerate into homosocial misogynists. Some of us really do try — and succeed — in matching our language and our life. (I’ve been known to tell a vulgar joke or two, mind you, even in mixed company — but the humor tends more towards the scatalogical rather than the misogynistic.)
Bottom line: authentic pro-feminism is rooted in love for women and men. You can’t do real men’s work if, deep down, you don’t like men. It’s a bit absurd to have to defend one’s friendships, but such is the nature of the blogosphere…
(I’ve been known to tell a vulgar joke or two, mind you, even in mixed company — but the humor tends more towards the scatalogical rather than the misogynistic.)
Fart jokes are *always* funny.
I’m beginning to think that typhonblue is a work of absurdist performance art.
Typhonblu, first you say that pro-feminist men don’t like other men and won’t be around other men. I dispute that, and then you change the argument–oh, they act differently with no woman around.
How would you know? If I’m not mistaken, you stated in another thread that you’re a woman.
Sheelzebub says(in quotes):
“Typhonblue, first you say that pro-feminist men don’t like other men and won’t be around other men. I dispute that, and then you change the argument–oh, they act differently with no woman around.”
Arguments evolve. I overstated when I said “feminist men avoid other men entirely.” Obviously they do not avoid them entirely, that would be impossible. What I was trying to get at was that feminist men avoid intimacy with other men. The kind of homosocial/erotic intimacy one would *only* find in same-sex situations.
Sorry for the confusion.
“How would you know? If I’m not mistaken, you stated in another thread that you’re a woman.”
Because I listen and observe without being obtrusive. And I know how certain men act around other men in mixed company. From that I can make a prediction.
Huh. The pro-feminist men I know manage to hang out with their male friends without turning into a bunch of monkeys. I know because I don’t find the banana peels all over my house when I get home from work and there’s a bunch of guys hanging out here.
What I was trying to get at was that feminist men avoid intimacy with other men. The kind of homosocial/erotic intimacy one would *only* find in same-sex situations.
Do you mean by homosocial/erotic intimacy spouting off misogynist remarks and jokes and the like or group sex or what? As if these are the only options for integrating homoerotic energy. Or are you suggesting that profeminist men are closet cases, as if straight men cannot have homoerotic energy…of course they can, just like I can have heteroerotic energy. Besides, this is not my general experience hanging with my male friends gay and straight. My closest male friends are like brothers, and we hold each other gently but firmly accountable to be better and more Christlike in speaking of others be they women or men. Pretty dang intimate if you ask me.
Most of the feminist men I know actively avoid being alone with other men, without the company of women. (A woman provides a safe outlet for sexual energy, thus the phenomena of a sole woman being the focus of attention for a group of men. They are probably projecting the homoerotic energy generated by their intimate contact with eachother onto her.)
With the men I’m accustomed to hanging out with, they’re comfortable enough with themselves to deal with their homoerotic energy more openly gay or straight, and I know that I certainly don’t project in that direction. Or are you trying to suggest in some roundabout way that all profeminist men are gay…they’re not. Though this one is. Profeminist as I understand the term is at heart really about moving beyond conquest, objectifying values, treating both men and women with dignity.
*Christopher says(in quotes):
“Profeminist as I understand the term is at heart really about moving beyond conquest, objectifying values, treating both men and women with dignity.”
I will answer the rest of your post, but I just wanted to single this bit out.
It isn’t conquest if the prize dictates the conditions.
At last, something Zuzu and I can agree on.
How do you know that I don’t listen and observe without being obtrusive? Or anyone else here who disagrees with you?
Holy circular logic, Batman.
Sheelzebub says(in quotes):
“How do you know that I don’t listen and observe without being obtrusive? Or anyone else here who disagrees with you?
Holy circular logic, Batman.”
And how do feminist men act when you are observing them as unobtrusively as possible?
You will say they act in exactly the manner that supports your conclusion. As will I.
There is no point in a competition of anacdotes.
However, I believe no self-identified straight man escapes self-loathing and homophobia. Some project it outward, some are silent, but allow it to curtail their relationships with other men. Feminist men are no different in this respect then men’s rights activists, some of whom appear to care about *themselves* but not other men. Even gay men can be homophobic, since desire and hatred are often intertwined: using men sexually while avoiding all emotional intimacy.
The pervasiveness of homophobia is the main explaination for the difference in how western men approach same sex relationships and how men of other ethniticities approach same sex relationships.
I’m not accusing anyone of anything, merely pointing out a social construct. Western men have destroyed most of the meaninfulness of their relationships to eachother out of fear of homosexual desire. And because those bonds have been destroyed, men fail to notice when other men are suffering. This failure to notice leads some men to conclude that men have no problems, only women have problems, or — alternatively– that men’s problems are far more minor. Thus the feminist man.
Sometimes you have to care before you can see.
And since I care, for whatever absurdist reason, I’ll tell you what *I’ve* seen. I’ve seen a friend blow his brains out when the expectations of being male overwhelmed him. I’ve seen an uncle fight for custody of a child who was not his — but had lived long enough with him for him to feel like she *was* his — from her abusive and neglectful mother. I’ve seen the courts decide not to grant him custody, although he *was* expected to pay for the child. I’ve taken another friend to the hospital with ugly, self-inflicted wounds, told the admissions staff that they *were* self inflicted and maybe he could use a little psychiatric help. Watched that self-same admissions staff ignore my concern with what I can only describe as cruel indifference. Then listened as yet another friend–this one female– told me that she had been rushed into psychiatric emergency just because of “suicidal ideation”. I’ve dealt with my partner’s disability, the result of years of dickensesque working conditions that almost no western woman suffers. I’ve listened to two men tell me of being raped even though “that doesn’t happen”. I’ve come to the slow and painful realization that my male partner isn’t the way nature intended him– since he’s a victim of genital mutilation– but my concern — that someone dictated for him and for *me* how we would relate sexually — is seen as a joke. I’ve also listened to harrowing stories of abuse suffered by men at the hands of women. And I’ve heard even more stories of abuse suffered by men at the hands of family court.
