The boys at the Nice Guys Forum (registration required, a pity) have been their usual sweet selves lately. They linked to my post about circumcision last week, and were predictably aroused. One keyboard therapist named Patr writes:
This is beyond feminism, gender studies, whatever; this is mental illness. It is not so much what he did but his attitudes toward these things and the ways he chooses to describe himself. I think he has serious mental issues. I don’t just say that because I am looking to put down Hugo, I really believe he has serious problems that require treatment.
I suppose my second wife might agree with Skeptos, who wrote:
Hugo Schwyzer is living proof that narcissism and self-loathing are not mutually incompatible. Creepy.
These are among the nicer comments from the "Nice Guys."
There’s also a thread about my post yesterday on chest hair. Steve writes:
I’m pretty easygoing for the most part (though not in the moral sense of that term) and pretty damned tolerant, too, but this is some seriously weird shit. The dude is posting like a high school girl and claims to be having conversations with high school girls that make it seem like he is trying to be one of their girlfriends. Is that f-ed up or what?
And Burton:
It is a bit disturbing that Hugo, who is the big mangina (man-vagina, the awfully clever term of opprobium for male feminists) on campus, would be talking to teenage girls about this stuff. Perhaps he and Mark Fole (sic) double date?
A while back he ran a blog on older men-younger women relations. Perhaps he was testing the waters? But that is what we suspect is his real agenda in ratting out other men, eh? Get the feminists to flop on their backs for him?
And Nigel:
This person should truly be on the sex-offenders’ register and be denied association with those over which he has authority without appropriate supervision.
And khankrumthebulgar:
Does his wife know he’s a closet Homo? This is such a cliche. I really think Hugo hates himself.
So, there you have it, boys and girls. The MRAs suggest I’m
a. insane
b. a pedophile
c. self-loathing
d. gay
e. just using a guise of pro-feminism to get laid
These are the "Big Five" insults traditionally thrown at men who do pro-feminist work; I got ‘em all in less than one week. I am flattered indeed.
Some of the lads who post here at my blog also post at Nice Guys. They vary their language, mind you, but I’m afraid that the relatively tame discourse I’ve put up here is fairly typical of what goes on "behind the registration-required doors." And though at times it’s tempting to retaliate in kind, I think it’s nice to let the boys hang themselves with their own ugly, hate-filled words.
Well, you are harldy a ‘normal’ man, are you Hugo?
You are, how shall I put it, somewhat different to the average male,
But insane, No - misguided!
Paedophile, No
Self-loathing - Yes
Gay - No; but, who cares anyway?
just using a guise of pro-feminism to get laid - Hmmmm.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Maybe.
Hugo. You are a ‘gentle’ person. A sensitive soul.
A neurotic.
But your backside and mine are protected by a bunch of macho-men, like soldiers, and police officers, and firemen, and security agents.
And our buildings, our bridges, our dams, our factories, our roads, our canals and railways and, in fact, just about anything that you can think of that involves hard work or nasty, dangerous labour, are nearly all built by men who are not like you.
And I’d hate to get on the wrong side of those guys.
Another potshot at NGs forum,but never,ever a peep while you’re over there. They come here and speak their minds, you lurk. You have NEVER posted there, in all the time you’ve been lurking.
Why dont you ever speak your mind at NGs? To our faces?
Because there is no point in trying to engage with people who are all about baseless ad hominem attack and vicious name-calling.
Ick, intelligence required to post.
If soldiers, police officers and fireFIGHTERS and security agents are all macho I weep for society. That’s a hazardous mindset according to my human factors and the FAA.
They weren’t all built by men either. There are a lot of females who do that now, and a lot of females who did support on those things.
*cough, splutter*
What was that?
I’ll be keeping an eye out then, on Pandagon , Feministing and here, and I won’t see any ad hominem attacks on MRAs then?
Seriously, that was rich. I should cut and paste every slur I’ve recieved at Pandgon and Feministing for your perusal.
Hello Antigone
It is men who have produced the greatest works in all of the arts - literature, poetry, music, paintings, sculptures, films, plays, architecture etc.
It is men who have progressed our understanding in just about all areas to do with science, engineering and medicine - astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, geology, cosmology, mathematics, economics, geography, climatology, aeronautics, pharmacology, surgery, computer hardware, software etc.
It is men who have built the houses, the bridges, the roads, the railways, the dams, the factories, the ships, the canals, the monuments, the airports, the churches, the offices, the tunnels, the engines, the industrial machinery etc.
It is men mostly who have laboured in the factories, the furnaces, the sewers, the mines etc etc etc.
It is men who have, rightly or wrongly, fought the wars, fought the crimes, fought the elements, fought the odds etc.
Indeed, it is men who have invented, discovered and done nearly everything that has ever been invented, discovered and done.
And there is barely an object or an idea that has been conceived, created, constructed or manufactured by humans that has not been conceived, created, constructed and manufactured by men.
Look around the room that you are in.
There is scarcely an item that has been conceived, created, constructed or manufactured by women.
Not even the bricks.
Putting it bluntly: Just about everything that western women have today, they have thanks to their men.
And they maintain them mostly on the backs of men.
“Because there is no point in trying to engage with people who are all about baseless ad hominem attack and vicious name-calling.” - Happy Feminist
Then debunk the statement I’m going to posit here: It’s my opinion Hugo is self-serving.
Of course, I’m willing to openly admit I’m self-serving as well, and don’t mince words about it.
Our political and religious standpoints, more often than not, reflect our self-interest. There’s nothing exactly terrible about this truth in itself, but hiding behind a shield or platform of righteousness is what a lot of people do. It’s human nature. You figure it out.
I’m afraid none of us misandrist feminist loons are going to be able to debunk a factual statement about your opinion. Verily, this means your opinion is correct.
