Father Hugo is at it again
Hugo counsels a student:
Why shouldn’t I wait to be a pro-feminist man until I’m older, when women will appreciate it? Why shouldn’t I be a player now, and have my fun?
I laughed gently, and reminded Pete of Augustine’s famous plea: “Give me continence, Lord, but not yet!” Pete got it, and chuckled too.
Norbizness comments:
There’s something very turtleneck-wearing church youth minister about that exchange that makes me glad I installed a chemical eyewash in my bathroom.
The topic under discussion is how Hugo deals with his sexist male students who don’t know why they should embrace feminism. Apparently Hugo’s approach is to acknowledge that feminism is indeed difficult and unpleasant — he compares it to AA — but nonetheless a noble undertaking that should be attempted once you’re through having fun in life and feel ready for the hairshirt (or turtleneck). This doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps one reason Hugo’s young charges are less than enthused about feminism is because their role model is a turtleneck-wearing youth minister who likens feminism to AA.
But who am I to criticize? As Hugo reminds us, he’s a professional! He’s out there “in the trenches” every day, actually being paid to be a feminist. We amateurs who were just born with vaginas and a yearning to be free, well, we can just fuck right off.
Go read the whole thread at punkassblog.
216 Responses to “Father Hugo is at it again”
-
will says:
I do not think that I would want my daughter in that youth group.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pm EST -
will says:
I just read the link.
I just do not understand what is so hard about treating other people with fairness, decency and respect.
Isnt that the basis of feminism? That all people (including women) should be treated with fairnessm, decency and respect?
By the way, am I missing something about feminism? Do I have to swear off sex to be supportive of feminism?
Can’t I still get laid if I consider the woman an equal partner? Isnt she supposed to enjoy sex too?
-
Violet says:
By the way, am I missing something about feminism? Do I have to swear off sex to be supportive of feminism? Can’t I still get laid if I consider the woman an equal partner? Isnt she supposed to enjoy sex too?
No, no, yes, yes.
When I was in college feminism was the de facto position — sexism would have been as unacceptable and repellent as racism. And we all humped like bunnies, drank like fish, and had ourselves a good old time.
To me it’s the non-feminist lifestyle that’s unappealing — women pretending to be something they’re not, men treating them like shit, people playing games with each other and all that. Jesus.
-
will says:
“When I was in college feminism was the de facto position — sexism would have been as unacceptable and repellent as racism. And we all humped like bunnies, drank like fish, and had ourselves a good old time”
How can you lie to me like that? Nobody ever had sex at your college. Nor fun for that matter.
-
Violet says:
I know it’s hard to believe, Will, but not all Virginia schools suck as hard as UVA.
-
will says:
Contrary to popular belief, I do not view “suck” as a bad word.
As a feminist, I would think that you would understand that issue.
The patriarchy made “suck” a bad word because it is largely women’s work. I am shocked and disappointed that you support the patriarchy.
-
Violet says:
One of the problems is this conflation of “pro-feminist man” with “Nice Guy” — the latter meaning a weakling. (Though it’s critical to note that in fact most self-described “nice guys” are assholes with huge chips on their shoulders about why they can’t get laid.)
Although much about Hugo’s approach irritates the living shit out of me, there was one piece of his advice that was correct:
What I did suggest to Pete was that he consider the possibility that what was really attractive to women wasn’t necessarily the “bad boy”, but the confident man.
That is exactly right, and instead of “suggesting” it Hugo should have delivered it as a truth — along with a few other truths, like how treating half of the human race as people isn’t some kind of optional thing you work up to.
But at any rate, it is absolutely correct that being a pro-feminist man does not mean being a wimp, and wimpiness is what many women find unappealing.
I don’t even know why this is difficult: having a strong, confident personality doesn’t require despising or treating as inferior a large group of humans who are different from you.
-
Hugo says:
I do not wear turtlenecks.
-
Steve says:
So I walked around my house twice to see if I could figure out why I wanted to throttle Hugo, whoever the hell he is. I mean, I am really not a throttling kind of guy.
Two thoughts.
Look, I aint shacked up with Andrea Dworkin (I know, RIP, Andrea) but Mrs. Steve was head of gender studies at a pretty big University. And what Hugo — on first reading — reminds me of are all the guys who not only want the feminist mantle and label and rewards and kudos and the sex that they think feminist guys get, they want you to kiss their royal ass simply because they are enlightened enough not to hate. And because their clothes come out of Naomi Wolf’s catalogue of Al Gore approved wardrobe.
And not only do they want to let you know that they don’t hate women, they want to say it in the most condescending pseudo-saintly way: Like I am the Jesus of feminists and I gently (Jesus does Hugo love to say how he says things “gently” to his students!) invite you to be my apostle and walk at my side.
“Verily, Hugo says unto thee, there are his servants who go to Hooters and then there is me.”
They want to go placidly amidst the noise and haste amidst all the hate and misogyny and rape and domestic violence and be our shepherd, our guide in a hate-filled world where they will always have just a little less hate than everyone else.
Hugo, you remind me of St. Francis of Assisi, petting the foreheads of the cows and chickens and snakes, urging us not to treat these animals like – well – animals. To follow your placidity amidst the noise and the haste.
Well guess what Hugo? If I should wake up tomorrow morning and see that David Duke has decided that my adopted black daughter is now human, as opposed to the opinion he had about her on Monday, he gets no points, no kudos, no slap on the back.
He’s a fuck who has imperceptibly and incrementally reduced his fucked-upness. And I want a shitload of proof that he’s not jerking my chain.
Also, Hugo, I wonder what feminists you’ve been hanging with. Seriously, if I tried to talk gender with 1/10th the amount of condescension in my language that you use, those emasculating feminists that fucktards conjure up would almost certainly come out of the woodwork my very own house, prepared to re-enact my circumcision, and deservedly so.
Look, Hugo, with full awareness of the danger of any man speaking for generic “women,” I don’t think women want your – of my, for that matter – sensitivity, gentleness, St. Francis pose, tutelage, or shepherding. They just don’t want any of our shit. They don’t for the most part give a flying fuck about whether you talked one of your little dicks into not grabbing some woman’s boobs. So stop being so fucking gentle, so fucking sensitive. Methinks you doth protest too much. Next thing you know Ill be asked to look for two instances that you have cured yeast infections as supporting your application for sainthood.
Like my beloved 8th grade teacher Mrs. Wheeler said: Sorry, Steve. No awards for being human. Your whole blog reeks of an application for feminist canonization.
So everybody: Beware of people who trumpet their gentleness and sensitivity in self-celebration; in finger-wagging, self-righteous prose rather than actions. They usually can be depended on to demand a hefty fucking price for their saintliness.
Adoration.
-
will says:
well-put Steve.
-
Alon Levy says:
The patriarchy made “suck” a bad word because it is largely women’s work. I am shocked and disappointed that you support the patriarchy.
As far as I know, the word “suck” originated as a way of calling someone gay. A lot of pejorative terms in English - “punk” as used by blacks, “asshole,” “suck,” and “blow” come to mind - come from ways of describing receptive partners in gay sex. The 1960s and 70s were weird like that (or have the last 20 years been weird in that being a receptive partner is no longer considered bad in itself?).
-
Txfeminist says:
I think we should introduce Hugo to John A. Davison. Then leave them in a room together. That would be fun.
-
Steve says:
Hugo and Davison
Survival of the Twittest
-
NYMOM says:
Hello Violet.
St. Francis of Assisi is one of my favorite saints.
-
Violet says:
Hi, NYMOM — haven’t seen you in ages.
-
Mandos says:
Like my beloved 8th grade teacher Mrs. Wheeler said: Sorry, Steve. No awards for being human. Your whole blog reeks of an application for feminist canonization.
I have to dissent slightly from this. In a world wherein people doing unpleasant things to one another is often the norm, it probably takes effort for some people to get denormed a little bit. Why not kudos for that? Why not give people gold stars for being a little bit better?
So everybody: Beware of people who trumpet their gentleness and sensitivity in self-celebration; in finger-wagging, self-righteous prose rather than actions. They usually can be depended on to demand a hefty fucking price for their saintliness.
I’m not sure I see it that way.
-
Steve says:
nymom
he is one of my favorite saints also
i just have a problem with people who would play at sainthood;poseurs who who wear sainthood as a one woukd wear a costume in a play
-
NYMOM says:
“Hi, NYMOM — haven’t seen you in ages.”
I haven’t been posting so much. I was diagnosed with diabetes a few months ago and have been trying to focus on my health…
-
NYMOM says:
“i just have a problem with people who would play at sainthood;poseurs who who wear sainthood as a one woukd wear a costume in a play”
I would have a problem with it too. If I thought it were true. However, I’m not sure you can ever know someone well enough from reading a blog to judge them like that.
It seems harsh.
-
anne says:
I’m with NYMom. While I was put off by Hugo’s remarks in that particular post as well, I think you’re being a bit severe with him. I don’t believe for a second that Hugo intends for women to “fuck right off;” that has never, ever been a tone I’ve noticed in his writing. Yes, he was off track with Pete, and he’s been taken to task for it. I think that’s enough.
Steve - I also disagree with your characterization of Hugo. It’s harsh.
Lastly - I disagree with your characterization of AA as unpleasant. Difficult, yes, but not unpleasant. Perhaps it wasn’t the best comparison for Hugo to make, but personally AA has been a lifesaver for me.
-
Steve says:
NYMOM and Anne:
Lemme re-read Hugo and see if he still drives me nuts the way he did at first. I suspoect it will, but you both seem like people of goodwill. Ill report back.
Oh, and it definitely wasnt me who even mentioned AA. I’m alive because of AA.
-
Violet says:
I don’t believe for a second that Hugo intends for women to “fuck right off;”
I was referring particularly to his “I do this for a living!” thing, which I found extraordinarily condescending.
-
Violet says:
While I was put off by Hugo’s remarks in that particular post as well, I think you’re being a bit severe with him.
There were a number of problems with Hugo’s response to Pete, but the central attitude was one I’ve seen Hugo display consistently: that feminism is optional. Hugo proudly cultivates friendships with MRAs, even people like Glenn Sacks who are dedicated to making it harder for rape victims to get justice. He defends this by saying that he doesn’t think “political” disagreements should stand in the way of friendship. That’s true to a point, but not when “political” includes whether or not a certain class of humans are in fact fully human.
Hugo, to me, is a little like a Black Studies professor who happily maintains friendships with David Duke and members of Stormfront. Pete is like a racist who walks in and says, “gee, I know there’s a lot of injustice, but it’s just so fun and easy to hate black people! Can’t I keep being a racist until I’m older?” And Father Hugo says, “why sure, Pete — racism IS fun and giving it up is awfully hard, but you’ll work up to it. One day at a time.”
-
Violet says:
NYMOM, I’m sorry to hear about your health.
-
Alon Levy says:
Hugo, to me, is a little like a Black Studies professor who happily maintains friendships with David Duke and members of Stormfront.
No, he’s not, and you know it. Glenn Sacks isn’t David Duke; he’s more like a lawyer who thinks affirmative action is unconstitutional. Saying that he thinks women are subhuman should make it to Webster’s entry, “Misrepresentation.” It doesn’t reflect negatively upon Ginsburg that she’s friends with Scalia, or upon any of Razib’s commenters that they implicitly support Gene Expressions.
-
Violet says:
Glenn Sacks isn’t David Duke; he’s more like a lawyer who thinks affirmative action is unconstitutional.
No, Glenn Sacks is like a lawyer who argues that most black people are liars, that racial discrimination doesn’t exist, and that most claims of discrimination by black people are really just scams to defraud or injure white people.
-
Mandos says:
Mmm, this is a sore point with me. I’ve cultivated a few friends who have opinions that are generally pretty abhorrent to me.
-
Violet says:
Saying that he thinks women are subhuman should make it to Webster’s entry, “Misrepresentation.”
Male sexists think that women are not fully human in the same way that white racists think that blacks are not fully human. Human in some way, but not quite up to the level of the “real” humans (whites/males). That’s why feminism can be simply described as the belief that “women are human.”
-
Alon Levy says:
People who think that there’s little or no gender discrimination going on don’t necessarily think women are subhuman. By your definition of feminism, most MRAs are in fact feminists. The trick is not just to say that there shouldn’t be gender inequality, but also to acknowledge that right now there is some.
-
Txfeminist says:
Alon, I have to take issue with your comments on Glenn Sacks. Clearly, you know very little about the Mens RIghts/ Father’s Rights movement if you’re willing to defend Glenn Sacks.
Glenn Sacks is a mysoginist. He blatantly anti-feminist, and not only that, anti-woman. His position, which is the same position as the Father’s Rights movement in general, is that women and children are the property of men, and woe betide any woman who happens to wish for any kind of autonomy.
He’s been instrumental in communicating all sorts of rhetoric via his radio show and web site to the public about “men’s rights” and “father’s rights” that have destroyed the lives of countless women and children post divorce, to name one of my beefs with him.
Men’s Rights Movement is completely and totally NOT a mirror image of feminism. it’s a ME Rights movement based on the angry whining of primarily white men who feel threatened when they don’t get to use male privilege to do whatever the fuck they want anymore.
I don’t see the mens’ rights movement reaching out to anyone in an altruistic way, the way feminism has. Feminists build coalition between many groups and work to improve conditions for many the world over. Mens’ rights groups seek to restore privileges unique to white men to white men. They whine and cry that feminist groups don’t “help” the (1 or 2 %??) battered men (not true, btw, anyway) but with all their backing and funding via federal funds, wealthy male sponsors, and right-wing groups, they don’t open any shelters for battered men - because the majority of battered men are gay.