I’ve seen all this and realized these personal expriences reflect injustices on a societal level. Four times more men then women commit suicide, yet women’s suicide is the more important issue. Men earn more (taking the jobs that kill them), yes, but men also suffer more– 95% of workplace fatailites, 90% of injuries. Men earn more, but women spend more… In almost every single consumer catagory, not just for “nessisary items”. The only catagories men outspend women on are men’s clothes, alcohol, gambling and gifts(for women). Countless studies have showed that women are as abusive as men, yet the male victims of DV are ignored. Boys are more likely to be killed as infants. Boys are far more likely to have routine genital mutilation preformed against them, but only girls are protected legally from it.
At almost every turn men are treated as the disposable sex, the uncared for sex. This bothers me, because I do care.
Feminism has yet to give me a situation in which western women suffer for being women that compares to the suffering of western men for being men.
And I can only conclude that the people who *don’t* see these glaring truths– how men suffer because they are men — don’t care. Apparently it’s irrelevant, because, well, people don’t really *like* men.
Women Like Women More then Men Like Men
Insult away.
(Yes, I already know I have crazy friends.)
Definitely performance art.
zuzu says(in quotes):
“Definitely performance art.”
Performance art with a message.
Of *course* there’s a message! And the message is, “I’m a very, very confused person! Lookit meeeeee!”
I’m just waiting for the melted chocolate and ground glass to come out.
zuzu wrote(in quotes):
“Of *course* there’s a message! And the message is, ‘I’m a very, very confused person! Lookit meeeeee!’”
And why is it you think I’m confused?
How do you measure what “liking” someone means? My cats hide under the bed every time a stranger comes over; they tend, on average, to come out sooner when the stranger is a woman rather than a man. Does this mean my cats like women more? No, it’s probably because women tend to have softer voices and a softer step and therefore seem less threatening to small animals.
My point is this–women are brought up to be more pleasant than men. In fact, it’s probably the number one trait that parents try to instill in girls. As a result, it’s likely that people, like cats, tend to react warmly to those who speak in soft, flattering tones more than those who don’t. And those people tend more often to be women.
Typhonblu, even if what you assert is true–and I don’t think it is–men are the ones who have the lions’ share of the power. The overwhelming majority of our senators and representatives are men. The overwhelming majority of our lawmakers are men. All of our Presidents have been men. The majority of the SC justices are men. The majority of CEO’s, Fortune 500 company executives, and F500 company board members are men. The “disposeable sex?” The “uncared for sex?” Please.
Men suffer from violence because men are raised to be tough and violent. And instead of looking at that critically (which would ally them with us evil, nasty feminists), men’s rights proponents instead focus their rage outward, at women. It’s easier to blame us than work for real change.
Women are accused of victim-tripping when we utter a peep of discontent; and contrary to your opinion, I’ve seen women’s mental illness/suicide be dismissed as histrionics, hysteria, and childishness.
I know of women who lost custody of their kids because they didn’t have the money to fight for them. Their husbands–who worked full time while their wives raised the kids, cleaned the house, and generally took care of everyone–did. (They were able to advance in their careers because they were the cared for sex–not their wives.)
Of course, I suppose you’ll just give me the flip line you did before–”What can I say? People suck.” Not too dismissive, that. Perhaps we can throw that at every example you’ve given. It strikes me that the person who’s being dismissive here is you, and you are being dismissive towards women.
Sheelzebub says(in quotes):
“Typhonblu, even if what you assert is true–and I don’t think it is–men are the ones who have the lions’ share of the power. The overwhelming majority of our senators and representatives are men. The overwhelming majority of our lawmakers are men. All of our Presidents have been men. The majority of the SC justices are men. The majority of CEO’s, Fortune 500 company executives, and F500 company board members are men. The “disposeable sex?” The “uncared for sex?” Please.”
The largest voting group is women. It is political suicide to offend women. Men have been trained throughout their lives to care for women more. It’s called chivalry. So when these men, who have been trained to care for women more and men less, get into power, they benefit women. The most obvious example of this is… feminism itself. Feminism would *never* have happened in a true patriarchy.
As for CEOs, I’ll give you the same speel I give everyone. CEOs don’t make arbitrary decisions to benefit themselves (for the most part), they do what their board of governors tell them to. And their board of governers want only one thing, to please the stockholders. And the stockholders want only one thing: profit. And the only way to get profit is to appeal as much as possible to the consumer. And who are the biggest consumers? Western women. Therefore, through the power of spending, western women pretty much dictate *everything* in our world. From the products that are sold, to the services that are developed, to the content of 95% of movies, tv shows, commercials and consumer magazines, to the layout and atmosphere of the only public gathering places left to us– malls.
“Men suffer from violence because men are raised to be tough and violent. And instead of looking at that critically (which would ally them with us evil, nasty feminists), men’s rights proponents instead focus their rage outward, at women. It’s easier to blame us than work for real change.”
BTW, who is raising men to be tough and violent? And who is encouraging it? As a woman I will never have the experience of my partner manipulating me into fighting another woman so he feels more desirable.