Why do I get the feeling this thread won’t be getting a whole lot of discussion when the history of great political debates of the blogosphere is written?
According to the History Channel, women liked Hitler too! …
At least in the early 1930s women were more likely to vote for the Nazis than for the Left, and on the Left the KPD appears to have been much less attractive to women than to men. No doubt the same confessional, class and regional factors motivated women as motivated men, with the additional factor that women were less likely than men to support left-wing parties. In July 1932 a higher proportion of women than men voted Nazi, perhaps because they had fewer existing political allegiances.
Another factor in Nazi support was age. The Nazis projected themselves as a youthful, dynamic party, and Nazi members (averaging 29 years in 1925-32) were younger than those of other parties. Yet the Nazis were also successful in picking up the votes of pensioners and the elderly, especially those whose pensions and savings had been eroded in value. This group, especially elderly women, were a reservoir of previous non-voters to whom the Nazis made a real appeal.
And with that final flourish, Angry Harry’s career of posting here comes to an end. AH, take it up with me elsewhere, but you’re a one-note charlie and I’m not interested in reading more.
And if self-serving means trying to get attention for my ideas, you bet I am self-serving. If self-serving means some perverse hidden agenda for sexual gratification, then no, that isn’t part of my psychological make-up.
I’ve never heard of this forum, but these men are claiming to be nice?? I guess they don’t meet any standard of nice that I’ve ever seen. Judging from the behavior I’ve seen so far, they seem creepy and harsh to me. I prefer my men sane thanks.
Sarah,
They consider themselves “recovering nice guys.” They’re trying to assert some control over their lives after years of being, in feminist terms, self-hating and subservient. Just like *some* feminists become “hairy, smelly, man-hating dykes” for a while, these guys seem to be working out what it means to assert themselves, and it erupts in varying degrees of strangeness. Plus there are, as in any psychological self-help movement, some genuine loonies.
…and some people wondered why I thought MRAs tend to be trolls. Granted, not all of them are - I enjoy reading Mr. Bad’s comments and the like. But since I started reading Hugo’s blog, most trolling has been done by folks like Angry Harry.
Hugo, remember Luke 6:22 in times like these.
Mermade, really, I urge you to look up what ‘troll’ actually means, and what they do and tell me…do people simply posting ideas that do not agree with those posted on Hugo’s blog, Pandagon and Feministing really constitute ‘trolling’? I mean this as a kindness. Branding healty disagreement as ‘trolling’ must have our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.
Here’s one–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The posts here by MRAs do not fit the definition. No one has been lewd, insulting, dragging the thread off-topic…
Simply disagreeing is not trolling.
Crella - I am not saying that MRAs are trolls by default, as I enjoy having polite and civil discussion with those who disagree with me (such as you or Mr. Bad). What I am saying is that some of them have posted things that ARE insulting - and most of the trolls on Hugo’s page have been MRAs.
As Angry Harry wrote today, “Just about everything that western women have today, they have thanks to their men.” How is that not insulting to Hugo’s community of readers, many of which are feminist or pro-feminist? To quote Wikipedia, I think his comment was, “designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize [the readers],” specifically Antigone. Oh, Angry Harry’s blaming women for the rise of the Nazi party… need I say more? His comment was not constructive, it was offensive, and I think he intended it to be.
“And if self-serving means trying to get attention for my ideas, you bet I am self-serving. If self-serving means some perverse hidden agenda for sexual gratification, then no, that isn’t part of my psychological make-up.” - Hugo
You know I stand by what I said. I don’t care if you take this personal or not, but from what I’ve seen (and not just you, mind that) I’ve known male feminists that have an individual stake in their camps. Judgment value or not, it’s pretty obvious to me. I could care less if you actually were gay, but it appears that you aren’t. It is of no consequence to me.
But let’s face it; there are men that often rush to women’s defense in order to get on their good sides. I’ve often accused ‘Women Firsters’ of the same darn thing; that includes men in Promise Keepers and other organizations that are down on saying anything directly critical about what women do, but uphold men to whatever standard they are promulgating at the time.
But Hell. Why be concurrent with a belief system that doesn’t benefit you? That’s sounds akin to some sort of figurative masochism to me. But like I said, I make no bones about my own self-interest, and getting certain messages across, spreading the word. So with that being said . . .
“I’ve never heard of this forum, but these men are claiming to be nice?? I guess they don’t meet any standard of nice that I’ve ever seen. Judging from the behavior I’ve seen so far, they seem creepy and harsh to me. I prefer my men sane thanks.” - SarahS
Well, Sarah, I’m Chris, nice to meet you.
I’d love to see what Sarah constitutes as creepy and insane. I wouldn’t know. There seems to be wacko women out there as well. As for me, let me sum up it very simply for you—if I find that women are destructive in any capacity in my life, I try to shun them as much as possible. It’s part of finding out who is good for you in interactions, and who isn’t positive in your life.
For all the ‘nice guy’ bashing that goes on in (so-called) dating forums, I could care less about the crap that goes back and forth. On an individual basis, I suppose you could lay claim I am not a ‘nice’ guy; I don’t bend over backwards to please all women, I stay away from parasitical relationships, I make alliances with women based more on merit than personnas. If ‘nice guy’ means praising women no matter what they do, well, you got me: I don’t.
As much as you’d be surprised by it, there are women I enjoy hanging out with. The MRA types aren’t guys that are hiding in caves during the day time, hunchbacks living their moms’ basements, or Giallo-style predators stalking in alleys or anything. Don’t know if I’m busting your bubble, but that’s not what they are all about. (Oh yeah, I forgot the accusations leveled at MRAs that are personal attacks: they are gay, impotent, socially maladjusted, wimps, too sensitive, losers, angry divorced white men in their fifties, Christian fundamentalists with an attitude, or whatever . . . )
Which brings me to my last point for now. Although I came close to it more than once, I’m not married, I’m much younger than the 50 year old mark, and I’m not a Christian, and I’m not battling over custody rights over children (because I never had them and have no interest in raising kids), so draw your own conclusions from there.