They dont’ take up the cause of anyone but their own asses, and further, the Father’s Rights guys justify murder as a logical end result of divorce. See the recent ACFC report on domestic violence.
Alon, Glenn Sacks promotes misogyny, bigotry and hatred. He’s no friend of any self respecting man - feminist or no. One of the reasons I have no patience with Hugos’ brand of “Feminism” is that you can’t befriend someone like that without compromising your own values. You’re not going to “change” him or show him the light. What a waste of time.
Please come read some stuff at my web site if you want to know what the MRA’s and FRA”s are really about - or better yet, read Trish Wilson’s site. She has been following these guys activities for years, and their original web sites contain stuff that is RIGHT IN LINE with David Duke. They hate not only women, but Jews - yes Alon, Jews - you ought to be careful who you defend - African Americans, and anyone who is basically not a white male.
Get informed. Don’t compare their message of bigotry and hatred to the message of feminism. It’s really sad to see such a smart young guy like you defend someone like Glenn Sacks, who wouldn’t save you if you were drowning.
couple sites for you:
members.aol.com/asherah — trish wilson’s site
if you want to see the origins of the guys who lead the Father’s Rights movement check out this old web site ( a lot of it is down now, but still stands as a testament to the depths of their hatred) ,
christianparty.net - it will make you sick. You might change your mind about their intention, purpose and beliefs a little. If you have any questions about who put this site up, and where they are now, look up Trish Wilsons’ stuff about the “Fathers’ Manifesto” on her site.
They are not above death threats, hate mail, and more. For what? All for a little privilege.
-
Txfeminist says:
and don’t even get me started on Warren Farrell’s, or Richard Gardner’s, views about pedophilia.
-
Mandos says:
They are not above death threats, hate mail, and more. For what? All for a little privilege.
Not merely a little privilege, but to retain the sense that someone can’t exist without them. The groups they form seem partly a kind of odd support group for a very deep wound.
-
Alon Levy says:
Clearly, you know very little about the Mens RIghts/ Father’s Rights movement if you’re willing to defend Glenn Sacks.
I’m not defending Glenn Sacks. I’m defending Hugo Schwyzer.
One of the reasons I have no patience with Hugos’ brand of “Feminism” is that you can’t befriend someone like that without compromising your own values.
Oh, I know that. It’s a bit like how even talking to someone who’s not a Jehovah’s Witness is going to sully you and lead you away from the faith, I think.
Don’t compare their message of bigotry and hatred to the message of feminism.
You won’t find a single sentence I’ve written that compares the messages.
-
Txfeminist says:
Alon, you were getting dangerously close to doing so, in my opinion. I’m not sure that you weren’t defending Sacks by way of defending Hugo. Please, do some homework on these issues.
When MRA’s talk about “Equality” -that’s a semantic frame. In action they are all about restoring male privilege.
MRA and FRA movements are a backlash to the feminist movement and the advances it make in the late sixties and seventies. They go hand in hand with the fundies and worse.
I’m particularly ticked off today because of Charla Mack who was murdered by her ex Darren Mack (probably the guy who shot the judge in Nevada) . Darren Mack was in a Fathers Rights group in Nevada.
The Fathers Rights position on her death? It wouldnt’ have happened if Mack felt like he’d been “treated fairly” in court. Nice message. If I don’t get what I want, I’m justified in killing you.
And Glenn Sacks backs this kind of thinking and the legislation these groups put forward in a very big way.
-
Txfeminist says:
Mandos, it’s really interesting actually. Michael Flood has talked about this idea pretty extensively: that men are indeed wounded by this or that, particularly by divorce. There are very few support org’s for men post divorce except for the Fathers Rights groups, who are all too willing to spoon feed injured guys some very poisonous rhetoric –in the form of maudlin ideas about fatherhood and equality. When in fact their practices are very different than what they espouse.
Michael Flood has said that in fact, a lot of the “solutions” FR groups offer for fathers are not, in fact, what fathers need at all, and he’s right. But you know what happens? Michael Flood is very sympathetic to men. He’s a feminist, and cares about what happens to men in the patriarchy. And one of the few who truly does. And yet — he’s villified by the men’s groups as just another “feminazi” who’s been emasculated by women.
it’s really sad, in a way.
-
Alon Levy says:
Alon, you were getting dangerously close to doing so, in my opinion. I’m not sure that you weren’t defending Sacks by way of defending Hugo. Please, do some homework on these issues.
Well, I wasn’t. The whole guilt by association thing just reeks of fanaticism. Three years ago, when I was on DU, I was about as close to militant anarchism as Glenn Sacks is to DV.
When MRA’s talk about “Equality” -that’s a semantic frame. In action they are all about restoring male privilege.
MRA and FRA movements are a backlash to the feminist movement and the advances it make in the late sixties and seventies. They go hand in hand with the fundies and worse.
I know… I’ve been a regular on Trish’s blog since November, if I recall correctly. I wasn’t just running a commenting bot without ever reading the blog.
-
Mandos says:
So, I’ve read more than one man write about his experience with father’s rights groups. They generally didn’t turn out sympathetic to the ideology espoused by some of the more radical members of the group—but they feel grateful to them, because these groups saved them from suicide, etc.
I keep bringing things to the Reclusive Leftist Juju Theory—as we discussed this subject before then. A lot of male antifeminist reactionaritism may very well come from a deep-seated sense of social uselessness. “Despite all the power I have, if I’m dispensible to my female and offspring, what good am I?”
-
Mandos says:
What’s wrong with being close to militant anarchism?
-
Alon Levy says:
When it’s the kind of militant anarchism that openly supports political murder, it’s wrong.
-
Txfeminist says:
Alon, you can’t on one hand say,
“Glenn Sacks isn’t David Duke; he’s more like a lawyer who thinks affirmative action is unconstitutional. Saying that he thinks women are subhuman should make it to Webster’s entry, “Misrepresentation.””
and say you’re not defending Glenn Sacks;
and if you have read Trish’s web site - not her blog - in any depth you’ll see it goes far, far into these issues, so don’t get smart with me about your commenting on her blog; I said her site, not her blog;
and further, Glenn Sacks IS like David Duke; he thinks women are subhuman and deserving of fewer rights than men; he is a member of the MRA and FRA movement which has roots in ideas that are bigoted and racist; that women should not have the right to vote; that murdering your ex wife is justified if you don’t get what you want in your divorce; and so on, and so forth.
He is clearly NOT like an attorney who thinks affirmative action is unconstitutional in a personal opinion sort of way. He is a mouthpiece for ideas which espouse hatred and he is a militant activist in legislation that hurts women & children and he is effective. So, you are wrong there as well.
Further, it’s very easy to tell a person by the company they keep. Hugo’s company (read: Glenn Sacks) and his befriending of MRA’s/ FRA’s in general creates, for me, a very serious conflict of interest in which I believe that Hugo is going to side with privilege before he sides with equality based on what I have seen and heard from him, at every turn of the screw; and that while we can’t and don’t , obviously, agree with all our friends all the time (to Mando’s point) if we see that a person has made a connection to an individual which is in diametric opposition to the core values of another group he claims to support - he’s going to have to defend that connection very thoroughly or he WILL lose the support of the group. it’s a fact.
There’s nothing fanatical about staying true to your values. I don’t trust Hugo, because I really don’t understand where his values lie. The fact that he support individuals who are SO hurtful to women and children (and men, for that matter) , in fact supports an individual who’s message is little less than pure hatred, causes me to fully question his loyalties. And I have that right.
It obviously doesnt’ mean that Hugo himself doesn’t believe the Holocaust didn’t happen, etc, but it does put his values and his priorities into question.
And my point is finally that before you start talking about Glenn Sacks, know something about him beyond what Hugo told you (so to speak).
-
anne says:
Steve - I didn’t say you said anything bad about AA. I was talking to Violet. I’m sorry if you thought otherwise.
-
Mandos says:
Ah, OK, Alon. Militant anarchism means something different to me.
-
Alon Levy says:
What does it mean to you?
-
NYMOM says:
Well I don’t think Hugo is as bad as some have painted him here. Yet I too must admit to being puzzled by his continued friendships with MRA types.
I mean they HATE his guts, talk about him like a dog on their sites, have done everything they can to screw up his blog. One of them was even trying to pay a student in the womens’ studies classes to tape his lectures last year, so they could dissect them on the internet and discredit him publicly.
YET he continued to allow these people to post on his blog, only banning the worse of them recently.
I don’t pretend to understand, maybe it’s a Christian thing. He feels like he’s reaching out to sinners or something in the hope of redeeming them.
It’s the only explanation I can think of and IF that’s the case, then his responses to this boy Pete make sense. Trying to slowly bring a stray sheep into the fold, since he’s young and not as embittered yet. But these MRA types are WOLVES amongst sheep. So he needs to stop trying to convert them to anything. Bring them into your flock and they’ll just eat all the sheep and then finish off the shepherd…
Just my opinion, others might feel differently.
-
NYMOM says:
“Violet says:
NYMOM, I’m sorry to hear about your health.”
Thank you. It’s type 2, so the doctor said I could be cured if I watch what I eat and lose some weight.
So I’m working on the cure.
-
Mandos says:
Alon: oh, something akin to Emma Goldman.
-
Alon Levy says:
I wish… and even Emma Goldman was a bit iffy on political violence. But at least she seemed to genuinely care about something other than blowing things up, and she had real insights about oppression.
-
Mandos says:
So…even I am not a pacifist in principle.
-
Hugo says:
I have — finally — responded at my blog.
-
Rad Geek says:
Well I don’t think Hugo is as bad as some have painted him here. Yet I too must admit to being puzzled by his continued friendships with MRA types. … I mean they HATE his guts … I don’t pretend to understand, maybe it’s a Christian thing. He feels like he’s reaching out to sinners or something in the hope of redeeming them.
One of the things that seems to happen with Hugo and MRA bully boys, or other anti-feminist commenters, is that whenever there is a round of criticism over his friendship with some of them, or with his attitude towards their participation in his comments section, one or two regular MRA/anti-feminist comenters will pipe up about how they think he’s a great guy, how they learn a lot from his site, how it’s changed their views about feminism even though they still disagree with Hugo about many things, etc. etc. etc. These individual commenters may very well be sincere in what they’re saying, but whether they personally are sincere or not, it allows Hugo to think that they, as a group, have a better opinion of him as a person than most of them actually do, and that they are more receptive to what he’s saying than most of them actually are.
In this connection, you might check out the first comment posted in reply to Hugo’s reply to this post.
-
Violet says:
one or two regular MRA/anti-feminist comenters will pipe up about how they think he’s a great guy, how they learn a lot from his site, how it’s changed their views about feminism even though they still disagree with Hugo about many things, etc. etc. etc
Yes, I’ve seen that too, many times. They’re lying, of course. The anti-feminist commenters at Hugo’s are incorrigibly misogynistic. They never learn anything, and they never change. Everyday at Hugo’s is like the first day of class in Feminism 101. These guys hang around for months and learn nothing.
But then whenever Hugo is criticized for being a tool, they pipe up to say how much they’ve “learned” from him and how he’s so much better than those other feminist sites that are full of “shrill” man-haters, etc.
-
NYMOM says:
“They never learn anything, and they never change. Everyday at Hugo’s is like the first day of class in Feminism 101. These guys hang around for months and learn nothing.”
I don’t think their mission is to ‘learn’ anything but to discredit his world view, possibly to drive away his blog readers and close down his site if they can. They have staked out the internet as their ‘turf’ and I guess for a long time it has been. Now that more people are aware of blogging however, it’s become more diverse and this appears to angry many MRAs who really had the internet largely to themselves for quite a while. It’s like they feel certain sites are infringing on them or something.
“One of the things that seems to happen with Hugo and MRA bully boys, or other anti-feminist commenters, is that whenever there is a round of criticism over his friendship with some of them, or with his attitude towards their participation in his comments section, one or two regular MRA/anti-feminist comenters will pipe up about how they think he’s a great guy, how they learn a lot from his site, how it’s changed their views about feminism even though they still disagree with Hugo about many things, etc. etc. etc.”
BINGO…
That’s the bait and switch game they play that keeps him giving them another chance.
-
Txfeminist says:
well, I’m just sorry feminism is such a “cold swimming pool”.
Frankly, I’m with Sophonisba on that one.
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Hugo responds, and in the process makes things worse says:
[...] Txfeminist: well, I’m just……posted to Father Hugo is at it again at 1:37 pm EST on June 16, 2006 [...]
-
bmmg39 says:
Glenn Sacks is a true egalitarian; those who allege that he believes women and children to be the property of men clearly WERE spending most of their college hours humping like bunnies and drinking like fish. Those of us who went to college to educate ourselves, in contrast, know better.
Oh, yeah, and some of us who support men’s rights do NOT hate Hugo Schwyzer. I disagree with him staunchly on many things, but I give him credit for at least trying to be a peacemaker. Since I have been a guest on his blog, I’ve made acquaintances (at the very least) with a number of feminists, and we’ve found common ground.
-
Steve says:
“Glenn Sacks is a true egalitarian; those who allege that he believes women and children to be the property of men clearly WERE spending most of their college hours humping like bunnies and drinking like fish. Those of us who went to college to educate ourselves, in contrast, know better.”
Vi, this is the point when I again wonder 1) why and hopw you have ther st9omach for this blogging business, 2) why you think providing dickweeds like this with a forum serves an important social functiuon, and 3) what a moderating function is if not to lower on the boom on those whose substantive argument comes down to the fact that you humped like a bunny and that you didnt go to college to educate yourself.
I mean this is your home, and you can stand up for yourself. And I have moods when a good hump joke is just what thje doctor ordered, if not a good hump. This morning, though, I am again wondering why you mix it up with some of these pricks.