But, regardless, what’s more important to me is that men are raised to consider themselves disposable. The violence that comes out of this — violence mostly directed at other men — is just a symptom. Teach men that they aren’t disposable, and they will treat themselves with more respect and avoid self-destructive behaviors. Violence being a subset of those behaviors.
“Women are accused of victim-tripping when we utter a peep of discontent; and contrary to your opinion, I’ve seen women’s mental illness/suicide be dismissed as histrionics, hysteria, and childishness.”
I assume you mean “attention getting”. Since women attempt suicide more often then men by less-lethal means (btw, in patriarchal India the ratio between women’s attempts and sucessful suicides is closer to *men’s* in our society) there is a school of thought that holds women’s suicide attempts are intended as cries for help.
Considering the difference in success rate between the truly desperate — women in real patriarchies — and western women, I’d say that conclusion has a lot of merit in many cases.
Plus your comparision is disingenous… I doubt any health professional would dismiss suicidal ideation in women without risking his or her job. So I assume you’re talking about people who either are speaking *not* in their capacity as health providers, or aren’t health providers.
“I know of women who lost custody of their kids because they didn’t have the money to fight for them. Their husbands–who worked full time while their wives raised the kids, cleaned the house, and generally took care of everyone–did. (They were able to advance in their careers because they were the cared for sex–not their wives.)”
Strange. As I pointed out to another poster, there are laws in effect in many states that make the higher earning spouce pay for the lower earner, particularly in the case where the lower earning spouce earns nothing at all. I’m not sure why your friends did not take advantage of these laws, but that must have been a choice they decided upon for whatever reason they had since it *is* a resource available to them.
As for your other comment… I suppose you’re of the mind that carrer advancement actually means something. All career advancment means is that the man in question has managed to please consumers(directly or indirectly) better then any other man.
“Of course, I suppose you’ll just give me the flip line you did before–”What can I say? People suck.” Not too dismissive, that. Perhaps we can throw that at every example you’ve given. It strikes me that the person who’s being dismissive here is you, and you are being dismissive towards women.”
I said that in responce to someone suggesting only men abandon responsibilities to their children.
But it’s good that you brought this up because it highlights the essence of what I’m getting at. Most of the situations in which women are hard done by are due to acts that are illegal. And often additional resources exist to help women suffering from those illegal acts.
The situations in which men suffer are not illegal or they are illegal but men do not have anywhere near the same state funded resources to deal with them.
The fact that illegal acts happen is because “people are smeg”, the fact that legal acts happen that hurt certain groups of people is because “society is smeg”.
Big difference.
Amanda says(in quotes):
“My point is this–women are brought up to be more pleasant than men. In fact, it’s probably the number one trait that parents try to instill in girls. As a result, it’s likely that people, like cats, tend to react warmly to those who speak in soft, flattering tones more than those who don’t. And those people tend more often to be women.”
And women are the beneficiaries of being more pleasant as well. Because people who are pleasant are people who are cared about.
BTW, there was a time when the pleasantness of young men *was* important. When a young man was expected to be gracious, humble, poised and polite. That time was ancient greece… a *very* patriarchal society.
CEOs don’t make arbitrary decisions to benefit themselves (for the most part), they do what their board of governors tell them to. And their board of governers want only one thing, to please the stockholders.
Bwahahaha!
First off, Board of Directors. Second, you gotta be kidding me. You think Ken Lay was dictated to by his Board of Directors? You think he and the Board of Directors of Enron were altruistically doing what was in the interest of the shareholders? Bull! Every last one of them was self-dealing, and Enron stock tanked as a result. I don’t know where you get your information, but I’ve actually seen the documents in the Enron case, having worked on it for a while.
You think Bill Gates does what the directors tell him to do? You think Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch did? The whole idea of a CEO is to run the damn business while the part-time board members, if they’re not actually officers of the company, don’t have to be involved.
Really, how old are you? High school? College freshman studying for your first Sociology final? Fresh from a stint in the Young Republicans? You certainly can’t be in B-school.
Zuzu says(in quotes):
“First off, Board of Directors. Second, you gotta be kidding me. You think Ken Lay was dictated to by his Board of Directors? You think he and the Board of Directors of Enron were altruistically doing what was in the interest of the shareholders? Bull! Every last one of them was self-dealing, and Enron stock tanked as a result. I don’t know where you get your information, but I’ve actually seen the documents in the Enron case, having worked on it for a while.”
And everyone of them did something illegal. When a CEO acts outside of the interests of the BoG or BoD(they’re called both, btw)s/he is often acting illegally. Let’s just deal in what society thinks is *legal* shall we?
“You think Bill Gates does what the directors tell him to do? You think Lee Iacocca or Jack Welch did? The whole idea of a CEO is to run the damn business while the part-time board members, if they’re not actually officers of the company, don’t have to be involved.”
BTW, I’ve seen too many CEOs removed by BoDs or BoGs to believe that somehow, somewhere most CEOs aren’t legally responsible to their governing bodies.
Using a few examples of CEOs who built the companies they run — and probably hold majority shares in — is an example of what? That those CEOs couldn’t give two hoots about the bottom line?
Young republican? Strange. I’d imagine a young republican would have more flattering things to say about the consumer system.
You have plenty of flattering things to say about the capitalist system, since you seem to think that it has the best interests of women at heart and that corporations are run for the best interests of the shareholders, even though short-term profit means nothing if the company is so mismanaged or the books are so fraudulent that the stocks will lose value if anyone figures that out. You also seem to think that no corporation acts illegally or unethically.