What’s the purpose of posts like this? It just encourages trolling/flaming without contributing anything substantive.
(I know it’s cathartic, and I’m bashing you for not having the patience of a saint, but these blogfeuds never achieve a thing.)
No purpose, and we’ll be back to less inflammatory blogging soon.
‘Just about everything that western women have today, they have thanks to their men’
Not their men….but ‘men’. Women have usually not built bridges. Electricity, telephones, trains, cars, air conditioning etc were all invented by males. That some gratitude or respect for their accomplishments might be in order,instead of our manbashing culture, was his point.
BTW that was not meant to be short…I am in a screaming hurry.
(Yo! Hugo! I’m back!)
Not for long. Angry, you can circumvent my blocking but I can delete or alter your comments at will. Heck, I might even turn you into a feminist by rewriting your words.
Angry Harry: Get a life you ignorant fool.
jfpbookworm,
Don’t let Hugo fool you, there is a purpose.
Because it’s all about him. From what I recall, whenever Hugo links to the forum to shame them, he always covers posts where he’s the center of attention.
From what I recall, whenever Hugo links to the forum to shame them, he always covers posts where he’s the center of attention.
When else ought I to link to the Nice Guys? When they trash a different feminist?
I wonder if this could possibly be because women were kept at home, denied a rounded education and generally prevented from achieving such feats until (historically) very recently. If a person is not permitted to study architecture, it’s unlikely s/he will build a bridge, no matter how capable s/he is.
Bugger, the site only posted half my comment!
I was attempting to say that the reason men’s names are on bridges and other great works is because women were not allowed in those spheres until recently. To hold women responsible for this is utterly ridiculous.
“I wonder if this could possibly be because women were kept at home, denied a rounded education and generally prevented from achieving such feats until (historically) very recently.”
Women were schooled at home, at least in the middle to upper classes. Universities existed from the late 1840s, for women. The first all-female medical school in 1850 (at first focusing on midwifery then converting to a full medical school). In those days not all men went to college either, at least not in the era when America was still mainly an agrarian society. It was the upper classes who sent their children to college. Whether you got higher education or not depended more on your social class than sex . I won’t post a list of women’s colleges that existed 100 years before modern feminism, it would take too much space. You can find a list easily on line.
You younger women today talk as if no woman before you ever got an education or accomplished anything…
One more point, on women’s education (following up on the comment that they didn’t build bridges because they were ‘kept at home’), something that always strikes me about ‘not enough women in engineering’ etc news articles is that the opinions of women are never included. A lot is made of the ’shortage’ but how about a poll to find out how many women actually want to become engineers, and how many of that total are realizing that goal? Tsk-tsk’ing that there are not enough women in jobs that they may not want seems like a waste of time.
Geez, Hugo
Why in the world do you create a post like this? Feeling in need of a little extra punishment today? Not getting enough frustration in your life? It may get your blog hits up, but really, is it necessary? Are the regular guys here not inflammatory enough?
Please don’t feed the animals.. Like stray dogs, once you feed them you can’t get rid of them….
Crella, AH wasn’t talking about the 1850’s to the present day. He was talking about the entire span of human civilization. Are you going to argue that upper class women in most of human history had the same opportunities to contribute to the public sphere that men did?
Sorry, that should be “that upper class men did?”
Hugo said: “No purpose, and we’ll be back to less inflammatory blogging soon.” That’s what I thought. IMO it was another cheap shot at MRAs using the Nice Guys as a foil. You can do better than that Hugo; e.g., you could have said “So, there you have it, boys and girls. The Nice Guys suggest I’m…
Like femininsts, MRAs are not some homogeneous, monolithic group. It’s exactly like pointing to the likes of ginmar, NYMOM and/or Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto chicks and saying “see what feminists are all about?!”
Thanks for the nod Mermade. :)
I agree that in general in the past men had more opportunity than women to achieve, however, as another pointed out, most men didn’t have the same opportunities as the aristocracy. What has been framed as a “gender” issue is really a class issue. Women like Hypatia, Marie Curie, Margaret Mead, Rachel Carson, et al., have succeeded throughout history, so there definitely were some women who achieved. Still, given that the percentages of high-achieving men and women relative to the general population of men and women are about the same, i.e., infinitesimally small, we have to look at what those extraordinary people actually accomplished. And in general, it is men who have occupied the very highest echelons of math, science, engineering, etc., even now, 40 years since women have not only had equal opportunity, but in fact special privilege via affirmative action, special gender-exclusive programs to promote and support them in their efforts, etc. Certainly something other than ‘discrimination’ is contributing to the phenomenon.
I think that Camille Paglia said it best: “Men in teams — subordinated self-sacrificing, disposable - got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men’s teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge.”
Oh, and I forgot: Hugo, when I saw the article where you posted the picture of your bare chest, etc., up on the web - with clickable ‘centerfold-sized’ image to boot - I definitely had a “what is he thinking?!” moment, however, I decided to let it slide.
See - I am trainable, and even becoming reasonably housebroken. ;)
Universities existed from the late 1840s, for women.
Ok, doesn’t that support our argument?
If you look at newer sciences (Psychology, or molecular biology for instance) you will see a much greater participation of women in new discoveries and technology. (Rosalind Franklin, Elizabeth Loftus, Rita Levi Montalcini, Barbara McClintock, etc.)
You can literally see the gap closing in medicial journals.
Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/3/281
So 150 years ago we got our first medical school and now we write almost a third of the peer reviewed journal articles in the best medical journals in the world? Not to mention an a 496% increase since 1970. The number is even higher for articles about OB/GYN or Pediatrics. Not bad at all.
Keep your fingers in your ears Harry, I’m sure you don’t want to hear any of this.
Off topic: To anyone who would like to learn more about women in science, I highly recomment “Life in the Treetops” by Margaret Lowman. It’s about a woman who was the first person to use mountain climbing equipment to study the canopy of the rainforest in field ecology. It also deals with how she balanced her family and career.
“Look around the room that you are in.
There is scarcely an item that has been conceived, created, constructed or manufactured by women.”
Except for all the humans. Funny that.
humans aren’t an item
So, first, on the actual topic of the thread. I thought those posts were weird. But, as should be obvious to anyone who’s read Hugo for a while, body issues are always on the top of his mind. The very weirdness of those posts stems in part from some deep, critical thinking about the masculine body and the fact that this isn’t a direction of thought “we” normally engage in (though I’m not sure exactly who the reference of “we” should be there).
Second, Mr Bad, differential achievement in the arts and sciences is obviously an issue of both class and gender. And physical ability (how long were the blind or deaf institutionalized and considered unteachable?) and, especially in the US, race and ethnicity. Just because the wealthy have generally had more opportunities than the poor doesn’t negate the fact that, among the wealthy, the opportunity to have a career in the arts and sciences was generally only available to men.
And the National Academy of Sciences disagrees with your assessment that `something other than “discrimination” is contributing to the phenomenon’ of underepresentation: `It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women.’ (link to the summary)
Finally, first-wave feminists in the nineteenth century had already pointed out that men’s public achievements were made possible by their wives’ domestic altruism. Feminists aren’t `too mean-spirited to acknowledge’ men’s altruism; we’ve always called for an equal recognition of the importance of both women’s and men’s contributions to the social good.
Put another way NiceGuys: how many 20-month old boys can wipe their own asses? How many 2-year-old boys? 3-year-old boys?
Personally, I think a clean ass is priceless, not to mention the overall social benefits derived from mass clean assedness.
:)
“humans aren’t an item”
That’s right! They’re all just fairy dust and snail’s tails and get delivered by the stork at night!
:)
Just want to clear up one area of (apparent) confusion. The term “NiceGuy” refers to the founder of the forum, not to the members at large.
Wow, learn something new every day, I didn’t know such a “forum” as Nice Guys existed. I always find it fascinating how much interest and passion people put into others they claim to disagree with. If people think you’re just a loony Hugo, then you wouldn’t really be enough of a threat or worth opposing so passionately would you? I personally think these are people with too much time on their hands. Sadly, it’s this kind of backlash that prevents my feminist husband from really taking any kind of a front line position on the issue.
As for all the other crap spewed in the comments here, I’ll let them speak for themselves.
And for the record, I think Hugo’s post was very productive, it brought to light the true spirit of these men, I’m glad to know those kinds of conversations are going on…it gives me direction and focus when I address these issues.
Hugoboy wrote: I think it’s nice to let the boys hang themselves with their own ugly, hate-filled words.
—-
You are wrong, Hugo, totally wrong. MRA do not hate anybody - but I feel deeply sorry for “men”, who want to resemble “wo”men.
Why do you not want to be a man?
I think, you have a serious personality problem.
MRA do not hate women and are not into censorship like feminists.
Before accusing MRA of using hate-filled words, I recommend you to look into a mirror and to study ‘radical feminist literature’ - here you can find truly open hate and severe slander against ALL men.
Noumena said: “Second, Mr Bad, differential achievement in the arts and sciences is obviously an issue of both class and gender. And physical ability (how long were the blind or deaf institutionalized and considered unteachable?) and, especially in the US, race and ethnicity. Just because the wealthy have generally had more opportunities than the poor doesn’t negate the fact that, among the wealthy, the opportunity to have a career in the arts and sciences was generally only available to men.”
I don’t believe that it true. Evidence please.
The NAS document you cite, which BTW I’ve seen before, is a good example of feminist advocacy dressed up as legitimate scholarly inquiry and is the epitome of conflict of interest and a classic violation of the principle of neutral and diverse point of view scholarship. Note the authors: If the 18 authors, one man; Donna Shalala, Chair; etc. So the career feminists (and one “pro-feminist” male) started with a foregone conclusion - that women are ‘discriminated against’ in science and engineering - and found it. So of course they disagree with my and others’ assessment re. women in science and engineering. Duh. No surprises there, but it by no means passes the smell test vis-a-vis valid and legitimate scholarship and was a complete waste of time and resouorces.
As for women having babies, quite true. However, don’t forget, until scientists (female scientists, naturally) invent a way for women to skip involving a male in the process, those babies are impossible without men’s contribution to the process.
Angry Harry,
Yes, men throughout recorded history have fallen in battle in greater numbers. But you leave out a couple of things:
For much of recorded history, the reason the women weren’t killed is that they were considered property. This didn’t always prevent them from being slaughtered, but usually the women and the livestock were the spoils of war and men fought for control of that property. I would imagine that wasn’t such a great fate for women of that era.
In more modern wars, women died plenty. In WWII for instance, the US had no compunction about firebombing cities and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children. The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo come to mind.
The Atomic Bomb wasn’t a sexist device either. It killed everyone regardless of their sex or age. Women have plenty of opportunity to die during war time. They just didn’t get the option to carry weapons or were counted as battle casualties, but of course, that is changing.
If you are going to use warfare as an example, tell the whole story, not just the parts that serve well to beat up on feminists…
Mr Bad,
Isn’t Donna Shalala one of the feminists that helped promote the idea that the leading cause of birth defects is battery during pregnancy? I vaguely remember something about that.
I didn’t mind this post at all. I think it is useful to know what (warped) statements a blogger’s opponents are making about him.