-
NYMOM says:
“Vi, this is the point when I again wonder 1) why and hopw you have ther st9omach for this blogging business, 2) why you think providing dickweeds like this with a forum serves an important social functiuon, and 3) what a moderating function is if not to lower on the boom on those whose substantive argument comes down to the fact that you humped like a bunny and that you didnt go to college to educate yourself.
I mean this is your home, and you can stand up for yourself. And I have moods when a good hump joke is just what thje doctor ordered, if not a good hump. This morning, though, I am again wondering why you mix it up with some of these pricks.”
Well it gives people a change to evaluate the opposition and see just how damn stupid some of them are.
For instance, with well over 50 comments about this issue on here, this guy picks out the ‘humping like bunnies’ remark and responds to that…
So doesn’t that say more about about the commenter and none of it good, by the way.
-
Steve says:
OK, now I can say that I know who Glenn Sacks is. The moronic ad hominem attack about “humping like a bunny” got me curious. I’ve seen the web site. My life has been enriched. I have been empowered. I can loosen the shackles of the matriarchy that — ah hah — are the reason I have been held down, the reason my life, my career, my aspirations have been systematically stymied.
Also, while I didn’t get far enough to find it on the site, Ill bet anything that had I continued with Mr. Sack’s site I would have eventually gotten to the by now fully predictable “false sexual abuse allegations” section, wherein he makes the case that false allegations of sexual abuse are rampant; that “boys will be boys” behavior has been unfairly criminalized and misunderstood. I might be wrong, but frankly all I read on Mr. Sack’s site was leading right to the old false allegation business.
So here is my question. And I admit it is asked with some sarcasm: Who are the women that guys like Glenn Sacks are hanging with? Or the women whose behavior and privilege and advantages have been so oppressive to him?
Damn, I’d like to meet some of them, because — to date — all I see and confront is almost limitless male privilege, an ongoing get out of jail free card that never expires and that to this point continues to bestow the benefits of patriarchy on me even when I’m not the least bit interested.
What are they doing to you Glenn that they aren’t doing to me? Fill me in. I’m really curious about all this male rage, although I know that if I ever started with the female privilege argument in my house, if I ever got my testosterone level up, the feminists with women I live would laugh their fucking heads off.
Also, please tell me why the notion of men’s rights is any more urgent or that much different than white rights. When you already have the privilege, the only major rationale for a social movement on your behalf is to m maintain the privilege, not to redress injustices.
Now I want to be less sarcastic and ask a serious question: What kind of upbringing and gender role models and parents and marriages lead someone to think that men’s right’s are violated and endangered enough to merit a special social movement?
I am actually serious about wanting to be enlightened. Tell me how I am being oppressed. Tell me the injustices that lie below the veneer of privilege that I see everywhere. Tell me why the virtually insignificant issue of men who are battered by women deserves a social movement in the shadow of a system in which women get the shit kicked out of them systemically and frequently.
If you’ll excuse me, I have to go attend my weekly Euro-American rights meeting.
-
NYMOM says:
These women don’t exist, not in Sacks’ real life anyway. He just ‘juices’ up other men to be angry about them…
He married a woman with a child already, which he was allowed to adopt because the father was a loser. YET if another man called him with the same story, he’d be indignantly defending the rights of the ‘father’ to his child.
His wife then went to law school while he stayed home with their baby.
Then he went to work at this flucky news radio show which probably brings home little money. So while his wife works supporting him and the kids, he’s running around with all these mens’ groups screaming about how men are being discriminated against…
So he’s alienated another father from his kid, been a stay-at-home dad, and has a hobby job that makes little money so his wife has to be the main support of the family…
YET he’s running around screaming and angering OTHER MEN by playing the ‘all men as victims’ card.
Odd isn’t it.
-
Violet says:
Vi, this is the point when I again wonder 1) why and hopw you have ther st9omach for this blogging business, 2) why you think providing dickweeds like this with a forum serves an important social functiuon, and 3) what a moderating function is if not to lower on the boom on those whose substantive argument comes down to the fact that you humped like a bunny and that you didnt go to college to educate yourself.
Steve, I don’t have a pre-screening function on this blog that will automatically bar dickweeds, so if one posts here all it means is that he found my blog. I didn’t invite him, much less am I deliberately providing him with a forum.
As for moderating — well, I do sleep, you know. I’ve been asleep most of day and just now saw that this thread had new comments.
-
Steve says:
I hear you.
-
Violet says:
Now I want to be less sarcastic and ask a serious question: What kind of upbringing and gender role models and parents and marriages lead someone to think that men’s right’s are violated and endangered enough to merit a special social movement?
Have you ever been around Southern Batshits? Or any of the Christian fundies who believe in male supremacy?
-
NYMOM says:
“As for moderating — well, I do sleep, you know. I’ve been asleep most of day and just now saw that this thread had new comments.”
What are you doing sleeping when you have a blog? Blogs are like new born babies needing constant care and attention The only time you should be sleeping is when the blog is asleep and since cyberspace is ‘up’ 24/7 that means no sleep.
[Just kidding, yanking you and Steve's chain, yank, yank, yank, yank, yank]…
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Learning to despise women says:
[...] Learning to despise women Back on the Father Hugo thread, Steve asked: So here is my question. And I admit it is asked with some sarcasm: Who are the women that guys like Glenn Sacks are hanging with? Or the women whose behavior and privilege and advantages have been so oppressive to him? Damn, I’d like to meet some of them, because — to date — all I see and confront is almost limitless male privilege, an ongoing get out of jail free card that never expires and that to this point continues to bestow the benefits of patriarchy on me even when I’m not the least bit interested. [...]
-
bmmg39 says:
Wow! Of all the points I crammed into there, what are you paying attention to? The line that was at best a dig, at worst a slam, but certainly was NOT an “ad hominem attack.” Good grief. Add onto that your sexist insults, using words such as “d—weed” and “p—-.” (Would you describe a woman you disagree with as a “c—”?)
“Also, please tell me why the notion of men’s rights is any more urgent or that much different than white rights. When you already have the privilege, the only major rationale for a social movement on your behalf is to m maintain the privilege, not to redress injustices.”
Men’s rights equal women’s rights, which equal black rights, which equal white rights. They all come from the same place: human rights. We’re here to redress injustices, not keep alive some mythical sort of “privilege.” That’s what Mr. Sacks does on his show. I’m sure I don’t agree with him on everything and would do things differently if I had MY own show, but he certainly is not a “male supremacist.” Neither am I. It’s just that we look upon female supremacy with equal condemnation.
-
Violet says:
It’s just that we look upon female supremacy with equal condemnation.
Then, Mr. bmmg39, I suggest you direct your attentions to that mythical land where female supremacy actually reigns — or even has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever doing so. Rumor has it that it’s located somewhere near the Land of Oppressed White Christian Billionaires. Good luck on your journey! Don’t write!
-
Steve says:
Dear Mr. BMMG39:
If I was Hugo, this is where I would remain patient and understanding and try to be persuasive and tell you why a movement on behalf of oppressors is different than a movement on behalf of victims. And then we’d build a campfire and beat on drums and communally purge ourselves of our ya-yas.
But Im not Hugo.
All I can say to someone who sees all class, race, gender, or sexual orientation inequalities as having some mathematical equivalence (white rights = black rights) is that you and I speak different languages and see different worlds.
Like you, I suppose, I see a world of pervasive, daily, small and large injustices. Many of these are against men. But I do not see a world in which all injustices are equal. My world is one in which only some injustices are so pervasive and systemic that they rise to the level of requiring a pervasive and systemic social movement in response. My world — the world of a white, affluent male — has no claim to special considerations.
Have some men — maybe you — gotten a raw deal in a custody fight? Sure. Have some men, somewhere, been unjustly accused of sexual abuse? Yes. Maybe some of you have even hooked up with women who have led you to this rage.
But when I do the overall calculus on gender inequality, these injustices — however hurtful to the victims and however in need of remedies — pale in significance when compared with a social system fully and completely infused with white, patriarchal privilege.
One little story that I bet separates you and I pretty clearly: About a decade ago, I was a candidate for a very senior position at an organization, almost running the place. I was a finalist along with a woman. My best guess is that I would have been a better qualified choice. The woman was chosen because there were no women among the Presidents and Vice Presidents at that major non-profit.
At the time, I was mad, although if I am honest I have to admit that I would have made the same choice they did given the make-up of the administration. My guess is that to you, I was the victim of an injustice, being passed over for a woman with less relevant experience than I; that what might have been my marginally better qualifications meant that her getting the job was an injustice. My guess is that you in similar circumstances might have exercised the male nuclear option, whatever that is. Maybe the “T” or testosterone bomb.
Was I thrilled? No. My view, though, is that with roughly equivalent qualifications, gender was a legitimate criterion to send me packing. And in subsequent years, the extent to which I have benefited from male privilege shrinks that incident into insignificance. I almost drowned in patriarchal privilege and ultimately had to start refusing some of the perks because I was being offered opportunities I didn’t even want. (Jobs and money , not free jock straps or shotguns, if you are wondering.)
One last example: I have studied and taught about the system of administration of justice during the Third Reich. Many people are not aware that amidst the barbarism, even the Nazis tried in a half-assed way to maintain a basic system that punished non-Jewish Germans who stole and embezzled and assaulted, etc. They even had trials and acquitted some defendants and convicted others. And yes, at the same time the Holocaust was going on, we know that some poor German schmucks who might have been picked up for shoplifting might not have received fair trials. Some honest white Protestant guy named Hans with a nice wife named Berta and two kids named Ernst and Rudolf probably did time for stealing a sausage that he didn’t steal. Granted.
But I think you know where I am headed. Hans was aggrieved, but to have devoted any large scale movement to protecting Hans and all the other guys wrongfully convicted of snatching a bratwurst in the context of the murder of millions of Jews Catholics, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others would have been an obscenity.
I am not comparing the US with Nazi Germany. I compare The Holocaust with nothing. I am, though, saying that in some social and historical contexts, the grievances of some groups or individuals — however painful to them personally and however in need of redress — do not rise to the level of requiring a social movement to respond.
BMMG39, we see different worlds. And if you need sensitivity and empathy for your beliefs, go see Hugo.
-
NYMOM says:
Now Steve: THAT WAS GOOD.
This blog should now prepare for what I refer to as the “swarm”…
-
Steve says:
NYMOM
Thanks
NJDAD
-
Violet says:
This blog should now prepare for what I refer to as the “swarm”…
God, NO!
-
Steve says:
Ezekiel 3:15
“Swarm not the dwelling of she that is reclusive, lest she remove the graven image of herself that now graces the blessed abode.”
-
Violet says:
Steve, just read through your post, and it’s lovely. But I can tell you right now it won’t mean a thing to him. He’s been at Hugo’s for months, years for all I know, and still thinks feminism is a plot by women to oppress men.
That’s why Hugo’s kidding himself by talking to these clowns: they’re not learning anything. And they’re lying when they say they are.
Hey, bmmg39: don’t come back. Seriously. Read my comments policy. This is a feminist blog, and the anti-feminist crap you get away with at Hugo’s isn’t welcome here.
-
NYMOM says:
“Swarm not the dwelling of she that is reclusive, lest she remove the graven image of herself that now graces the blessed abode.”
Is this from the bible? I might use it for my blog depending upon it’s meaning as I just finished getting swarmed on my blog. I had to finally close off all comments on one post…if it continues, I will shut down all comments for a week or two, usually that works…
So let’s see what happens here. Sometimes if I mention the ’swarm’, it doesn’t happen. Maybe they get embarrassed or something when their behavior gets outted publicly. But sometimes it doesn’t work.
Let’s see.
-
Mandos says:
NYMOM, you have just encountered the OTHER swarm on this blog, the swarm of meta, of which Violet herself is Queen. Of course the quote is fake. Steve is one of the core cabal of metahumourists.
-
Steve says:
No, NYMOM. it is a quote I made up suggesting that if Vi gets swarmed she might take down the photo of herself that she posted.
-
Steve says:
and I always swore id never get meta…..
-
Steve says:
is there such a thing as meta-meta?
-
Mandos says:
Yes. It’s officially called “second-order meta”.
-
bmmg39 says:
“Then, Mr. bmmg39, I suggest you direct your attentions to that mythical land where female supremacy actually reigns — or even has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever doing so.”
Male supremacy and female supremacy do not actually exist; they are attitudes, not realities, thankfully. I am against the ATTITUDE of female supremacy as much as I am against the ATTITUDE of male supremacy.
“He’s been at Hugo’s for months, years for all I know, and still thinks feminism is a plot by women to oppress men.”
No, I don’t. I’m not anti-feminist in the least. Many hear my views and consider them to be feminist views. I do not hold feminists or feminism accountable for social ills. Not sure where you got that idea, unless you are choosing to cling to stereotypes rather than deal with people as individuals. So I don’t post “crap,” anti-feminist or otherwise.
-
NYMOM says:
Well from the bible or not, that quote was good Steve.
I liked it and I bet Violet did as well.
-
NYMOM says:
Actually in an odd way bmmg39 is being honest. He is not anti-feminism.
But what he fails to mention is that he is ONLY for the most extreme form of feminism; which I’m not quite sure how to put it but is twisting feminist ideals into a sword to be used against women in order to destroy us.
So him and his ilk support the sorts of gender neutral feminism which is really almost like a covert hate campaign that’s been launched against women.
Just to give you an example of one of their issues: Why are so few women on death row. Cathy Young has been talking about this for a while now. So they are wondering why statistically there aren’t as many women as men on death row and they are working to fix that.