Women, it may surprise you to learn, don’t vote as a bloc. Like men, they make their own decisions, and sometimes, those decisions aren’t in their best interests. Often that happens because someone — a politician who wants their votes or a company that wants their money — plays on fears and insecurities. Is that being good to women?
The government is pro-woman? Really. Because I never would have known by the way that state legislatures and Congress keep passing laws that restrict access to reproductive services, whether here or abroad (thousands upon thousands of women in poor countries have lost their access to basic medical care because Bush put the global gag rule back in place — his first official act, by the way — which stripped US funding to any organization that provided abortions, even if the US aid was used for other purposes) or in the military. And speaking of the military, even though women are sent into combat zones, with all the benefits and opportunities that arise from that status, they can’t be classed as having combat jobs because the government won’t allow that.
For whatever reason, you’ve hopped on the men’s rights train and come across as fully misinformed and, yes, confused. You can’t argue; you simply wave off any points that anyone else makes that don’t fit into your world view. Really, you’re pretty tiresome. And I can only surmise that you will have a terribly, terribly rude awakening if you wind up in family court someday.
zuzu says(in quotes):
“You have plenty of flattering things to say about the capitalist system, since you seem to think that it has the best interests of women at heart and that corporations are run for the best interests of the shareholders, even though short-term profit means nothing if the company is so mismanaged or the books are so fraudulent that the stocks will lose value if anyone figures that out. You also seem to think that no corporation acts illegally or unethically.”
I never said that. I said that when a corperation does not act in the interests of the shareholders it *acts* illegally and unethically.
As for having the best interests of women at heart… I can’t make a judgement on that, all I know is that the corperate sector serves the market and the biggest market *is* western women. Therefore if corperations were *not* serving the desires of western women, they would be going bankrupt.
Wiether or not the desires of women are the best interests of women is a metaphysical debate of another sort.
“Women, it may surprise you to learn, don’t vote as a bloc. Like men, they make their own decisions, and sometimes, those decisions aren’t in their best interests. Often that happens because someone — a politician who wants their votes or a company that wants their money — plays on fears and insecurities. Is that being good to women?”
Yes it is. Because they care what women think. Playing on someone’s insecurities and fears only works if you are seen to address those insecurities and fears. And that’s what politicians do, thus the rash of woman-focused laws that have come into effect over the last hundred years. (Maternal preference in child custody, equal pay laws, equal opportunity laws, affirmative action, battered women shelters, sexual harrassment laws, etc. etc.)
“The government is pro-woman? Really. Because I never would have known by the way that state legislatures and Congress keep passing laws that restrict access to reproductive services, whether here or abroad (thousands upon thousands of women in poor countries have lost their access to basic medical care because Bush put the global gag rule back in place — his first official act, by the way — which stripped US funding to any organization that provided abortions, even if the US aid was used for other purposes) or in the military.”
Women *do* seem to be divided on how best to marshal reproductive rights. This divide is reflected in government policy.
Plus, how women are treated in third world countries bears no resemblance to how they are treated in first world countries. Quite a few third world feminists have expressed the opinion that first world feminists have ignored and betrayed their causes, simply because for *some* reason western women’s interests are drastically different then the interests of women who live under real patriarchies. And, also, western women’s interests recieve far greater focus.
The heroic women in third world countries are battling against sex-selective infanticide, dowery, lack of education, brutal working conditions, bride burning, genital mutilation, restrictive mores… In essence social attitudes that label *them* the disposable sex.
Do you think I dismiss them? I don’t. I believe they are dealing with real problems. They are dealing with a society that is smeg. In contrast western women are dealing with people who are smeg. The difference is this: there isn’t any way that western women could possibly be disenfranchised that isn’t illegal or, more importantly, socially condemned.
“And speaking of the military, even though women are sent into combat zones, with all the benefits and opportunities that arise from that status, they can’t be classed as having combat jobs because the government won’t allow that.”
Could you clarify what you’re saying here? I’m afraid I don’t follow.
Typhon, my comment was made without putting anyone in the victim role, and yet in your eagerness to make men victims, you assumed that women are raised to bow and please in order to make the world better for them. God knows I wish it were so. But unfortunately, what bending and pleasing comes my way tends to get overpraised by me to keep it coming.
In your desperation to make men victims, you can’t address the primary point I made which is that men, being louder on average, tend to scare my cats more. My cats aren’t sexist man-haters. So far the person they fear the most is a female friend who works for crime scene and has a radio that is the bane of their existence. They hate her for very silly reasons. Might it not be a sad side effect of male upbringing that loud abrasiveness is treated as generally unpleaseant?
Amanda says (in quotes):
“Typhon, my comment was made without putting anyone in the victim role, and yet in your eagerness to make men victims, you assumed that women are raised to bow and please in order to make the world better for them.”
Why else do they do it?
Actually, let me ask you a question. Do you think the owner of a race horse, making hot mash for that horse, rubbing it down and picking its hooves, cares about that horse, or how well that horse runs?
Women are taught to take care of men — to please — because men pay for the lifestyles women desire. Men make the big sacrifices — lesser life expectancy, increased rates of occupational injury, less time with children, death — so women can sit at home doing, in some cases, 70-80% less work then the average homemaker a hundred years ago. Nearly all of the really unpleasant jobs that used to come with homemaking are now taken over by men. Why do I say that? Because men, who are the main bread winners, are now responsible for furnishing the average homemaker with a dazzling variety of labor saving devices, plus all sorts of consumer goods that take the place of in-home production: soaps, clothing, canned goods, grocieries, light carpentry, house hold furnishings the list goes on. And even if a woman *does* work, the man is still expected to provide for the essentials(or as much as he can.) Thus women’s emphasis on solvency and cash flow when seeking a man. The reverse not being true.