As for the silly argument about which sex’s members have contributed more to humanity’s development, I say what’s yer point? Should I somehow give Angry Harry credit for inventing bridges and lightbulbs because the person who did so had the same chromosomal arrangement as he? (As did Hitler, and most serial murderers?)
I think I have as much right as Angry Harry or Mr. Bad to consider myself the intellectual heir of Leonardo da Vinci or Charles Darwin or any other great male thinker.
I think I have as much right as Angry Harry or Mr. Bad to consider myself the intellectual heir of Leonardo da Vinci or Charles Darwin or any other great male thinker.
The Happy Feminist | October 17, 2006 at 09:37 AM
–
As long as you adore radical feminist writings, which are openly promoting hate against ALL men, you do not have the right to consider yourself as the intellectual heir of Leonardo da Vinci or Charles Darwin or any other great male thinker.
========================================================================
Wow, learn something new every day, I didn’t know such a “forum” as Nice Guys existed.
…..
I think Hugo’s post was very productive, it brought to light the true spirit of these men, I’m glad to know those kinds of conversations are going on…it gives me direction and focus when I address these issues.
Makeesha | October 17, 2006 at 08:30 AM
—
Yes, it is existing, it is a fairly big internet-forum compared to Hugoboy’s derogatory blog.
The Nice-Guy-Forum is free of adult links (not like some certain feminist forums). MRA do not promote such links and do not promote violence against women - we are not followers of drivel like those of Solanas manifesto.
It would be only good for yourself to jump over your own shadow and at least try to listen to both sides of a story - this is however difficult for a single-minded person - to accept all and everything of Hugo’s slander blog as the eternal truth is much easier….
Yohan: if you interpret radical feminist writings as “promoting hate against all men”, it is quite obvious, my good sir, that you are obviously not an intellectual heir of, well, anything, much less the public school system. You should get a refund on your diplomas.
Q Grrl, perhaps Yohan meant anger against men (in general, not just specific individual men), as in the “righteous anger” Hugo has written about in other posts and which he readily admits is openly and deliberately taught as a basic tenet of feminism via women’s studies curricula. And if this is the case, I agree with Yohan. Thus, “hatred” as Yohan uses it is quite plausible, as “anger” and “hatred” are close siblings along the same continuum of emotions.
Perhaps feminists are teaching women to be “angry” at all men with the goal of fomenting “hatred” of all men among women. Who knows? It’s not so far to jump from one to the other.
QGrrl, you want to explain me, that these comments by radical feminists do not promote hate against all men?
And I wonder, if 20 months old girls can wipe their own ass?
Your comments (#5) are not really intelligent - just my opinion…
1-
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor
2-
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,” said Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.
3-
“A good part-and definitely the most fun part-of being a feminist is about frightening men.” –Julie Burchill (b. 1960), British journalist, author. Time Out (London, 16 Nov. 1989).
4-
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman).
5-
Put another way NiceGuys: how many 20-month old boys can wipe their own asses? How many 2-year-old boys? 3-year-old boys?
Personally, I think a clean ass is priceless, not to mention the overall social benefits derived from mass clean assedness.
Posted by: Q Grrl | October 17, 2006 at 08:23 AM
Hugo, the fact that you know what is posted at niceguy’s site (registration required, a pity), tells me that you are a member there. Yet, we have no members named Hugo. What is your alias, please? I would like to look up your past posts and see where you engaged in actual debate with the members, rather than trashing them in your own safe little corner. Not that I believe you have ever posted. You are very likely a lurker, who may like to be a troll, but hasn’t got the balls to risk being banished to trollville. Although, you would still be allowed to post even after that, unlike your board and many other feminist boards.
I also find it very interesting that you choose to partially quote, or quote out of context, to make your points. What’s wrong, aren’t your points strong enough to stand up on their own? Guess not.
See, that’s the difference between us, Hugo. We mra’s are unafraid to identify ourselves, and we base our individual opinions on provable facts. We also don’t have to toe a “party line”. Unlike you.
Mr Bad, the fact that the report was written by feminists doesn’t make their findings wrong. The gender of the authors isn’t relevant, either. You gesture vaguely at a charge that’s not an ad hominem — that the authors have failed to provide solid evidence in support of a foregone conclusion. But skimming the report makes it clear that it is, essentially, a review of an enormous body of peer-reviewed literature on the issue of discrimination in the sciences. If a report made under the auspices of the National Academies of Science that uses several hundred citations to a bibliography of peer-reviewed and mainstream academic sources running about thirty pages long doesn’t pass your sniff test for minimally acceptable scholarship, can you point to anything at all that does?
I’m not sure how I can provide evidence for the purely logical point that something being a class issue doesn’t preclude it also being a gender issue. That’s like demanding I provide evidence that modus ponens is a legitimate form of reasoning.
If you want to claim you `win’ here, I suppose you can: I have no response to your demands other than a jaw-agape, incredulous stare.
Also, I wasn’t talking about the act of carrying a pregnancy to term or conceiving a child. I was talking about the work traditionally classified as female and domestic, as opposed to masculine and economically productive: raising and educating children, managing the family’s schedule, performing and arranging for maintenance of the home, acquiring and preparing food for family consumption, and providing emotional support. The basic point is that the Great Men of history would have generally been unable to lead their public lives without the domestic and `unproductive’ support of their wives.
As for feminism teaching righteous anger: that’s anger at injustice we’re teaching, not hating men because they’re the enemy. Lesbian separatism was a branch of feminism that was always in the minority, and it hasn’t been mainstream even among radical feminists for about twenty years now. (That’s why your quote mining is pretty much useless as an argument, Yohan.) When you start foaming at the mouth over how much feminists hate men, we just start laughing at you (as Amanda and the posts by feminists in this very thread indicate). If you want to be taken seriously, know your enemy. Sure, feminists are angry, but at injustice and its perpetrators. The fact that the majority of men are great perpetrators of injustice doesn’t mean that we hate men just for being men.