So as with everything else the ‘good’ ideas of feminism in the wrong hands can be put to ‘bad’ uses.
Not sure if I’m being completely clear here.
-
ginmar says:
Why are so few women on death row? That’s why I hate Cathy Young; she’s just blind.
So why aren’t women on death row? Because women don’t commit as many violent crimes as men do! This might have something to do with the fact that women are smaller than men and socialized differently. Just a guess. Meanwhile, how come nobody asks how we can change men so they stop killing so many other people? Oh, wait, that’s right some people do—they’re called feminists.
-
CR says:
90% of all violent crime is done by males ( not sure why- it’s for the gentlemen to examine amonst themselves why that is- What are guys so pissed off about?). And even a larger number of all pre-meditated murders. So that’s the reason that there are so few ladies on death row in relation to men.
-
NYMOM says:
My point was that a REAL mens movement concerned about MEN would be trying to get men off of death row, NOT get more women on there with them.
I mean the whole idea is ridiculous.
Would a movement trying to help Afr. Americans on death row see their role as helping put more whites in there with them?
Thus, even support of feminism can be used as a tool to hurt women. So for someone to say they support feminism is not always a good. One must explore further to see the sorts of things they actually support with their support of feminism.
I mean if this feminism support ends with more women lives being made worse, then it’s useless.
We need to look at the final outcome of this support: for IF this support translates into more women on death row, more women losing their children, more women getting killed in wars because the Pentagon needs bodies and men don’t want to enlist during wartime…THEN quess what: supporters of feminism are useless then…if they CANNOT deliver the goods and make womens’ lives better…
We need to keep our eyes on the mission:
Feminism = making womens’ lives better.
Anything less and they risk the very existence of a women’s movement. That’s what at stake.
-
ginmar says:
Er…if they commit the crime, why shouldn’t they be on death row? They do the crime, they get sent to jail. What’s the problem? I’m not talking about the death penalty; if a man kills, he deserves to go to prison. Period. End of subject.
-
Violet says:
I do not hold feminists or feminism accountable for social ills. Not sure where you got that idea, unless you are choosing to cling to stereotypes rather than deal with people as individuals.
I got it from your statements that you support the MRA movement and you think Glenn Sacks is an egalitarian.
However, I’ve looked you up online, and I see now that your anti-feminism is of a peculiarly perverse kind: you’re the type who goes about saying that men are just as discriminated against as women. This enables you to mouth a commitment to “equality for all,” while denying the reality that women are treated inequitably.
Steve actually had you pegged exactly: if this were Nazi Germany, you’d be arguing that yes it’s awful to murder millions of Jews, but it’s no more awful than the millions of Christians that are being rounded up and herded into the gas chambers, is it? What about them?
-
Mandos says:
A lot of Poles, as I understand it, would apparently make that statement, FWIW.
-
Steve says:
Actually, Vi, I suggested that the MRAs would probably have been concerned about all Holocaust victims, but would have been the ones arguing that we should be comparably concerned about some of the common German citizens who were mistreated by the flawed Nazi criminal justice system.
Not all injustices rise to the level of requiring a social mpovement. Focusing on the justice denied common criminals in the Third Reich, in the context of the murder of millions of Jews Catholics, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others would have been an obscenity.
It’s like the MRAs who profess deep concern about the men who are physically abused by women. Has some guy somewhere gotten his ass kicked by a woman? Of course.
But need we give a flying fuck about it in the context of a system that legally and systemically tolerates the beating of women?
Hardly.
-
Violet says:
The thing is, Steve, this guy really does imagine that women are committing violence in equal numbers as men, that men are being harassed and discriminated against on the basis of sex at the same rate as women, and so on. His comments scattered about the blogosphere are positively delusional. He deals in phantoms.
-
bmmg39 says:
“I got it from your statements that you support the MRA movement and you think Glenn Sacks is an egalitarian.”
Okay, so at least we know where your leap of illogicality was.
“Has some guy somewhere gotten his ass kicked by a woman? Of course. But need we give a flying fuck about it in the context of a system that legally and systemically tolerates the beating of women? Hardly.”
Go do some honest research on how battered women are treated as opposed to how battered men are treated and then get back to me.
-
ginmar says:
It’s been done, doofus. Over and over and fucking over for decades. Where have YOU been?
Sorry, but this is just rediculous. It’s been done.
-
Violet says:
Go do some honest research on how battered women are treated as opposed to how battered men are treated and then get back to me.
This is why chumps like you aren’t allowed here. People like Trish Wilson and Red State Feminist have been exposing the truth of domestic violence for years. My blog isn’t going to become another forum for MRA lies about how women beat men as much as men beat women (or more!), about how mean old feminists won’t let battered men into their shelters, and on and on. Piss off.
-
NYMOM says:
“Steve actually had you pegged exactly: if this were Nazi Germany, you’d be arguing that yes it’s awful to murder millions of Jews, but it’s no more awful than the millions of Christians that are being rounded up and herded into the gas chambers, is it? What about them?”
Actually worse.
He would have been trying to form a social movement for the ordinary Germans who were being wrongly convicted of misdeameanors like car theft and such, claiming the injustice of
THAT was as bad as herding Jews and Christians, and other victims of the holocaust into the gas chambers.That’s the problem.
They keep equating some guy whose wife screams at him to a man who breaks his wife’s jaw because she ‘disrespects’ him.
It’s totally ridiculous.
I saw one MRA site with a whole list of potential domestic violence ‘crimes’ that women could commit against men. It includes things like spending too much shopping, refusing to cook for your husband, using sex as a ‘weapon’ for refusing to have sex after a fight, things like that. It really makes a mockery of the entire issue.
-
Steve says:
God am I glad I read your “piss off” message before I spent time writing my own.
I just don’t think there is much to say to anyone who is worried about the scourge of men who are battered by women.
It’s like starting a non-profit to protect fishermen from attacks by mackerels that jump out of the water into the boat.
-
NYMOM says:
“Er…if they commit the crime, why shouldn’t they be on death row?”
My problem comes in when people think the solution to too many MEN on death row is to add more women to balance the equation and then claim that makes them pro-feminism.
I mean there are many issues with the death penalty in this country from racial ones to economic ones, as in people who can afford the best defense are rarely executed no matter how horrific their crime. Not to mention there is a huge disparity by race on death row.
So anyone looking at death row numbers should address those issues…and NOT by saying well let’s get more people on death row, so we can even out the disparities amongst the races, classes, sexes, etc.,
Feminism was not about taking things away from women. But making things better for us. Actually early feminists already foresaw the potential misuse by men of feminist ideology to get more privileges for themselves under the guise of supporting gender neutral public policies…and they stated pretty clearly that feminism was not about giving men anymore then they already had. “…what they have and no more” as one put it. It was about giving women more, making our lives better and that’s what it needs to remain about.
Too many young feminists have lose sight of this.
-
bmmg39 says:
Since this might well be my last post…
“People like Trish Wilson and Red State Feminist have been exposing the truth of domestic violence for years.”
People like TW and RSF have been obfuscating and misstating the issue for years, not exposing it. By the way, it doesn’t matter whether the “numbers are equal” or not. The vast majority of people coming home from wars in bodybags are men. Does that mean we should ignore the women who’ve given their lives for their country because they’re in the minority? I’ll answer it for ya: no. Same principle.
“They keep equating some guy whose wife screams at him to a man who breaks his wife’s jaw because she ‘disrespects’ him.”
No, I’m equating a punch with a punch and a slap with a slap. In fact, the reverse of what you say is true. If a woman stabs her husband in the chest with a fork, and he “retaliates” by throwing a napkin in her general direction, there are those who STILL maintain that he’s the violent one.
“It’s like starting a non-profit to protect fishermen from attacks by mackerels that jump out of the water into the boat.”
Poor analogy alert. Fishermen kill fish. The men I’m talking about are just as innocent of domestic abuse as (true) battered women are. You don’t understand that, because to you all men should suffer the consequences of what SOME men do: “You’re a battered man? Tough. Men hurt women all the time, so we don’t care about YOU.”
You don’t like blogs where a variety of views are allowed? Fine. YOU piss off. Stay away, and stick to your fantasyland where only your ten carbon copies are allowed to smile and nod to everything you say.
-
Steve says:
Oh God no, I beg you.
Anything but being the carbon copy of a woman who wears metal headphones.
-
ginmar says:
God, that’s stupid. Women are kept by law from being in combat, you imbecile. That’s why they don’t come back from the military in equal numbers. Not only that, but the military is eighty five percent male. Don’t let reality bother you.
Oh, yeah, asshole, what’s keeping MRAs like you from doing shit about so-called battered men?
And the “You can’t handle the truth” line of bull coming from a guy who trolls feminist blogs with MRA bullshit about battered men? Hypocricy, thy name is MRA.
-
Mandos says:
Those aren’t headphones, Steve. These are princessleiometers.
-
Violet says:
Always with the “you just don’t want to hear a variety of views” thing. It’s like the KKK crashing an NAACP meeting and then getting pissed off ’cause they’re not wanted. Or really, crashing any meeting of people who are in touch with reality.
Unfortunately, I’m deeply afraid that more of these fools are coming. Trish Wilson just wrote me that Glenn Sacks has attacked my blog in his newsletter. Jesus Christ.
-
Mandos says:
Wow VS you hit the jackpot. Now we get to see Juju Theory in action.
-
Violet says:
No, I don’t want them. I’m trying to figure out how I might block them from posting here.
-
Mandos says:
Still, I admire anyone who can hit the troll jackpot
-
Steve says:
I just hope that they send some people with at least a little intellectual heft. So far, instead of sending Dr. Goebbels, it looks to me like we got the MRA equivalent of the lesser known Nuremberg defendants.
For God’s sakes, if the MRA trolls are going to come out of the woodwork, let them send their fucking Fuhrer.
-
Mandos says:
Sadly, based on experience at Trish Wilson’s blog, bmmg is one of the better ones.
-
NYMOM says:
“The vast majority of people coming home from wars in bodybags are men.”
But it SHOULD be pretty clear why this is the case for anybody of even reasonable intelligence. It’s got nothing to do with female privilege, if that’s what you are implying. Actually that’s one of the silliest things you keep bringing up everywhere you go.
Men fight wars because you are larger and stronger then us. That’s why you are in the battlefield and we are not. That’s been the way it is since wars first began and will remain the case until the last one is fought. It’s ridiculous to keep bringing this issue up like it’s some kind of plot against men or something.
If you wanted to say women should be registered and drafted like men to serve in other capacities, then you might have a case. But to continue this fixation on men vs. women in bodybags is silly. Unless you wish to lose wars. Is that where this is going? It’s more important to harm women then to win a war. Is that it?
We’ll agree to put women in the front lines as soon as we fight any enemy who will agree to only let our women fight their women and place no men on the field against us.
Okay…now are you happy.
-
Violet says:
The bodybag argument is definitely stupid. Men are the ones on the battlefield because they have claimed that role for themselves and excluded women from it. I don’t think it’s really strength so much as the fact that men are biologically expendable. It’s a masculine invention.
In the modern world many women would like to be combat soldiers, and there is no physical reason for them not to do so. Men keep them out of combat positions because they consider warfare a male perogative.
The bodybag argument is also specious because it overlooks the fact that most casualties of war are civilians, and half of those civilians are female. In addition, female civilians are raped by marauding soldiers, so their suffering is even greater.
-
Steve says:
We are nervy bastards.
We use our position to maneuver ourselves into all sorts of advantageous positions of power and preference. Then, all of a sudden — after we use these positions to commit acts that get us into truly deep shit (killing in war, getting elected to office, abusing women, excluding women from certain professions) and we have to face the consequences of our actions — we start demanding equality and fair play.
But what we demand when, caught with our pants down as criminals and abusers, is not that women get the same preferences.
We want then to get the same punishment. That’s equality.
Like I said. We guys are truly nervy bastards. And it’d be funny but we keep getting away with it.
We really made a great case for our gender in the 20th century. At least 100 million dead in war killed overwhelmingly by men. Oh and toss in the famine deaths of at least 38 million perpetrated by Mao. (I know we needed to end fascism, so if it makes you feel better, take out all the combatant deaths.)
So how do the MRAs respond at the end of a century where with all this power in hand we men almost destroyed the human race? Punish women equally. Make sure Carla Faye Tucker gets the juice. Root out female perpetrators of violence.
They remind me of my 8 year old. Caught in some royal fuck-up, her first response is that Joey or Maria pull the same shit.
-
NYMOM says:
“In the modern world many women would like to be combat soldiers, and there is no physical reason for them not to do so. Men keep them out of combat positions because they consider warfare a male perogative.”
That is NOT true…
Les Aspin banned women from frontline combat as well as enlistment in ANY of the special forces such as Rangers, Navy Seals, etc., after a Presidential Commission researched the issue immediately after the end of the Gulf War.
Actually Clinton, who was President at that time, WANTED to find a reason for women to be in the front lines. He was attempting to please radical gender neutral proponents.
What they found after the testing and research was that even the ‘best’ women with SPECIAL FORCES TRAINING were NOT able to overcome the average man in hand to hand combat. The best they could do was hold their own and not sustain critical injury for some limited period. Actually it turned out later these ‘best women’ were not able to even overcome the below average men which are the men who the armed forces is attempting to screen out.
These front line and special forces exemptions for women is actually the entire basis for ALL WOMEN not being required to register or enter a draft if it ever returns. So again women who attempt to undermine that exemption put all other women at risk that we will be forced into combat at some point in the future.
So we need to be careful before we make such assumptions about WHY women are not permitted in the front lines or in special forces units. AND this is an issue that needs the consent of ALL WOMENS before it is changed not just a few self selected representatives who chose to make that decision w/o consulting the rest of us.