If women really cared about men… I mean *really* cared about men, they’d be homesteaders(or career girls who pay half their family’s way). Thus relieving men of much of the financial burdens of being providers and allowing them some leniency to take care of their health and happiness instead of their paycheck.
Not only that, but it would be excellent for the enviroment as well. No more little baubles and useless consumer frivolities (almost invariably aimed at women) filling up the landfills.
Oh, and a lot fewer chinchilla coats.
Before you go giving me an example of a family in which the husband is a lazy leech/under-employed/etc. I’ll just point out to you that this is not the *ideal* that everyone seems to be striving for. It’s a situation that comes about due to class limitations, not for lack of desire.
Apparently every woman *wants* to either be a homemaker or take a job that’s personally fulfilling but not dangerous/unpleasant or nessisary.(And who wouldn’t if they could?) And if their man can’t provide that for them, he’s less of a man.
(Surprising how manhood seems to be all about sacrifice for women.)
“In your desperation to make men victims, you can’t address the primary point I made which is that men, being louder on average, tend to scare my cats more.”
Yes, men are taught they have to be louder in order to be heard. (I read a story written by a woman who dressed as a man that said something to that effect. She had the feeling–as a man– that she had to be louder, pitch from further back, in order to be listened to.)
I don’t believe people do things for no reason. When people are shouting I don’t automatically think it’s because they are rude, I think it’s because they aren’t being heard.
BTW, my spidey senses are tingling. I’ll lay odds that the next detour is into wage gap territory.
Apparently every woman *wants* to either be a homemaker or take a job that’s personally fulfilling but not dangerous/unpleasant or nessisary.(And who wouldn’t if they could?) And if their man can’t provide that for them, he’s less of a man.
The fact that men have more work-related deaths and do more of the dangerous jobs isn’t somehow indicative of man’s sacrifice to woman; some male-dominated dangerous professions, such as firefighting, are hostile to allowing women. Also, that’s more of a issue about improving work safety than inequality; what are you suggesting, that ALL workforces have to be forced fifty-fifty?
Gosh, why would the wage gap be relevant when discussing women’s dependence on men?
Duh, Amanda, don’tcha know it’s just another feminazi plot? We just love playing the victim and all…
(Ooh, my “spidey sense” must be tingling too)
thisgirl says(in quotes):
“The fact that men have more work-related deaths and do more of the dangerous jobs isn’t somehow indicative of man’s sacrifice to woman; some male-dominated dangerous professions, such as firefighting, are hostile to allowing women. Also, that’s more of a issue about improving work safety than inequality; what are you suggesting, that ALL workforces have to be forced fifty-fifty?”
Sure. Why not? After all if male-dominated professions are a sign that women are oppressed, then we should seek parity in *all* of them. Not just those ones that involve high pay, status and an office with a view.
BTW, it’s *also* about inequality since, last time I checked, commissions on workplace conditions spent the lion’s share of their effort and resources on dealing with sexual harrassment, *instead* of dealing with issues that impact men more* such as work place injuries and deaths.
Apparently a pinch on the bum is worth more then a man’s life.
Strange patriarchy we live in.
*Even though there are some studies that have found that men report unwanted sexual contact at higher or equal rates to women.
thisgirl says(in quotes):
“Duh, Amanda, don’tcha know it’s just another feminazi plot? We just love playing the victim and all…
(Ooh, my “spidey sense” must be tingling too)”
I mentioned it because on another blog entry one of you said something to the effect of “men make more then women, so if you really want women to pull their fair share, you need to change that.”
BTW, I don’t ever use the term “feminazi” because I do believe there is some positive benefit in the movement, particularly when it comes to third world patriarchies. Plus I believe it hides the true problem: woman-firsting. And I’ve seen *more* of that from traditional women then feminists.
Typhonblue, I am firmly convinced you must live on another planet. Did you just read “The Feminine Mystique”? Is all your analysis of feminism based on that? Because your statement, “men pay for the lifestyles women desire” and tag-line “career girls” (child labor is illegal, and though it still continues under the table, we don’t generally refer to children as having a career), is so mid-60s upper-middle-class-suburban white woman it’s laughable. It’s textbook. It’s certainly not reflective of real life.
And men on the construction site don’t have any greater chance of dying on the job than women on the construction site. Since you are so blessedly concerned about the lack of women on construction sites, perhaps you can tell me which apprenticeship you plan to apply to? I mean, step up to the plate. You can do this too. There’s plenty of hot, freezing, sweaty, dusty, muddy, wet, dangerous opportunities out here for you, too. But your chances of dying out here have nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with the gutting of OSHA, as well as corporate greed that considers a certain amount of deaths on the job as the price of business. Add to that, faulty equipment, irresponsible and/or ignorant co-workers and/or foremen, lack of employer safety programs or policies, speed trumping safety and/or craftsmanship, bad weather, drunk and/or speeding drivers (if you’re working on or near roads), and there you have it. But these factors don’t discriminate according to sex. So, step right up! Come join me out here! We need more women!
That is, providing you’re a woman, and not a boy posing as one.
Let me ask you a question La Luba. Why is it that, in some industries in a place like India, girls(who are the majority of child laborers) suffer greater rates of injury then boys?