Noumena said:
“As for feminism teaching righteous anger: that’s anger at injustice we’re teaching, not hating men because they’re the enemy. Lesbian separatism was a branch of feminism that was always in the minority, and it hasn’t been mainstream even among radical feminists for about twenty years now. (That’s why your quote mining is pretty much useless as an argument, Yohan.) When you start foaming at the mouth over how much feminists hate men, we just start laughing at you (as Amanda and the posts by feminists in this very thread indicate). If you want to be taken seriously, know your enemy. Sure, feminists are angry, but at injustice and its perpetrators. The fact that the majority of men are great perpetrators of injustice doesn’t mean that we hate men just for being men.”
Will you please provide examples of this injustice you speak of? Facts only, please. Not just what you have been told by your women’s studies instructors.
Ah, easy targets.
How many of you boys visiting us have *personally* made great discoveries, designed beautiful buildings, created timeless pieces of art, assembled brilliant philosophies or in any other way established YOURSELF as a majestically great human being to be remembered for centuries to come?
Any of you?
Well, no. Unless one or more of you are slumming Nobel Prize winners, or great authors, or genius scientists.. you know, rather then loser cranks on the internet, spewing whiny self-justifications to make up for your lack of achievement in anything. Being the same race as Shakespeare doesn’t mean that I am predisposed to becoming a master playwright. Being the same gender as some brilliant people doesn’t shine any brilliance on you, either. Sorry to make you cry.
If your sole achievements in life were having a penis and hooting incessently, then you would be in the same catagory of achievement as a monkey. The monkey would technically outclass you, it can swing by it’s tail.
Oh, Yohan. Must you take everything so literally? We are all the intellectual heirs of our predecessors, despite whatever ultimatums that you wish to cast upon those who partake of radical feminist writings. Mr Bad is kind enough to buy you an out, suggesting that you conflated anger with hatred - which would of course support my rather flippant conclusion that you have indeed suffered from a weak education.
20-month old girls can wipe thier asses no less well than 20-month old boys, yet if grown men want to form a brotherhood of solidarity around the manly tasks of bridge building and fire fighting (of which they have not themselves partaken), I am more than happy to let them know (”them” being those men who haven’t built bridges, fired rockets, flown to the moon, etc., etc.) that I am much happier in my life with a clean ass than I am with a functioning bridge.
Furthermore, the remaining parts of society (you know, those weak girls, little boys, women, and elderly men) who haven’t or cannot fight fires, or design bridges, or haul heavy items, are much more likely to be thankful that the women of the world wipe the infant assess of the world. The miracle of flight, the modern urban subway system, hell even public schools, would soon lose the gloss and glimmer of male accomplishment if they were inundated with nappies full of poo. Or asscracks with crusty reminders that women haven’t done their jobs (/sarcasm).
KellyMac -
Will you please provide examples of this injustice you speak of?
Sure.
Yesterday Bob Herbert mentioned a few: the failure of the press to identify the misogyny of two recent school shootings; the existence of that misogyny in the first place; the pervasive treatement of women’s sexuality as reducing them to objects for men’s use. The problem of sex trafficking and the fact that our government doesn’t do a thing to stop it. The fact that the worst insults you can level in our culture amount to calling the target a woman. The fact that it’s entirely acceptable to evaluate some of the most intelligent people in the country based on how well they achieve a standard of beauty concocted by advertisers. The fact that the majority of the population would probably not take a woman seriously as a candidate for President simply because she’s a woman. And, as already mentioned in the post you’re responding to, the fact that discrimination is responsible for the gender gap in the sciences to a significant extent.
Why not say this to MRAs on our boards? Afraid to venture out of your little circle where everybody pats you on the back? You are a pathetic worm, Hugo.
First off, the accusation of cowardice is ludicruous — I blog under my full name. Everyone knows where I work, where I volunteer. The vast majority of MRAs aren’t willing to do that, apparently because, as the recent school shootings indicate, feminists are notorious for attacking their enemies while men rarely lash out in violent anger. (Snort.)
Do you think tenure protects my volunteer position at All Saints Church, Pasadena, 132 North Euclid Avenue 91101? Do you think tenure protects me from being assaulted in my office hours by some MRA nutcase?
You want me? I hold office hours in the C building at Pasadena City College, MW 9:15-10:15AM; TuTh 8-8:45AM; M 4-6PM. My office phone number is 626-585-7408. I drive a red Toyota with Cal Bears plates. I work out at Classic Kickboxing inold Town Pasadena. Yeah, I’m a real coward, boys.
And if you think everyone pats me on the back here, lads, you’ve not been reading long.
Hugo, I used to be a member of Nice Guys’ forum*. I have been reading
your blog on a regular basis. I was/am sincerely intellectually
curious about both.
Although raised with feminist ideals, I lived through a bitter series
of incidents that demonstrated to me just how much power women’s
(plural, not singular) words can have, unjustly, over my life. In the
aftermath, my anger and my inability to reconcile this episode with
women’s claims to be oppressed resulted in my having MRA leanings as
well, though I would not claim at this point to be an MRA.
I’m disappointed that you have so little respect for the forum
that you choose to quote only the bottom-of-the-barrel posts. There
is (or at least used to be) a lot of intelligent discussion there.
You or your monitors choose to ignore it. Why?
*I left when I lost my patience with the moderators.
P.S.: the main reason I continue to read your site is that you,
seemingly alone among feminist bloggers, don’t have a zero tolerance
policy on MRA dissent.