-
NYMOM says:
“So how do the MRAs respond at the end of a century where with all this power in hand we men almost destroyed the human race? Punish women equally. Make sure Carla Faye Tucker gets the juice. Root out female perpetrators of violence.”
To be honest Steve it’s responses like this from men every once in a great while that keep me from total despair for our future.
I see you have a daughter? So it’s good you understand that these men will be the ones that she’ll be looking to as boyfriends and a husband in the future.
Pretty damn scary isn’t it.
-
Violet says:
I’ve been reading Sex and War, by Stan Goff, who is of course a career veteran of Special Forces. He says it’s simply not true that women are unable to handle combat positions, even in Special Forces situations. The reports that were put together to keep women out of combat were, he said, basically cooked.
-
ginmar says:
Er, NYMOM, I’d like to see that study because a 1996 study by the DOD found exactly the opposite. They took a bunch of housewives and found that with training to overcome the physical conditioning forcd on women that women could perform 96% of physical tasks necessary. Furhtermore, in Iraq, women are in combat on a day to day basis and no less than the Marines have praised female soldiers for their performance and devotion to duty. Finally, we no longer fight wars in such a way as to demand super conditioning of any but a few. Most men can’t hack SF training, either. How ocme no one ever mentiosn that?
-
ginmar says:
Yeah, the shocking truth is that men and women can actually get along and not be sexually involved. Well, then, there’s the pesky fact that women who’ve been in combat and fought for their country tend to ask really uncomfortable questions once they get back home and find out they’re trusted with automatic weapons and not their own reproductive organs.
-
Mandos says:
NYMOM has been beating the “gender neutral” drum for a long time now. Her interest in MRAs is that she believes it’s a feminist plot to treat mothers the same as father and tear kids away from their mothers on a feminist theory exploited by men, when in a “natural” world women would generally be custodial parents. Fatherhood is a privilege thus bestowed by women not merely before birth, but after.
-
txfeminist says:
Huh?
*scratches head*
-
Mandos says:
It doesn’t make all that much more sense to me but whatever.
-
NYMOM says:
“I’ve been reading Sex and War, by Stan Goff, who is of course a career veteran of Special Forces. He says it’s simply not true that women are unable to handle combat positions, even in Special Forces situations. The reports that were put together to keep women out of combat were, he said, basically cooked.”
I find that hard to believe because the people who set up that Presidential Commission were in the Clinton Administration and the goal was to try to come to the opposite conclusion.
Additionally these were studies that were done, not reports.
Plus if that was the case that these studies were all bogus how come nobody said anything at the time? NOW didn’t say a word, nor did any military women or men…the time to speak out if these studies were phonied up was then.
NOT almost 20 years after the fact when it’s very difficult to figure out the truth of these things.
I mean anything is possible but it’s doesn’t sound probably if you know what I mean that no one said a word at the time even after Les Aspin made the changes, but now almost 20 years AFTER the fact someone is saying the whole thing was based upon lies.
It’s just odd.
-
NYMOM says:
“Huh?
scratches head”
Exactly. I thought the same thing.
-
CR says:
I believe what you are saying NYMOM about women and physical combat. Women still make darn good soldiers though. And I think most of the male soldiers are grateful and happy for their presence.
-
NYMOM says:
“Er, NYMOM, I’d like to see that study because a 1996 study by the DOD found exactly the opposite. They took a bunch of housewives and found that with training to overcome the physical conditioning forcd on women that women could perform 96% of physical tasks necessary.”
What’s the other 4% they can’t do…is that front line combat. As I understand MOST of the army is backup and support for combat troops. Presumably combat troops make up a small part of our actual army.
Is that the case?
I will post a link to someone who wrote an article about the study. He was actually on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
http://www.visionforumministri.....nation.asp
I guess my other issue is WHY didn’t anyone say anything at the time the rules were changed by Les Aspin based upon that study, if they felt the rule changes were instigated by studies that were cooked.
It makes it much more difficult to know these things when people wait 20 years or so to make these accusations, instead of bringing it up at the time when it could make some real difference.
“Finally, we no longer fight wars in such a way as to demand super conditioning of any but a few. Most men can’t hack SF training, either. How ocme no one ever mentiosn that?”
Yes I know most men can’t hack it…but the women weren’t able to beat the average men even after being given that training. That’s the issue. Not if most people can be in special forces or not.
Regarding your point about the changes in the way we fight wars: at one time I will agree people THOUGHT that combat was changing and it would morph into what we see on stars wars movies, with technology making wars less about brawn and more about brains and eye/hand coordination. Unfortunately just the opposite appears to be happening as most of our conflicts are not with full fledged states but more like little statelets. AND our wars are morphing into more street fighting, more hand to hand combat as we have to engage the actual enemy on a one-on-one basis.
All this thinking that we would destroy their command and control centers and then get their top people to meet with our top people and sign surrender documents like what we did in WWI and WWII are out the window now. Not relevant anymore as we are no longer dealing with governments but organizations, loosely knit groups or just nuts with a grudge and access to some explosives and a truck.
Then physical strength counts.
-
CR says:
I don’t think that being equal means that women and men have to do the same things neccessarily. And I really don’t thinkit’s realistically possible anywhay. Obviously, there are strengths and weaknesses on both sides. Not everything the guys are doing I don’t even want for ladies to go and do too. I don’t think the guys always are doing the right thing. I think war is pest to put it mildly.
-
NYMOM says:
One last point Ginmar.
The issue is larger then whether or not women CAN go into combat but whether or not we will AGREE to do so.
As right now men control the Presidency, the Supreme Court, both Houses of Congress, not to mention the Pentagon. So perhaps most women feel that women will gladly go to fight wars when we have proportional representation in those branches that decide whether or not our country should go to war.
NOR should it be up to a small group, whatever the reason, attempting to undermine the rules of engagement so as to make the decision for ALL the rest of us women…
This needs to be a discussion that includes all women.
-
ginmar says:
Er, NYMOM, women already ARE in combat, so what is your issue here? I notice that you appear to be trying to revive the Phyllis Schlafly-like cry of, “Do you want women serving in the military?OH NOES!”—which, quite frankly, is bullshit.
Yeah, as I said, I’d like to see this study, because only rightwing nuts adopt that kind of attitude toward women in the military. And, no, all women don’t need to be involved in this discussion; it’s up to women who want to serve, not those who are afraid if women can fight we’ll be required to get off our asses and do so.
-
CR says:
The way it is right now, ladies can join the military just fine. and if they can go through the training and cut the mustard they not barred from anything or anywhere. Is this not true? I do not see a problem here. It sounds like it’s working out just fine for females who wish to join. If htye can’t cut the mustard, they have to do backup. sounds right to me.
-
CR says:
only rightwing nuts adopt that kind of attitude toward women in the military.
Are you meaning that people who believe those studies about females not being able to do as well with the hand to hand combat required in military training in relation to their male counterparts. I don’t think that a right wing attitude. They believe it because thats what they have pretty much observed. It is what it is.
I don’t know of those studies, but I believe it as general rule. It doesn’t mean females can’t make great soldiers, though. I think they probably make very good and dedicated soldiers.
-
ginmar says:
Er, CR, women have not been allowed in combat until recently, so how could it be observed? And the guys who claim women suck in combat have turned out to be sexist asswipes, whereas guys who actually observe with an open mind find that female soldiers do just fine.
And I speak from experience. Being in combat is not something that men are good at, either.
-
CR says:
By obverse, I meant the basic hand to hand combat training neccessary in the military to become a front line soldier. The ladies don’t do as well as the fellows. As for ladies doing just fine in the military, I’ll beleive it. You bet ya. I think they make fine soldiers. In the use of small firearms and sniper rifles as well as guided missiles and morter, I think that I read somewhere that the females are just as good if not better than their male counterparts. However, in the use of machine guns, and heavy firearms- females do not fare as well. And of course in hand to hand combat they do not fare as well.
As for guys not being good at combat in a war type of experience. Personally, I don’t think anyone is “good at it”. It is an unnatural situation for anyone to be in.
-
ginmar says:
Er….hand to hand combat is not something that happens these days. And by the way, I’m five foot three and I was a machine gunner on a couple of occasions, though in combat I used an M-16 A2. It so happened that in my company the other two main machine gunners were both females, and they did fine. I know of MP companies whose turret gunners are all female. Maybe it has something to do with the lower center of gravity.
As for hadn-to-hand combat, which you seem a bit fixated on, women are smaller than men on average. The ones that are the same size seem to do just fine. The 82nd Airborne has a five foot eleven inch female medic who has evacuated men by herself just like one of the male medics. Strangely, when male medics evac larger male soldiers no one worries about their health or what it means that they just do their job.
-
CR says:
Ginmar have you been a soldier in combat? You said you speak from experience. If you have, can you say a little what it’s like? I wanted to join the military but Amore got in the way. I thought that I would make a good and proper soldier. Except that I knew that I cound not end the life of another haphazardly. So i wanted to be in back up. Every one in my family since the beginning of time has been in a war. No one wants to miss one. It’s a fmaily tradition. if there’s a war, we want in it. My Communist grandfather collected funds for the Spanish Civil War and tryed to enlist. It just goes to show, that in my family, it doesn’t even have to be “our’ war. Anybody’s war is good. Not picky.
-
ginmar says:
Yeah, I’ve been in combat. I did a year in Iraq and I spent a fair amount of time doing convoys and stuff. I was an interrogator, so I spent a lot of time outside the wire, talking to Iraqis, and seeing the country. I also trained as a combat life saver and a turret gunner, though I was lucky enough not to use the one skill at all, and the other only a few times.
However, we’re seriously off topic, so if you want to email me, go ahead.
-
CR says:
Ginamr, I’m not talking about individuals, I’m talking abut the general. I know that there are ladies who are good a machine gun use. Expecially from a fixed place. And I know that women are trained with the use of M16. As well as all the other training required. They all must go through it.
My only experience with war was an African Civil War starting from a coupe attempt. I fought no one. But got I and two drunken older men recaptured a televsion station with plastic rifles and alot of street smarts. and my experience is that I have taken more physical beatings than most people from guys. I never won.
-
ginmar says:
Er, I’m talking in general. Your CO orders you to carry the .249, you do, and that’s that. That ws the primary weapon for these women.
-
CR says:
sorry abot getting off topic. I forgot what the topic was. something to do with Hugo? The Patriarchy? Asswipes?
I’m glad you didn’t use another “er…” good luck, soldier. Have alot of respect for you. If you are ever in a restaurant and I’m there, you’ll not have to buy your own drinks or dinner.
-
CR says:
Okay errr,,,,,, thats it! you get a banana tree, ginmar! Now I forgot what the topic was. But what I said about ladies in the military - which i now can’t remember- something about males being stronger than females-, I’ll be sticking to that. Sorry ginmar- you did your very best- personal experience and all. I’m sure you changed alot of people’s minds on here, just not mine….errr….yet. but I’m not important. One person doesn’t matter.
-
NYMOM says:
Er, NYMOM, women already ARE in combat, so what is your issue here? I notice that you appear to be trying to revive the Phyllis Schlafly-like cry of, “Do you want women serving in the military?OH NOES!”—which, quite frankly, is bullshit.
If women are in combat it is because the military has ignored the rules. Which wouldn’t surprise me as now men aren’t signing up since the war in Iraq began, so they are using women to fill in their spots.
“Yeah, as I said, I’d like to see this study, because only rightwing nuts adopt that kind of attitude toward women in the military.”
That’s a lie.
80% of the women in the military themselves do not wish to be in front line combat.
“And, no, all women don’t need to be involved in this discussion; it’s up to women who want to serve, not those who are afraid if women can fight we’ll be required to get off our asses and do so.”
Yes we do…as we are not going to allow a small self-selected group to decide this for all the rest of us. This is a decision all women need to participate in.
-
NYMOM says:
“Yeah, I’ve been in combat.”
You told everyone that you were caught behind enemy lines by mistake.
But whether you were caught behind enemy lines by mistake or by design makes no difference. You have no right to speak for all women on this issue. No one woman has that right.
-
NYMOM says:
“Er….hand to hand combat is not something that happens these days.”
Again, not true.
It happens all the time in wars today…especially in Iraq. It happened in Somali with the Marines. AND it’s the scenario painted for most of the wars we will be fighting in the future.
Nevertheless my main point remains. You have no right to speak for most women on this issue. You actually do not even speak for most women in the military as 80% of them do not wish to be in front line combat.
-
Mandos says:
What is the percentage of men who want to be in front line combat?
I am confused as to who is speaking for all women here.
-
Violet says:
No one is speaking for all women here.
Here’s my 2cents, though of course I have no personal experience in combat.
The male advantage in hand-to-hand combat is overstated. This is a stereotype that we have all absorbed about what it means to be a soldier. First of all, nobody is doing sword fighting or pike-and-shield fighting these days; the only physical strength necessary is that to lift and aim an automatic weapon. That’s something that most men and women in proper trim can do — more men than women, yes, but plenty of women have no trouble with it.
But in fact the myth of male physical advantage in warfare has always been overblown, even in the days when fighting was done with swords and pikes. Women have been soldiers all over the world and throughout history. Celtic women fought alongside their husbands in the front lines and scared the Romans shitless. African tribeswomen have been fearsome warriors (and were considered more dangerous than male soldiers). The Greeks said the Scythians had female warriors. There have ALWAYS been strong tough women who were perfectly capable of fighting.
Look, if you take a cross-section of the male soldier population, do you really think they’re all Rambos? There are plenty of scrawny little guys who could get their asses kicked by a strapping woman. The sexual dimorphism of our species is just not that great. Let go of the stereotypes and look at reality.