Yes, *child* labor is dangerous. And yes, boys run as much risk as girls in those industries *when* they work in them. Futher you might also mention how agencies formed to protect children from dangerous child labor practices are understaffed and underfunded.
But all these points merely mask the real question. Why is that *girls* are disproportionately affected?
As for me being a boy… I must say if I am, I have to congradulate myself on such an incredible hoax– since there are at least two face shots of me on my livejournal.
‘Cause womenfolk is inferior? *shuffle dance dance*
typhonblue, you still haven’t answered my question: which apprenticeship are you applying for? Carpenters? Fitters (that’s Steamfitters/Pipefitters/Plumbers)? Tinners (Sheet Metal Workers)? Ironworkers? Electricians? Painters? C’mon man, speak up.
And I like the way you neatly refused to admit you were taking a swipe at women with your “career girls” comment, instead opting to veer into a discussion on child labor. Just another fine example of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t, if you’re a woman”. If you have a career, you’re selfish/emasculating/a lousy mother/etc. If you’re a homemaker, you’re selfish/demanding/materialistic/etc. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Look. I know men get a raw deal too. They’re getting—most of ‘em, anyway—the same raw deal from patriarchy the rest of us are. There are men’s groups out there that are addressing issues in a productive manner. The same way that feminist groups have and are doing. So…what exactly is your ish? You change more than the wind direction!
La Luba(in quotes):
“typhonblue, you still haven’t answered my question: which apprenticeship are you applying for? Carpenters? Fitters (that’s Steamfitters/Pipefitters/Plumbers)? Tinners (Sheet Metal Workers)? Ironworkers? Electricians? Painters? C’mon man, speak up.”
The argument at hand is weither or not men are disenfranchised by suffering the majority of adverse working conditions.
BTW, if you tell me the duties of your construction job I will tell you what I’m doing to redress imbalances. I personally think this is a side-track from the argument, but I’ll play if you do.
Now, going back to my original point, you could argue that the benefits of men being the majority in some fields outweigh(or are equal to) the risks of men being in other fields. However I don’t think this interpertation embraces the whole truth. For one thing, the entire corperate sector is, apparently, an organ of service for consumers. And women are the majority consumers, therefore all those CEOs, higher management types, advertising execs, product development and so on people are serving the interests of women to create the society women want.
In that context all the silly titles men get to take to their grave are meaningless. They have *nothing* do do with shaping the world we live in, being happy in life and are actually anthetical to having a fullfilling family life.
Does it matter that you’re the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company when Susie-Q homemaker(one of a hundred million) has more power over shaping the public media and spaces then you?
And if you don’t grok what I’m saying here, let me explain. Public spaces are malls, public media is tv, magazines, etc. What goes in these public venues are decided by what consumers want, and only what they want. Anything else is a flop, a loss of filthy lucre. Which leads to CEOs being fired, companies going bankrupt and ad agencies loosing clients.
Which is something I find immensely ironic. All radicals who think they’re fighting against the patriarchy– you know that network of male politicians and CEOs that make all the decisions– are actually fighting against the moral, political, social, asthetic and sexual inertia of Susie Q homemaker. Who really *likes* her gas-guzzling SUV, hates terrorism, prefers plastic to paper, doesn’t really want to think about the icky things gay men do(and feels, in her heart of hearts that maybe they *deserve* AIDS), uses toxic chemicals to make her house smell nice, make her lawn green and make her feel happy, is ambivalent about abortion even though she had one when she was 22 because lil’ babies are so cute, and maybe, if she’s feeling generous to the rest of the world, donates to a middle eastern war orphan’s fund and recycles.
Funny world.
“And I like the way you neatly refused to admit you were taking a swipe at women with your “career girls” comment, instead opting to veer into a discussion on child labor.”
I wasn’t actually taking a swipe at anyone. If I offended you by my use of “career girl” I’m sorry. I probably was thinking career woman, but wrote girl.
BTW, the relevance seem obvious to me. Let me explain. The reason why girls are more often injured on the job in India is because they are more often employed in crappy conditions, and the reason why they are more often employed while their brothers are going to school is because they are considered disposable.
This case of discrimination is as obvious to me as that which men suffer in our society.
“Just another fine example of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t, if you’re a woman”. If you have a career, you’re selfish/emasculating/a lousy mother/etc. If you’re a homemaker, you’re selfish/demanding/materialistic/etc. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
I’m sorry, I don’t think I ordered these words.
My point with the only-if-I-want-to-worker/homemaker vs homesteader/careerWOMAN is that if women want to say they’re doing something for men, maybe they could actually *do* something for men.
If you aren’t interested in saying that you do something for men, do whatever you want. Just be honest about it. Don’t take credit where you don’t deserve it. It’s called being honorable.
“Look. I know men get a raw deal too. They’re getting—most of ‘em, anyway—the same raw deal from patriarchy the rest of us are.”
But we don’t live in a patriarchy. I have lived in an honest to god patriarchy for ten years, and let me tell you… we don’t live in anything *near* a patriarchy.
Let me ask you a question. I’ll follow it up with a similar question after I’ve finished my response. What is the raw deal that a upper to middle class white western woman gets? I say upper to middle to cut out those women who are getting a raw deal because they are poor *not* because they are women. I say white to cut out those women who are getting a raw deal because they are non-white *not* because they are women. And I say western to cut out those women who are getting a raw deal because they don’t live in a developed nation *not* because they are women.
What raw deal are these women getting because they are women?