“if you interpret radical feminist writings as “promoting hate against all men”, it is quite obvious, my good sir, that you are obviously not an intellectual heir of, well, anything, much less the public school system.”
Well, yes, QGrrl if you said that to me I’d take it literally…there is no hint of either irony, sarcasm or humour in the above.
“First off, the accusation of cowardice is ludicruous — I blog under my full name.*snip*You want me? I hold office hours…..”
Yes Hugo , the members of NiceGuy’s forum (note the apostrophe) are all going to get on planes from all over Europe, Australia and Japan to come see you.
Not telling us your log-in name and not posting to our faces, but lurking and then posting our threads here, is what is being called cowardly.
That’s all we ask. Reveal yourself. We dont’bite.
crella, I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Hugo is not so narcissistic as to read the forum himself for posts about him.
Ah, I see….
“There
is (or at least used to be) a lot of intelligent discussion there.”
There still is. But it’s much more interesting to take snippets of threads to make the forum look bad.
crella, I haven’t read the forum in months, and I don’t know
what goes on there any more. I’m glad to hear it’s still going strong
and did not mean to suggest that it’s gone downhill since I left.
Hugo, I used to be a member of Nice Guys’ forum*.
…
I’m disappointed that you have so little respect for the forum
that you choose to quote only the bottom-of-the-barrel posts. There
is (or at least used to be) a lot of intelligent discussion there.
You or your monitors choose to ignore it. Why?
…
*I left when I lost my patience with the moderators.
P.S.: the main reason I continue to read your site is that you,
seemingly alone among feminist bloggers, don’t have a zero tolerance
policy on MRA dissent.
Posted by: anonymous for the sake of my career | October 17, 2006 at 04:24 PM
==========================================================================
A very interesting posting,
Maybe you should check out again the MRA-site of NiceGuy.
People are changing, and moderators also changed.
For sure, at NiceGuy’s forum deleting, editing and banning is very very rare. Unlike many feminist sites, MRA are not into censorship.
Here are two general comments on everything posted above:
1. A lot of fields have been overrun by feminist notions and the like. I don’t know what to think about far more contributions by women to medical journals or the like (in terms of the argument that “women are doing more”). It’s a different world, different things are accepted, and people can live off the fat of the land today. Are they useful contributions?
2. What really gets me is the feminist woman who demands that the man adhere to the old norms. In fact, she doesn’t even realize that she requires that. It’s just a given with her.
A good examples is the unemployed feminist ball-buster married to a man who is expected to work 10 hours a day to pay for her valuable ass. And do repairs. And DIY. And maybe look at her car when it makes a funny noise. But the bastard damn well better do his share of the dishes (we ordered out tonight).
Sickening. Literally sickening that there are men who would give such power to women.
Sickening. Literally sickening that there are men who would give such power to women.
Because the only people who should have such power are men? Duly noted.
There is something oddly hilarious about watching MRAs bumble about awkwardly in this thread, desperately trying to generalize about the supposed excessive power of women (laughable) based on their own personal experiences. If you really don’t want to be in a relationship with a lazy woman who has “POWER” over you…uh…then don’t be in one. It’s quite simple. And the woman you describe is not “feminist” at all. In fact, she is an embarassment to feminism (at least to my brand.) Bossiness and laziness =/= feminism.
Actually, bossiness and laziness ARE feminism. They characterize feminism.
Sitting on your duff, complainaing about men, and getting all of that paid for via the university president, because he or she is too spineless to only allow REAL academic work, research and teaching, is Feminism Central. Sitting on your butt, while the men around you build the roads and computers and buildings and your very chair, while writing diatribes against the “Patriarchy”, and getting far more money than them from tax dollars, is really a feminist trait.
I have to admire feminists, though, especially the feminists who have a man in their lives paying for every damn thing, and fixing every damn thing at home, because they have the chutzpah to be so demanding. The Queen will always want more. I hope all of your supporters wake up.
“And the woman you describe is not “feminist” at all. In fact, she is an embarassment to feminism (at least to my brand.)”
The thing about “your brand” is that it is the classic stunt used by feminism to deny anything and everything. Any complaint about feminism is met with “well, that’s not MY brand of feminism”.
Yup, plenty of “feminist” women are also into having high-earning husbands, but they won’t admit it. Not even under torture. Nevertheless, they coincidentally follow some of the age-old paths. They coincidentally get a husband who can really do something in life, so that they can complain from their pseudo-position (probably paid for by tax dollars) that all men are scum or the like.
You are playing off the weakness of men. I’m damn proud of you that you can get money through manipulation.
If you really don’t want to be in a relationship with a lazy woman who has “POWER” over you…uh…then don’t be in one.
Jas | October 17, 2006 at 10:03 PM
=======================================================================
Correct, who needs US-career women anyway? This was a Forbes topic a while ago. Such women are not suitable for a good marriage.
A fact, but feminists do not want to hear that. But why not? Such career women are truly no good housewives.
Another good way to avoid US-EURO-power-women is international, especially interracial marriage - feminists do not want to hear that, too and try to restrict such marriages, claiming that only violent or otherwise broken men are buying a foreign bride. What a primitive defamation. IMBRA is the best example to show how much the word ‘equality’ means for a feminist.
…he types angrily, as his stay at home feminist wife beats him and does other bossy, feminist things that show just how powerful and overbearng women are in modern society!
Just like you claim you are a functioning member of society, other functioning members of society might want to disassociate themselves from people like you because you make all sorts of claims about being a functioning member of society, but you do not represent what they consider functioning members of society should. Understand? Just because someone calls themselves a feminist hardly means that they are. And it doesn’t mean that feminists are manipulating the definition or being dishonest…
Not all feminists are “useless academics” as you claim. In fact, mathematically, most feminists aren’t. So your point is useless. I’d rather not fan the flames of your insecurities and delusions any further, as this isn’t going anywhere.