The main reason women have generally been excluded from combat is because war is Male JuJu Supreme. It’s the one thing men came up with and kept (mostly) to themselves to counterbalance female control over life-giving.
(Speaking anthropologically, women=life, men=death.)As for the modern U.S. military: the attitudes within the military didn’t change during the Clinton administration. The military endured Clinton, basically, hating every effort (as we all remember) to combat sexism and homophobia. The antipathy to women in combat runs deep, and is completely tied up in atavistic notions of male juju.
Stan Goff writes about being in combat with a woman in Somalia (she happened to find herself on the front lines accidentally; women weren’t supposed to be there), and the woman behaved superbly. Better than most rookie soldiers. She was cool, she fired, she killed, she kept her head. Did everything right. And afterwards the male officers, instead of commending her, raised a stink in outrage that a damn woman had been in combat.
-
ginmar says:
Uh, NYMOM, if anyone’s entitled to talk about women in combat between the two of us, IT’S NOT YOU. Christ. You’re just pulling figures out of your ass now. There has never been a study which interviewed enough women in the military to come up with an 80% figure. Also, I don’t know where you get the caught behind enemy lines thing, becuase there is no such thing as an enemy line in Iraq. DO contradict me on this, please: I love it when somebody argues with me based on whatever ideology they follow. We rolled out, we got ambushed. That’s a far sight from getting caught behind enemy lines, which is a phrase that belongs to WWII, as does your attitude toward women in the military.
Hand to hadn combat is a specific term you’re not using correctly. It doesn’t refer to shooting at the enmy; it refers to one on one fighting, with or without weapons.
Finally, spare me your bullshit about how men are using unwilling women in the military. I get that type of protectionist bullshit from conservative men; I won’t tolerate it from women. This is an all-volunteer force, and any man in it who’s worth his salt recognizes womens’ capabilities. In fact, they’re often better in that regard than civilians. That’s why I’ve been in for so long. When it’s bad, it’s very bad, but when it’s good there’s nothing like it, and that’s not something you’ve ever experienced.
-
NYMOM says:
“What is the percentage of men who want to be in front line combat?”
100% of the men who volunteer to go into the armed forces know they might have to face armed combat. It’s not like the bait & switch scheme they pulled on women now.
Women who joined the armed forces were not expecting to have to go into combat. Many were trying to get educational and career opportunties that they would not have had otherwise.
Some good number are single mothers.
That’s why I say this change that has taken place which is solely related to fewer MEN enlisting since the Iraq War has begun is really nothing more then a bait & switch scheme being pulled on women.
“I am confused as to who is speaking for all women here.”
I do not presume to speak for all women. Yet I don’t think anyone else should either. AND whether or not I have ever been in the army has nothing to do with my right, ability and obligation to speak on this issue.
All women have the right to speak on this.
-
ginmar says:
NYMOM, provide a source for this crap. In fact every soldier is told that no matter their MOS they’re to be a rifleman first. Your attitude toward women soldiers is that they’re dewy innocent lambs who don’t know—after we’ve been at war for over three years—that they’re going into a conflict with no front lines, no rear, and no safe zone.
And all women are entitled to speak on this, but let’s face it: you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and I do.
-
NYMOM says:
I know this is your blog Violet, however, I’m just wondering if you want to start a separate post about this women in combat issue.
I just want to point out a few things about women in combat historically and it might take a while for me to pull out some of my old papers in order to do this. Basically there have NEVER been historic cases where women were organized into any sort of combat units with the few rare exceptions of Joan of Arc types or some women who dressed as men/boys and managed to sneak in that way. Even the African example you stated was not correct. The women warriors you are talking about functioned as a bodyguard for an African king. Probably because he didn’t trust any men to do this. They were forced into a combat role during various attacks on his person mostly by Europeans attempting to establish colonial governments.
So these women were an aberration. Societies and various peoples reacted to slavery and colonialism in various ways that were totally outside of the normal historic experience for them. So I don’t think it is fair to judge what happened in those societies during these periods and claim it represents the historic norm.
Regarding the Greeks they NEVER used women in battle. The closest ones who came to even ‘thinking’ about it were the Spartans. Who finally decided that what women contributed to society was children and what they risk during that equated with what men risked in combat.
-
Violet says:
Maximum Strength Thread Drift, now with even more tangential power. Brought to you by Reclusive Leftist.
Seriously, I’m interested in NYMOM’s point of view because it sounds like it’s related to a sort of paleo-feminism I don’t see much of. I’m thinking of certain First Wave feminists whose concept of womanhood was grounded in the ideology of Women As Mothers. They were happy to keep sex roles distinct, since they believed (as did almost every one in those days) that such things were ordained by Nature. They just wanted Motherhood and the Domestic Sphere (capitalized, always, in 19th century rhetoric) to be respected as much as the man’s world.
NYMOM, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don’t imagine that you believe as some 19th century feminists did that men and women belong in wholly separate spheres. But I do get the feeling that you think certain things should remain sex-differentiated — childrearing and war, for example.
-
Violet says:
NYMOM, it is true that women have not usually been soldiers, of course. War has generally been men’s business. But the historical examples I cited are genuine exceptions, and I used them simply to illustrate that combat — even old-fashioned combat — is not beyond the female physique.
Celtic women as fighters alongside their husbands are cited by Roman writers, and there’s no reason to doubt it. The Greeks said that Scythian women fought (I didn’t say the Greeks themselves had women warriors, because as far as I know they didn’t.) And I believe we are thinking of different examples from African history.
-
NYMOM says:
“Your attitude toward women soldiers is that they’re dewy innocent lambs who don’t know—after we’ve been at war for over three years—that they’re going into a conflict with no front lines, no rear, and no safe zone.”
That is not my attitude at all.
However it’s not correct the things you are saying and I don’t want people to accept them based upon nothing other then the fact that you were once in Iraq and mistakenly got caught behind enemy lines.
The Supreme Court ruled that the fact that women are excluded from being in combat is the basis for women not having to register. As men have been taking these cases to court ever since the draft ended. They have been trying to force the armed forces to register 18 year old woman as well, like they have to.
So allowing a few women to continuously undercut the rules puts at risk every other woman in this society. As if you do it enough, the Supreme Court could easily overturn their original ruling and women could wind up eventually facing registration or the draft as well.
AND before that happens ordinary women need to be involved in the debate. Not always told that the only ones who can say anything are the woman who are in the military already, as this is an issue that could impact all women as well as future generations.
-
Mandos says:
You know, I realized that a great movie re juju is Nicholas Cage’s The Weatherman.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384680/
On its own it’s a mediocre movie, I think. However, through juju-glasses, it’s a gem. The main character is a weatherman making a lot of money, but his life is falling apart around him as his wife is leaving him for *gasp* a fat man and his kids are alienated from him. What’s worse is that despite the money, he realizes that “weatherman” is an ultimately empty profession, and despite all his justifications, deep down he realizes that anyone can do it.
What’s *even* worse is that his father has mucho mucho juju as a Famous Author. And his wife has sapped a great deal of his juju.
So what is the first step on the road to recovery? Why, to take up archery (hence the cover shot on the DVD case). Once he figures out that there is something physical that he can do that no one around him can or wants to do, he slowly starts to redeem himself. It took, dare I say, firing a pe^H^Harrow at a va^H^Htarget to do it. He also finds a way to be indisensible to his kids—partly through violence.
Violence, arrows, and juju.
-
ginmar says:
NYMOM, I was not caught behind enemy lines so will you fucking shut up about that already? Christ, what part of ‘there are no eneny lines’ do you not get?
So allowing a few women to continuously undercut the rules puts at risk every other woman in this society.
A few women? Try all of them in the military. You keep asserting your own opinions as fact. Every soldier a rifleman is the motto, and what the SCOTUS says in a ruling doesn’t mean shit when you’re in Iraq.
Violet, if I have to repeat myself one more time about the fucking enemy lines thing, I swear….
-
Mandos says:
Check out NYMOM’s blog, where she rails against gender-neutral feminists all the livelong day:
http://www.womenasmothers.blogspot.com/
It’s gender-neutral feminism’s fault that nations are hurting due to low birth rates, for example.
-
NYMOM says:
“NYMOM, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, and I don’t imagine that you believe as some 19th century feminists did that men and women belong in wholly separate spheres. But I do get the feeling that you think certain things should remain sex-differentiated — childrearing and war, for example.”
Well I think we need to be careful that what women want/need does not get tossed out the window in this crazed dash that is taking place toward a gender-neutral society.
Women rights in many areas such as education and employment are ONLY 40 years old. Thus, it is far too soon to be making earth-shattering changes in the legal structure of our society based upon what’s transpired in that brief period.
My other issue is why is it everything “bad” that women have to shoulder right away…we’ve barely reaped the “good” yet of having equal educational and employment opportunties. Most of the institutions of power in this country are still predominantly run by men including the Supreme Court, which had 2 women, now has 1 out of 9.
Now I’m not a person who thinks men cannot represent women effectively; but I do think we need to wait until more women are involved in the actual governmental bodies that make these decisions to go to war BEFORE we change this women in the front line of combat business…
-
NYMOM says:
“It’s gender-neutral feminism’s fault that nations are hurting due to low birth rates, for example.”
Excuse me Mandos that is one piece of the whole of what I believe.
Okay.
It’s a little simplistic to say I believe gender neutralized feminism is the entire reason for low birth rates in western civilization.
They are one piece of the puzzle if you read my blog.
-
NYMOM says:
“ginmar says:
NYMOM, I was not caught behind enemy lines so will you fucking shut up about that already? Christ, what part of ‘there are no eneny lines’ do you not get?”
Well out of respect for the owner of this blog I won’t continue to discuss this OR post the emails you sent me regarding the incident which clearly states you were mistaken caught behind enemy lines…
Whatever.
-
Mandos says:
Sure. My main point was, though, that not all of us agree that this is a problem.
-
ginmar says:
I kept those emails too, NYMOM, and what’s interesting is the first line in one of them: “There’s no such thing as a front or rear in Iraq.” Then you went off on some bizarre conspiracy of yours about Ukrainians, not knowing that I had lived in the Ukraine, travelled there extensively, speak Russian, and served alongside them. Waht is your experiance, again? Have you been to the Ukraine? Have you been to Iraq? Do you speak Russian? Hvae you been in combat? Or do you just make shit up as you go along?
Stop putting words in my mouth, because you’re lying now and I can prove it.
-
NYMOM says:
“Sure. My main point was, though, that not all of us agree that this is a problem.”
Perhaps it isn’t. But most of what I say about low birth rates is in the context of women being either unable or unwilling to have children because either they don’t have a husband and is has been made illegal in their countries to use anonymous donors anymore. Or they have one but don’t want to chance an ongoing vicious custody battle if they should decide to have a child.
After all it’s a total leap of faith for a woman to have a child. She becomes vulnerable. She takes on all the risk, investment, etc.,
Thus the point I make is that we cannot expect women to want to do these things and then 1 second after giving birth everyone else’s rights are suddenly more valued then a mothers. Societies could get away with those things in the past when women had no choice but to bear the future generation. This is not the case anymore.
So when I point out low birth rates on my blog, the point is a little bit different then what you are making it out to be. It’s that societies must realize women are the ones they have to cater to in these situations, not men. I don’t think you realize this, but many societies respond to low birth rates by giving financial incentives to men…
-
NYMOM says:
“Stop putting words in my mouth, because you’re lying now and I can prove it.”
Well prove it then.
Print the emails and let’s see them.
You’ve been using that incident for over a year now to give yourself statue and authority to speak for all women on the military…and I’m getting a little tired of it.
Basically the story you gave me was that you and some Bulgar or Ukrainean unit got lost behind enemy lines and just sat down and had lunch together.
NOW it’s morphed into you and some other women were fighting on the front lines with M-16s or some such. You are now an expert on weapons and combat and no one else has the right to say anything unless they’ve experinced what you have…yada, yada, yada.
Please.
-
ginmar says:
Uh, NYMOM, it’s not my fault you’re incapable of registering facts you don’t want to hear. There are no enemy lines. I don’t know what your issue is, but you keep using this inaccurate phrase and then blaming me for it. I’ve corrected you repeatedly on it, and I’m sick of it. Violet, please do something about this. I’ve had it. I don’t know how much plainer I can make it.
-
Violet says:
Hey, NYMOM, I thought you were going to leave off that subject.
I don’t think the details of Ginmar’s service are relevant here. We all have a right to an opinion on women in combat. The fact that Ginmar’s been a soldier gives her a personal perspective which is very interesting to hear (and is more than the rest of us can offer on this blog). But as for the exact details of her experience in Iraq, first of all I’m not about to doubt a soldier’s own account of her service, and secondly, it’s irrelevant to the issue.
NYMOM, if you have a dispute with Ginmar about her service record in Iraq, then I think it would be best if you took it up with her privately or posted about it on your own blog.
-
NYMOM says:
Well that’s what I said originally, I’d drop it, but then she kept posting about it calling me a liar and saying she could prove I lied.
But I’m happy to drop the issue, as I know it’s not the topic of the thread anyway.
-
ginmar says:
Yeah, NYMOM
-
Steve says:
I am beginning to think that “upper body strength” is the Holy Grail for those manning the ramparts of male privilege.
After all else has failed, after women have forced their way into every occupation, after women have shown that there is not a single job or role that they cant perform, what is the last refuge of the fucktard?
Upper body strength.
Well guess what? Upper body strength is turning out to be a crock of shit too. As is height and weight.
Firefighting is a great example. The tests that were developed to exclude women elevated upper body strength to the single most important criteria.