“There are men’s groups out there that are addressing issues in a productive manner. The same way that feminist groups have and are doing. So…what exactly is your ish? You change more than the wind direction!”
The manner of my approach changes only in responce to the issues brought up.
The core of my message is just this: men are disenfranchised in our society. *Men* not women.
And if you honestly think women are disenfranchised please tell me one way in which women are oppressed that isn’t illegal, doesn’t have a government program trying to address it, and isn’t socially condemned.
Man, all the more reason to want to be a CEO. Not only are you powerless and nothing is your fault (it’s the fault of housewives, always), but you get compensated so well.
ok, typhon. My job is Journeyman Wireman. That means that I don’t sit behind a desk, I get out there and perform the work…in a ditch, on the roof, on a deck….wherever. I climb ladders, use hammerdrills and other electrical or pneumatic tools, blowtorches, hand tools….whatever it takes to get the job done. I run conduit, pull wire, work with energized electrical panels and equipment. I wear Carharrts, bibs, steel-toed boots and a hardhat. I am an electrician. That means I do everything that a male electrician does. I am one of the people you drive past on those miserably hot or cold days, while looking out the window of your car and thinking, “boy, am I glad I don’t do that for a living.” But if you want to, you can. Especially if you’re going to talk out the side of your mouth and say “women” (meaning me) “don’t do those dangerous jobs”. Put your money where your mouth is, sister.
The economy is not driven by consumer spending, believe it or not. Sure, it’s a large part of the economy, but you are not taking into consideration the massive amounts of spending that is going on in governmental, military, energy, and healthcare. Then, extend that to the global scale. Have you picked up a newspaper lately? Certainly you must have noticed that the U.S. isn’t the consumer giant that it once was, back in my parents and grandparents day. Now, the smart money is in China. One in every four people in the world are Chinese. The U.S. has a failing economy. The Chinese have a growing economy. China is spending money on technology, education, infrastructure, and economic development. The U.S. is not. Pay attention. The military has a much larger budget than Suzie Q homemaker.
By the way, who is Suzie Q homemaker? Do you realize that she represents around 5% of U.S. women? So how the hell could she possibly be driving the economy?! I still think you’re stuck in the 60s, and even that is stretching it. Working class and poor women have always worked outside the home, long before we had anywhere near the opportunities we have now.
I’ll leave it to someone with a clearer idea than I where the raw deals are for upper middle class white women in the U.S. But, I can think of one right off the bat….
A couple of years ago, in my city, a real estate agent was raped at gunpoint while showing a house to a man. She was a white, upper middle class woman. Clean-cut, well-dressed, churchgoing, pillar of the commmunity. She would have made Martha Stewart jealous. After the rapist left her in the house (he ripped the phone in the house from the wall and took her cell), she locked the doors and started screaming….she was afraid to step outside for fear that he would still be there and shoot her. A neighbor heard and called the police.
She had the rape kit done, there was trauma, she was able to identify her attacker from previous police photos….but still, no arrest. Why? Because even this clean-cut, well-dressed, upper-middle-class white woman couldn’t convince the police that her bruises and lacerations (including anal and vaginal) weren’t consensual. The man told her that they were…that they had been dating, and she wanted to get together in a client’s house for some “rough stuff”. Even with his previous arrest record (for minor league stuff…barfights, DUI, like that), they took his word over hers.
So, he raped and killed another woman in the following month. It wasn’t until the other woman was murdered that they arrested him for the original rape. He was tried and convicted, and is now serving a life term (since then-Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences to life-in-prison in Illinois).
I did not know this woman. But one of her co-workers is my best friend, so I heard a lot more about this than what made the papers.
So…start with that—a raped woman won’t be believed by authorities even with the protection of color, class, and status.
Zuzu says(in quotes):
“But if you want to, you can. Especially if you’re going to talk out the side of your mouth and say “women” (meaning me) “don’t do those dangerous jobs”. Put your money where your mouth is, sister.”
You still haven’t adressed the point I made about men being *disproportionately* represented in hazardous jobs.
Following your logic, it shouldn’t be a problem that the majority of CEOs are men, after all there are a *few* female CEOs, thus it’s not a gender issue at all!
BTW, I said I’d play your sideline game and I will. It’s quite a cooincidence, but my partner did the same job you do now. Because I’m the wage-earner, he’s no longer a cable puller. A job that was part and parcel of the physical problems he now suffers. Thus I’ve saved *one* man from the physical trauma of hazardous work. And I’ve also addressed the imbalance by *one* man.
But I understand your underlying point. It’s difficult question how to solve the gender imbalance in hazardous jobs. Someone has to do those jobs, after all. Kudos to you for doing something even more self-sacrificing then me to save a guy from a hazardous job. Now if we can only convince more women…
All I can say right now is that the gender imbalance exists. And that it is one example of the disposability of men in our society.
Now, as for your rape example. I can’t comment to much since I don’t know the particulars of the case. But several things come to mind. First of all rape as an act is illegal, but it is still up to the justice system to determine if rape, did, in fact, occur. For some reason in your example’s case the relevant authorities did not think there was enough evidence to go to trial.(I assume. You didn’t give me many details, so I don’t know if the system dismissed going to trial or if the woman decided not to press charges.) In that case it becomes an issue of what is considered *enough* evidence: should we just take a woman’s word for it, or should there be a certian level of corroberating evidence?
I don’t know enough about this particular example to know why it was dismissed, and why the evidence wasn’t enough to go to trial. Nor do I know exactly where you’re seeing the disenfranchisment… Is it because the standard of evidence is too high for rape cases? Then what standard should we have?