My post was to mma, although it leads in quite nicely to Yohan’s post.
Yohan: most sane people would agree that a “good marriage” is not one of master and houseslave, but one comprised of equals, who don’t feel the need for one to serve the other. Careerwomen don’t make good housewives is something I will agree with. Because “careerwomen” have autonomy and a sense of self-worth. These are generally not conducive with a lifetime of silent obedience and floor scrubbing. Somehow, I don’t see a problem with autonomy and worth. Then again, I consider women to be human.
There is something oddly hilarious about watching MRAs bumble about awkwardly in this thread, desperately trying to generalize about the supposed excessive power of women (laughable) based on their own personal experiences.
Tell it to the myriads of men that routinely have their constitutional rights to due process denied by courts of law. If a man is accused of domestic violence, he has no right to a court appointed attorney. He has no right to face his accuser. Hearsay evidence is permitted. Or how ’bout men going through a divorce. Courts will issue an ex parte order removing him from his home, freeze his bank accounts and assets, leaving him homeless and broke. Then there’s the man that falls ill and can’t make child support payments. They’ll throw him in jail indefinately while the arrearage grows, and add interest for good measure. They’ll revoke his professional and driver’s licenses rendering him unemployable. They’ll label him a “deadbeat dad”, a vile and dubious sub-human. Why don’t you ever hear about a “deadbeat mom’? Because they’re never ever treated like this.
“First off, the accusation of cowardice is ludicruous — I blog under my full name. Everyone knows where I work, where I volunteer. The vast majority of MRAs aren’t willing to do that, apparently because, as the recent school shootings indicate, feminists are notorious for attacking their enemies while men rarely lash out in violent anger. (Snort.)
Do you think tenure protects my volunteer position at All Saints Church, Pasadena, 132 North Euclid Avenue 91101? Do you think tenure protects me from being assaulted in my office hours by some MRA nutcase?” - Hugo
Oh, please. I just sent you a friendly contact, and you write this about the possibility of getting attacked is in the cards? Tell me you are being facetious.
MRA nutcase? Who are you referring to? Most I know actually discourage violence. But I digress.
BTW, I think someone with the first name Andy got shot by another someone (a feminist, I believe) that wrote a manifesto. No, I don’t believe all feminists are trigger happy, but I’ve known few self-proclaimed feminists who’ve physically assaulted men. I’ll save the stories for now—they will make interesting reading on NG’s site. In fact my sig. there is an indirect reference about one of them. Plus I like the band.
My pic is on the site; just click on the screen name and you’ll see it. ;}
C.
“Then again, I consider women to be human.” - Jas
So should men be considered as, instead of walking ATMs and sperm donors.
Just a thought.
Women don’t have power? How’s this:
A woman can engage in consensual sex, feel bad about it the next day, claim she had been drinking and voila!, an innocent man gets 25 to life for rape. Talk about power, women hold men’s very freedom hostage on nothing but their word.
Yohan: most sane people would agree that a “good marriage” is not one of master and houseslave, but one comprised of equals, who don’t feel the need for one to serve the other.
Posted by: Jas | October 17, 2006 at 11:55 PM
=========================================================================
English is not my native language, but this sounds strange - somewhat feminist style.
I would say:
A good marriage = equals, who feel the need to serve each other…
…but I am only 30 years married, with only 2 daughters and 1 fostergirl, so maybe I am wrong, because my wife is not an US-feminist, is not a lesbian, and we had never handle a divorce.
Oh, yes, male feminists, a good marriage and a good divorce…
I am sure, Hugoboy knows more about that topic than I do.
A woman can engage in consensual sex, feel bad about it the next day, claim she had been drinking and voila!, an innocent man gets 25 to life for rape. Talk about power, women hold men’s very freedom hostage on nothing but their word.
And without any evidence, no DA would stand a chance in hell of even getting an indictement. Back in reality, a group of rich white men can shout racial and sexual epithetics at two poor black women, possibly rape one of them, and people will decide it’s all her fault because she’s a stripper.
This thread started off as one of the ugliest ones I’ve seen on this site, and it’s gotten worse. There’s no discussion here, just mutual trolling. Hugo, I think the time has come to lock this thread.
Correct, who needs US-career women anyway? This was a Forbes topic a while ago. Such women are not suitable for a good marriage.
A fact, but feminists do not want to hear that. But why not? Such career women are truly no good housewives.
Another good way to avoid US-EURO-power-women is international, especially interracial marriage -
I dunno, Noumena, this is getting downright comical. I am debating having a glass of wine to celebrate the fact that these trolls have decided that I’m unworthy of their attention, especially sexual/romantic attention. I can’t imagine what life is like with someone who thinks the only purpose for women is to be submissive housewives.
Careerwomen don’t make good housewives is something I will agree with. Because “careerwomen” have autonomy and a sense of self-worth. These are generally not conducive with a lifetime of silent obedience and floor scrubbing. Somehow, I don’t see a problem with autonomy and worth. Then again, I consider women to be human.
Because, you know, women that want to stay at home to raise a family don’t have a sense of self worth or any autonomy. Doesn’t matter though. They aren’t cut out to be real Feminists anyway because they have been brainwashed into that silent obedience by the evil Patriarchy (tm ).
Right?
“And without any evidence, no DA would stand a chance in hell of even getting an indictement”
Oh I am quite sure certain DAs *cough*Mike Nifong*cough* would try it on for size.
I can walk down the block and watch the preschoolers fight over who has cooties in the sandbox. Watching adults pretend slurs, epithets and derision are arguments isn’t entertainment, it’s embarrassing and depressing. That goes double when one side calls itself feminist.
We should be better than the lot who’ve invaded this thread, not egging them on. I’m going to get some actual work done.
This thread is now closed.