But guess what is starting to happen in fire departments around the country? The men may not like it, but they have been realizing that women — especially small women — can do things and enter spaces and save lives that Mr. Incredible Hulk can’t. Same with policing.
I still can’t celebrate.
Because what pisses me off is how eagerly some men are to grant the equal right to die, the equal right to be executed, the legal right to become an OSHA statistic, but how fanatically they hold on to anything where money and position and power are involved. My guess is that we will fill a whole new war memorial in DC with the names of women dead in combat before we elect a woman president. I know: Hilary. Hilary. Don’t hold your breath. Glenn Sacks will sniff Carol Gilligan’s bicycle seat before Hilary is elected.
To switch gears, what I don’t get, and what I have a lot more to say about, is why MRAs and trolls and assorted sons of the holy order of the penis don’t get the fact that being a man is so infinitely easier in an egalitarian, radical feminist environment.
That’s right, the egalitarian life is almost a scam given all the shit you MRAs suffer and argue about that are simply off the table in a radical feminist environment.
No plumage to be displayed, no strutting, no assumption that you will be saddled with all the ass-kicking and dirty work. A life where your penis can be a source of extreme pleasure in non-stop egalitarian humping, yet not have to be a tool employed to drive cars or fight over parking spaces.
That’s right, guys, the radfems don’t mind of you get an erection, as long as you don’t shove it in their face and demand that they suck it. In fact, if you adopt the novel feminist concept of consent, you almost certainly will find someone anxious to polish your helmet. In fact, I’ll tell you a secret: Consent can be a turn-on.
You like lying on the couch and watching sports? Guess what? There are radfems that like to do the same thing. You might have to negotiate who gets to lie on the couch and when. And you might have to lie on the couch at the same time. They might even like beer more than you do.
The question is whether, to earn the privilege available in a relationship with a radical feminist, the freedom from the straitjacket of conventional gender roles, you are willing to give up things like having your partner think you are cool when you get involved in a road rage incident, when you are ready to realize that driving a HUMMER might be evidence of your insecurity rather than your manhood, when you accept that no chore or role or responsibility in a relationship is gender-determined, when you discover that fag and dyke jokes don’t get laughs anymore.
I’m telling you. It’s fun. Nobody is out to steal your masculinity. You get to keep your dick. You just can’t be one.
-
NYMOM says:
“To switch gears, what I don’t get, and what I have a lot more to say about, is why MRAs and trolls and assorted sons of the holy order of the penis don’t get the fact that being a man is so infinitely easier in an egalitarian, radical feminist environment.
That’s right, the egalitarian life is almost a scam…
No plumage to be displayed, no strutting, no assumption that you will be saddled with all the ass-kicking and dirty work. A life where your penis can be a source of extreme pleasure in non-stop egalitarian humping, yet not have to be a tool employed to drive cars or fight over parking spaces.”
You have an uncanny ability to hit the nail on the head…as you summed up my entire problem with radical feminism.
The movement has lost sight of the mission which is NOT to make life easier or better for MEN…if that happens incidental to helping women, fine, I have no problem with it.
Yet that is a side issue, as the main focus of feminism needs to be about making life better for WOMEN…
Unfortunately the entire movement appears to be in the process of being hyjacked by men to make things better, easier, more accommodating for themselves.
-
NYMOM says:
BTW, feminism was not created in order for men to have an easier time finding women to hop into bed with them at the drop of a hat.
If that’s all we have gotten out of the entire movement, it was a complete and total waste of time.
-
Violet says:
NYMOM, I think you’re misunderstanding Steve. I believe he’s in favor of radical feminism.
As, of course, am I.
-
Steve says:
NYMOM
You and I agree, I think. And Ill try to explain later. Right now I am getting ready for my daughter’s graduation party — MA in Criminal Justice.
Yup I’m proud.
-
Violet says:
Steve, you might spend some time at NYMOM’s blog first to see where she’s coming from. She disapproves of women in combat because we can’t be sacrificing our future mothers, she seems to disapprove of working mothers who put their children in daycare, and so forth.
-
NYMOM says:
“She disapproves of women in combat because we can’t be sacrificing our future mothers”
No…that’s NOT why I do not favor women in combat.
One, I don’t favor women in combat because first of all we do not as yet have the equal representation in the institutions of power that declare these wars. So why in the heck should we be over there fighting them? It’s like putting the cart before the horse. After we’ve had a couple of generations of women representation then we can talk about it.
Second of all, I do not feel women bring to the battlefield anything unique that can’t be replicated by men. So what’s the point of putting us out there? Just to say women can do it? It’s a waste.
Third, we shouldn’t be sacrificing parents on the battlefield…although those who chose not to be parents I’d have no problem with them going.
You haven’t read my blog too closely, if you haven’t seen where I clearly stated that parents have no business being over in Iraq. I mean we are a country of almost three hundred million peole, so there are plenty of singletons who can be utilized. Not to mention the cost in benefits and insurance that the public has to spend when someone with dependents gets killed over there…
-
Steve says:
Hey, before this goes on, can someone say congratulations to my daughter.
-
NYMOM says:
“…she seems to disapprove of working mothers who put their children in daycare…”
Where and when did I say that?
I actually praised the recent decision in England where a women in a 20 year marriage was awarded extended alimony, since I thought that was fair as she was a stay-at-home mother for most of that time.
YET I also stated it probably wouldn’t affect many couples because I suspect England is similar to the US, where both parents work.
-
NYMOM says:
Congratulations to your daughter Steve.
AND to you…as it’s always a reflection on the parents when a child achieves something of this magnitude.
-
Violet says:
Congratulations to your daughter, Steve.
-
ginmar says:
Congratulations, Steve.
NYMOM, your opinion on women in combat is not based on anything logical I can see.
-
NYMOM says:
“NYMOM, I think you’re misunderstanding Steve. I believe he’s in favor of radical feminism.”
Well we must wait to hear what he has to say when he gets back.
-
Violet says:
NYMOM, I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve said that daycare is not good for children, that working moms are rushing off and leaving their children in the hands of minders who are not a good substitute. Isn’t that one of your core beliefs? That a babysitter is no substitute for a mother’s care, etc.?
As for the “wast[ing] valuable future mothers” in combat, that’s a quote from you, but I realize it may have been an unfortunate choice of words made on impulse or that your views may have changed since you made that remark. So your position is actually that no parent — male or female — should be deployed in wartime?
-
Steve says:
Yeah, I hope I am a radical feminist. I think Vi comes closer to the truth. I have never been very good at finding a middle ground and on gender equality, I have never seen a middle ground.
But something we have to discuss someday is why I find myself pulling some of the same male crap I detest. Not often, but lordy, lordy is some of this nonsense deeply ingrained. For another day.
I try.
But my gonads drive me to pull some crazy shit sometimes.
And all of your good wishes on my daughter’s graduation are appreciated.
-
CR says:
Women are over there fighting the war because they wanted to find a way in their personal life to be of service to others and to their country. I think it’s honorable. I admire ginmar fo her service. I think what she did was important.
As for registering for the draft. Maybe intead of making girls do it too. How about nobody doing it? Just dump the whole thing. It’s an all volunteer military all the way. If something happens where we may need a draft- we can handle it then.
Being a parent is the #1 thing a person can do. so I think if you want to be a parent, be one- 100%. but life sometimes makes it that people must use daycare. It’s not ideal, I surely agree. But there it is. Sometimes there’s just no choice in a person’s life that I can see.
About parents. Best wishes to your girl, Steve. Well done.
-
Mandos says:
I knew it! Steve is ooooold. Ancient! Decrepit! Assuming he exists at all and is not a Dr. Socks…er…sock puppet.
(Congratulations. What’s next, PhD?)
-
NYMOM says:
“Isn’t that one of your core beliefs? That a babysitter is no substitute for a mother’s care, etc.?”
I would NOT call it a core belief.
But yes, I do believe that if possible a mother should be home if she has young children. I also accept that it’s not often possible today.
“As for the “wast[ing] valuable future mothers” in combat, that’s a quote from you, but I realize it may have been an unfortunate choice of words made on impulse or that your views may have changed since you made that remark.”
I never remember making that remark to you or anyone else.
I only posted here a while back when you had that whole adoption thing going on…so I can’t imagine when I said this.
A post I made on my blog on November 1, 2005 makes my position clear.
Life of a Professional Soldier Should NOT have to be Burden of Children
Senate Committee Passes Measure on Soldier Custody -
NYMOM says:
Just curious Violet?
Have you ever read my blog?
-
CR says:
That link didn’t work out. Can you just put it in a nutshell?
What do you do? The soldiers- all of them almost are of child bearing age. And the guys have families with little ones too. It seems like too big of an issue to even try to handle. You have an idea, NYMOM? I’d surely like to hear it. Or maybe can you see if you can fix that link if you don’t feel like doing all the writage. -
CR says:
There it is! Okay, I’m going over to read it.
-
NYMOM says:
http://www.womenasmothers.blogspot.com
You can just go to my blog and it’s in November 2005 archives.
But I don’t believe it’s as difficult a problem as we think. We’ve made it one by turning the American military into something it is not…
Soldiers in most other societies were young expendable single men, not older men who had families. Unless the entire society was under seige, then all bets were off.
So just returning to that common sense idea would solve the problem. Married men and women are just out. Simple.
Even during WWII most people felt singletons, both men and women should be drafted into service before married ones with families. This is the reason we had to raise the amount of insurance coverage recently from $10,000 to $100,000. Having families in the military is a vast burden on the state. Not to mention the families themselves.
I recently read about a guy with TEN KIDS and ONE LEG in the military…What the heck…when I see dozens of men lounging around the street corners every night where I live, why in the world should a man with ONE LEG and TEN KIDS be in Iraq?
-
Violet says:
NYMOM, yes, I have read your blog. And of course I’ve been familiar with you from around the blogosphere for a year or two — I knew you already when you first posted here (was that January?)
I fixed that link. Thanks for pointing us to that.
-
Mandos says:
As we have discussed on this blog periodically, the idea of defining one particular part of the population as particularly expendable is fraught with problems.
-
CR says:
What do you you do with the officers? Can they have fmailies?
-
NYMOM says:
“As we have discussed on this blog periodically, the idea of defining one particular part of the population as particularly expendable is fraught with problems.”
Unfortunately when societies are in crisis and I consider war to be a society in crisis, hard choices must be made.
I mean even in the animals world, young single males to a great extend, are considered expendable. I think the most protected beings amongst the herding animals and some others as well are the mothers and potential mothers.
So if this war on terrorism continues we will probably begin to see movement in this direction again…it was actually a luxury for the US armed forces to operate like one big family sleepaway camp for as long as they have…most other nations would not have been able to do this. When societies are at war, family life for many men goes out the window. It becomes a luxury they cannot afford. I mean Yassir Arafat didn’t marry or have a family until he was pretty far along in years…Actually I thought he would never marry in his situation and there are many other historic examples I can’t think of them all off hand
-
NYMOM says:
“What do you you do with the officers? Can they have fmailies?”
Well I don’t know. What do you think? These are ideas I am throwing out there for people to discuss and think about.
I understood that West Point does not allow you to be married. So there is some evidence where this has been looked at…
-
Mandos says:
Unfortunately when societies are in crisis and I consider war to be a society in crisis, hard choices must be made.
Yes, but in my opinion, any serious radical analysis of war must include the understanding that the concept of “special expendability” itself is part of creating the crisis. Consequently, no solution to or amelioration war as such can proceed without challenging the basis of the special expendability you propose.
I mean even in the animals world, young single males to a great extend, are considered expendable. I think the most protected beings amongst the herding animals and some others as well are the mothers and potential mothers.
Yes, and we have discussed this extensively on this blog, but I won’t trouble you with the archives. Humans being social animals, it is possible for humans to ask “Why am I expendable?” At least part of patriarchy likely extends from there. Consequently what may safely work for herding animals cannot work so well for humans.
-
Mandos says:
I understood that West Point does not allow you to be married. So there is some evidence where this has been looked at…
What West Point does is not a positive data point to some of us…
-
NYMOM says:
“Consequently what may safely work for herding animals cannot work so well for humans.”
Yet every being on the planet is linked one to another…whether we are shooting a rocket off into space or killing one another over the right to mate…
We cannot deny our essential nature which is linked to every other animal on this planet. Just like they say: you can take the man out of the jungle but not the jungle out of the man.
-
NYMOM says:
“What West Point does is not a positive data point to some of us…”
Not to you but we were discussing the armed forces and how they might proceed, if the war on terror turned into a decades long one. I mean if you are just going to throw everyone into it willy nilly and we wind up committing ’suicide’ then what’s the point of the whole thing?
-
Mandos says:
We cannot deny our essential nature which is linked to every other animal on this planet. Just like they say: you can take the man out of the jungle but not the jungle out of the man.
I am the last person, believe me, to attempt to biologically disembody the human mind in what I believe is a misguided form of dualism (implying that I think that there are useful dualisms).
But the relevant problem here is that the man has been taken out of the jungle. That humans are social and political animals makes relying so concretely on what animals do very, very dangerous. If you can’t take the jungle out of the man, than it is imperative that you attempt to mitigate the jungle in all cases, because it will reflect itself socially and politically.
This includes a theory of expendability—like I said, humans generate political responses to being considered expendable and one of these political responses may very well be male dominance.
Not to you but we were discussing the armed forces and how they might proceed, if the war on terror turned into a decades long one. I mean if you are just going to throw everyone into it willy nilly and we wind up committing ’suicide’ then what’s the point of the whole thing?
Some of us consider the “war on terror” to be bogus and the “culturally masculine” nature of military affairs to be part of the system that generates this bogosity.