As far as I can tell your example is similar to a case where a wealthy, white, western family is robbed at knife-point but there isn’t enough evidence to take the criminal to trial until the criminal goes off to rob and kill another family. And using that incident to argue that we live in a communist state.
BTW, to use a somewhat relevant example. There was a man who preyed upon young male hitchhikers who were, I believe, between, the ages of 16 to 25. He took detailed records of the names and descriptions of the men he raped and managed to rape around 200 before he was caught by the police after one, and only one, of his victims went to the police.
Now which is the greater evidence of disenfranchisment? The fact that the woman in your example didn’t get justice served because of a lack of evidence, or the fact that approximately 199 young men never went to the police in the first place?
“The economy is not driven by consumer spending, believe it or not. Sure, it’s a large part of the economy, but you are not taking into consideration the massive amounts of spending that is going on in governmental, military, energy, and healthcare.”
I believe that there are simple reasons why people expend effort, reasons that rarely have to do with helping other people. Because of that I believe the military is in the middle east because of oil, not because the Iraqis are so adorable and need our help. Now the question becomes… who does this increased supply of oil benefit? The majority car buyers and purchasers of consumer products(the prices of which are dictated greatly by transportation costs)? Probably. Since women are the majority car purchasers and the majority purchasers of consumer products, once again they’re at the root of the spending.
Of course *you’ll* say… but men also drive cars! Yes, to work. Where they are once again serving the interests of the consumer, by producing, marketing and overseeing the construction of consumer culture.
As for health care… women are also the primary beneficiaries of health care funds. And the government? Well, I’d imagine women get at least as much benefit from emergency services and infrastructure then men. (Actually more, considering women are more likely to use emergency services and use infrastructure longer.)
“By the way, who is Suzie Q homemaker?”
Supposedly the most powerless woman in the world, according to certain feminists. I used it for a bit of an ironic flourish. Replace it with western woman if you wish.
“So how the hell could she possibly be driving the economy?!”
Hmm… No need to take my word for it, why not just ask the marketers themselves.
Interview with the author of _Marketing to Women: How to Understand, Reach and Increase Your Share of the World’s Largest Market Segment_
“Working class and poor women have always worked outside the home, long before we had anywhere near the opportunities we have now.”
And men of all classes are still doing the work nessisary to create our society.
Funny how only a *very* wealthy man can afford to stay at home, while even middle class women often has the privilage.
typhon, I don’t do my job in order to “save a man” from having to do it. I do my job for the same reason anyone does a job—in order to eat, have a roof over my head, a warm bed at night…that sort of thing. When I worked disproportionately female jobs, I worked the same amount of hours but couldn’t earn enough to make basic ends meet. And by the way, people pull cable, but no one is a “cable puller”. It either says “JW” on your ticket, or “Apprentice Wireman”. But, I’ll give you a break on that one, because some locals in large metropolitan areas can pigeonhole some people into ’specializing’. Asking a JW what kind of electrical work he/she performs is akin to asking a trained musician what kind of music they’re qualified to play….the key word here being “trained”. If you’re a JW, you do it all, capisce?
When I brought up military and governmental budgets, I expected you to do a little more thinking. It’s easy to say, “oh, the U.S. is in Iraq to fuel all those SUVs”, and ignore the fact that oil is needed to fuel the military-industrial complex at large. If every U.S. citizen stopped driving tomorrow, and walked or rode bicycles to work (women too…I know you think women don’t work outside the home, but trust me, we do), the U.S. military would still be in Iraq. But hey, don’t strain your brain. You’ll find out soon enough that consumer spending (especially on imported goods) is not enough to fuel an economy.
Where, exactly, is Planet Soccer Mom located in the galaxy? Because I’ve never been there. Read about it, but like Shangri-La, I don’t think it really exists. (Help me out here, people. Wasn’t there some sort of satirical film about a shopaholic mom, put out back in the late 80s? It was an independent film…..I never saw the whole thing….but it sounds like that film is playing an endless loop in typhon’s head….anyway, I forgot the name of it).
Zuzu, you are right. This is performance art. This isn’t just the ramblings of a naive, sheltered freshman, straight out of the suburbs, into the big city. After all, we’ve got such precious gems as “who is raising them (boys) to be violent?”…the answer is supposed to be “women”, although one of the standard critiques of single mothers is that we’re not raising “tough” enough men….but if we are, then we’re raising violent men. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you love a man, and cook him dinner, wash his undies, massage his feet, you’re only doing it because you’re trying to keep your racehorse out there (bread)winning. If you don’t do these things, well, that’s just further proof you’re a selfish you-know-what. Either way, DIYD,DIYD.
Sheesh. The rape case? Her bruising and bleeding wasn’t enough. When the rapist was interviewed, he didn’t have a scratch on him. Which means that she didn’t fight back (while he held a gun to her head). Which means that, of course, she must have wanted it….after all, she didn’t fight back. It wasn’t until the DNA sample in the other, DEAD woman matched that of the real estate agent that they were willing to believe she was raped. Torn anal and vaginal tissues, and bruising on her body, was up until that point proof that she liked her sex “rough” (rough enough to warrant medical attention). See, she didn’t believe that she was immune to rape because of her status or color. But she did believe, prior to this incident, that she would have been believed by the authorities. This experience radicalized her.
Hell….never mind. I’m still trying to stifle laughter at the thought of poor ol’ typhonblue, trying to save men from on the job injuries, one man at a time. *snicker* Heyy…any of the rest of yous’ “girls” wanna