Look, if you want a “essential” argument, here’s one. The family guys, more likely to be kept at home, thus achieve power. They often have little incentive NOT to expend young men. The cycle of violence continues.
Is it an accident that the “chickenhawk” guys, among them many of the theorists of the War on Terra, make excuses like “I have a family” to avoid facing the ultimate logic of their arguments?
-
NYMOM says:
Well of course I too agree that the whole Iraq War is bogus and we should never have gone in there in the first place.
But there are such things as just wars, I think. So we must think about what sort of system we will set up to fight those and to me the fairest thing is to send singletons first: men and women without dependents.
I actually did a paper once on Women and the Draft Debate or something like that and in one book or article I used it stated how people interviewed during WWI agreed that women with no dependents should be drafted AHEAD of men with children…so I think that’s where future recruitment is heading…
I mean we are a country of almost three hundred million people dwarfing most others. So there is really no reason to have so many families involved in these military actions.
-
Mandos says:
See, for me a “just war” would be a war in which both sides are honestly and correctly right. If one side is actually morally wrong (say, Nazis), then even if the other side is right to fight them, the war is not really a “just war”. It—has a whole gestalt—is a product of some pathology. Usually, a systemic, political pathology.
I’ve never met a “just war” as I define it, at least. Tell me when you encounter such an animal.
And part of that systemic, political pathology is probably the notion of “special expendability”. So for me, if the “correct” side (assuming such exists) espouses that concept, they are also promoting a concept that probably will contribute to wars in the future.
There is, of course, the problem of defining the expendability. That’s hard. Frankly, I don’t think that “having children” is enough of a criterion. But maybe that’s just because I am a selfish childless male who doesn’t really care to be expended for anyone else’s good. Just maybe.
-
NYMOM says:
So you didn’t think that the US joining the war effort in WWII was just? Probably Germany would have won if we didn’t and then what?
What you are probably really talking about is a form of isolationism, where we don’t get involved in anybody’s elses business unless it directly impacts us. There is a strong strain of this sort of thinking in the US and we are a large, prosperous enough nation where we could successfully pull it off.
But I was talking about if this doesn’t happen and we continue having a military that does get involved all over the world…then what sort of military should it be? I mean if you want to be realistic the most expendable people for any society to lose are older men and women who are past their reproductive years. But I don’t see us being much of a fighting force emptying out our nursing homes. Maybe we could just train killer whales to fight for us. Or tigers or something?
-
NYMOM says:
“…If one side is actually morally wrong (say, Nazis), then even if the other side is right to fight them, the war is not really a “just war”.
I’ve never met a “just war” as I define it, at least…
BTW, you’re right. Using your definition there never could be a just war. Actually there could never be a war, if you think about the logic of what you said.
Poland being invaded by Germany was wrong, but Poland fighting Germany over this would not come under your definition of a just war.
-
Mandos says:
The point is that even if it’s a necessary war, given very strict criteria, the entire question is orthogonal to one of justice. The term “just war” is not much more than a propaganda term, at least under its current manifestation.
-
Tilting at Windmills says:
Appropriate molestation
Apropos of nothing but a mostly irrelevant digression on another blog, I would like to make an annoucement: everytime someone seriously utters the bizarre and oxymoronic (in the bad sense) phrase “just war”, I involuntarily imagine their br…
-
belledame222 says:
>Apparently Hugo’s approach is to acknowledge that feminism is indeed difficult and unpleasant — he compares it to AA — but nonetheless a noble undertaking that should be attempted once you’re through having fun in life and feel ready for the hairshirt (or turtleneck). This doesn’t strike me as a winning strategy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that perhaps one reason Hugo’s young charges are less than enthused about feminism is because their role model is a turtleneck-wearing youth minister who likens feminism to AA.>
You may be onto something, at that.
wrt the MRA’s and Hugo, I keep thinking of Huck Finn violently resisting the influence of the sivilizin’ Christian ladies.
the whole notion of Christianity as some kind of Temperance thing, you know, like it’s all milk-and-water preachermen meekly following in the footsteps of righteous Carry Nations (the original “feminazi” prototype if ever there was one); primarily out to sissify & stomp all over mens, and take away all their fun.
hence, the caveman/Man Show/ “muscular Christianity” reactionary.
best I can make of it, anyway.
I do wish Hugo would cop a bit more to what’s at stake in all this for *him;* let the Mr. Chips routine go a little already.
I mean, I am also thinking of for example Scott Peck’s assertion that God could only ever be a Him for him because he saw the relationship between God and His people as inherently masculine/feminine. you know, surrendering/submitting: female, I think. even for the (Christian) mens. in relation to God, at least.
and I was all *blink* *pull up lawnchair* say more about that, Scott, will you?
but no, sadly. just a tantalizing hint.
-
bmmg39 says:
Okay, this WILL be my last post here:
Since it obviously needs to be explained to you folks, I wasn’t making any sort of a comment about the “most people in bodybags are men” argument except to say that even though there are far fewer women in the military (and therefore far fewer women killed in battle) that this doesn’t mean we should exclude those women from receiving our solemn praise, honors, and gratitude. (Just as we should help every victim of DV whether or not a victim is in a minority.)
It wasn’t anti-women in combat; it wasn’t pro-women in combat. It was an analogy, but of course when you lack any real enemy you have to concoct your own, and so you pulled some sort of misogynist connotation in my comment right out of your ass. I wouldn’t expect any less.
Enjoy your little haven here. Just understand that no one who doesn’t post here takes you seriously at all.
-
belledame222 says:
Was it something I said?
Oh well. Probably his time of the month.
-
belledame222 says:
>Seriously, I’m interested in NYMOM’s point of view because it sounds like it’s related to a sort of paleo-feminism I don’t see much of. I’m thinking of certain First Wave feminists whose concept of womanhood was grounded in the ideology of Women As Mothers.>
fascinating! what a coincidence, I was just writing up a piece on Carry A. Nation and others of that ilk/era (got there from a riff on the annoying Miller Lite “poke it you own it” commericals, believe it or not).
yeah, wtf is a “gender-neutral” feminist? I took a quick look over there; apparently it has something to do with having a cat?
gosh. i didn’t realize having a pussy meant I *really* didn’t have a…
anyway.
-
belledame222 says:
>and don’t even get me started on Warren Farrell’s, or Richard Gardner’s, views about pedophilia.
Not really related to pedophilia; but I had a roommate who worked for Farrell, before he made it big, I think. personal assistant of some sort. apparently he was a real dick (surprise, surprise).
course she was kind of a piece of work in her own right. not that one really cancels out the other…
-
belledame222 says:
>I don’t pretend to understand, maybe it’s a Christian thing. He feels like he’s reaching out to sinners or something in the hope of redeeming them.>
Isn’t part of the deal that you leave the faithful flock and go after the one sheep what’s gone astra-ay-ay-ay? and turn the other cheek seventy times seven times even when the sheep bites you on it? something.
admirable, in a way, really. can’t say i relate though.
if only because i am not motherfucking Theresa and never wanted to be.
and have limited time, energy, patience.
-
belledame222 says:
>So, I’ve read more than one man write about his experience with father’s rights groups. They generally didn’t turn out sympathetic to the ideology espoused by some of the more radical members of the group—but they feel grateful to them, because these groups saved them from suicide, etc.
I keep bringing things to the Reclusive Leftist Juju Theory—as we discussed this subject before then. A lot of male antifeminist reactionaritism may very well come from a deep-seated sense of social uselessness. “Despite all the power I have, if I’m dispensible to my female and offspring, what good am I?”>
Donna Minkowitz had a terrific essay on the Promise Keepers (she infiltrated, as she passed as a young boy), wherein she comes to pretty much the same conclusion. Mostly decent guys, rampant sexism and archaic attitudes about gender roles or no; lost, confused, looking for solace.
-
belledame222 says:
>Mandos says:
Like my beloved 8th grade teacher Mrs. Wheeler said: Sorry, Steve. No awards for being human. Your whole blog reeks of an application for feminist canonization.
I have to dissent slightly from this. In a world wherein people doing unpleasant things to one another is often the norm, it probably takes effort for some people to get denormed a little bit. Why not kudos for that? Why not give people gold stars for being a little bit better?
***
I am actually with Mandos in this. I just think–well,again, question of where one puts one’s energy.
and too, there is a difference between “okay, there’s a glimmer of an inkling of a connection here, a sliver of light, a crack in the armor” and “lather, rinse, repeat, for the seven and seventieth time; but, gosh, if I just try *harder.*
and yes there is always the pitfall of pride, in such endeavors. so much more insidious than all the other deadlies, that one, isn’t it?
-
belledame222 says:
>They whine and cry that feminist groups don’t “help” the (1 or 2 %??) battered men (not true, btw, anyway) but with all their backing and funding via federal funds, wealthy male sponsors, and right-wing groups, they don’t open any shelters for battered men - because the majority of battered men are gay.
Yeah, that’s the crux, isn’t it.
Look, I’m totally willing to believe that there are men who’ve been battered by women in DV out there–hell, I know at least one. It doesn’t matter how few there are; sure, they deserve help, too. And definitely I have known situations where the woman should not be the one left with the children, yes. Abusing moms are not that uncommon, sadly; and in some cases the kids would indeed be better off with dad.
But the way to go about it would be, as you say, take a page from the womens’ movement, build a damn shelter or twenty. god knows there must be the resources for it.
But first you’re gonna have to let go of
1) the fear of getting gay male cooties, because yes chances are excellent that more than half *will* be gay men (and the services are sorely needed, frankly)
2) macho armor in general. Yeah, it probably does feel better to go into revenge lawyer mode against not just the abusive (or not) ex-wife but all of womankind, as opposed to the place of vulnerability it would take to get the kind of help a victim/survivor really needs. Including some damn therapy.
but, it’s not the same thing, no.
-
NYMOM says:
“…fascinating! what a coincidence, I was just writing up a piece on Carry A. Nation and others of that ilk/era (got there from a riff on the annoying Miller Lite “poke it you own it” commericals, believe it or not)…”
In the final analyis those feminists from the old school (that you all make so much fun of) ultimately did a lot more good for women then the gender-neutralized modern feminists of today have done.
Most of gender neutralized ‘feminism’ today appears to have done nothing but enable men to get custody of our children so they can avoid paying child support; or helped yourselves into cushy positions and high-paying jobs posing as advocates for women.
“yeah, wtf is a “gender-neutral” feminist? I took a quick look over there; apparently it has something to do with having a cat?”
I had to come up with a term to distinguish today’s useless bunch of feminists from the older wave…and that gender neutralized term was very appropriate.
Many of you pretend not to understand it; but I think you understand what it means very well.
-
ginmar says:
Um, yeah, NYMOM. Try reading something other than Christina Hoff Summers, whom you sound increasingly like. Given that you can’t tell the difference between ‘ambush’ and ‘behind enemy lines’ are we really supposed to believe you’re to be trusted in your interpretation of feminism?
-
NYMOM says:
Yet it is MY interpretation on MY blog.
So when all is said and done, it rules…
-
ginmar says:
Actually, no, it doesn’t. You blame feminists for the fact that mothers are losing cusody, when you should be blaming MRAs. Your views are demonstrably false.
-
Violet says:
In the final analyis those feminists from the old school (that you all make so much fun of) ultimately did a lot more good for women then the gender-neutralized modern feminists of today have done.
I don’t make fun of them; I admire our foremothers as pioneers. But First Wave feminism was fundamentally limited.
Sandra Day O’Connor graduated third in her class at Stanford Law in 1952, and she couldn’t get a job as anything but a legal secretary. That, in a nutshell, illustrates the utter impotence of feminism before Second Wave. O’Connor was allowed to attend law school, yes, just as she was allowed to vote; but there was no room in society for a female lawyer — even a brilliant one who nowadays would have her pick of any job (third in her class at Stanford Law!)
What Second Wave Feminism accomplished was the social revolution that the First Wave had abjured, and which is continuing now with Third Wave feminism. Without a fundamental re-ordering of society, all the legal gains in the world mean nothing.
-
NYMOM says:
“You blame feminists for the fact that mothers are losing cusody, when you should be blaming MRAs. Your views are demonstrably false.”
That’s not true. MRAs are ONE piece of the puzzle…the ones MOST responsible for this however are feminists supporting gender-neutral custody…
Gender neutral feminists are the MOTHERS of the entire fathers’ rights movement in more ways then one…you are all responsible…
-
NYMOM says:
“Without a fundamental re-ordering of society, all the legal gains in the world mean nothing.”
Your fundamental re-ordering of society is now being turned into weapon against women…you have caused millions of mothers and children to be separated because you all ran into this re-ordering of our society w/o much thinking of the consequences.
Even the case that brought me to this blog could be laid at the feet of gender neutral feminism…as you have enabled recreational sperm donors to claim rights when they should have NONE and never had them in our historic past.
It was just lucky that it worked out the way it did, but many of those cases do NOT and millions of women and children suffer because of feminists’ presumptions that men and women are exactly alike…
-
NYMOM says:
Basically your generation appears to have taken away the few rights women had previously and replaced them with options we might not even be interested in…
Feminism is NOT about making it easier for men to get laid or to give them MORE rights then they had previously to the children women ALONE bring into this world…as was stated earlier: “the rights men have RIGHT NOW and NO MORE”…that’s what the motto is and always was until recently…
Young feminists appear to have lost this common sense approach…feminism is NOT about making things easier and/or better for men, but about making things better for WOMEN…they are the primary clients, customers, whatever you wish to call them…
Men can take care of themselves as they have for all of human history…
-
belledame222 says:
>replaced them with options we might not even be interested in…
Whaddya mean “we,” straight lady?
