DubiousWonder
journeyman
Reged: 02/07/08
Posts: 58
|
|
Yes Rachel, Feminism Really Is A Crock...
by Pete Jensen
Dear Rachel:
I just ran across your letter while browsing my favorite website, and as usual I’m saddened to see yet another young mind infected with the lie that is feminism, horrified that someone might disagree with her “religion.”
Feminism is greatly beneficial to men as well as women.
We hear this often, Rachel, but it’s a platitude; when urged to enumerate these vast benefits the response is usually what Gonzo’s Lexicon describes as “The Fish-Face” – the speechless opening and shutting of the mouth by someone who has no ready response.
It is understandable, however, why you might be hurt by the success of women.
Very early comes the “Shaming Language.” This is a common tactic, Rachel, taken straight from a debater’s handbook – it’s a variation on the Strawman argument – you mischaracterize your opponent’s position, erecting a man made out of straw, and knock it down. In this case you characterize it as a fear, up with the usual litany of “Men fear strong women” and that ilk.
What is hurtful, Rachel, is not the success of women, it is the tendency of gender feminists to knock down men in order to raise up women. Quite a different thing.
Men respect and admire a woman of achievement; Maggie Thatcher is just one example. What we object to is when women insist on hitting from the red tees, or doing girl pushups, and then stamping their foot and insisting that they are “just as good.” And it’s become wearisome to be treated to the “Treat us like a lady when we want, and like an “equal” when we want, and read our mind to figure out when those instances would be.”
Both women AND men are subject to very very strict roles in our culture.
No, Rachel. Men have responsibilities. Women have choices. A woman working or staying home is unremarkable. A man staying home gets an article in the “Living” section on how “cute” these “Mr. Moms” are. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
This not only makes it difficult for women to work to support the families that so often are fatherless (let's have your site work on this) while raising children as well.
Well, Rachel, whose fault is that? Despite the wishful thinking of feminists, the grossly inaccurate and mean-spirited stereotype of the absent dad who abandoned his family is very rare. If you have truly looked around this site, or any Men’s Activist sites, you will note that they are filled to the brim with enraged and powerless men who have been locked out of the family life by a biased family court system, and vengeful mothers, or mothers who see no need for a father, regarding their children as “their” property. By far and away, these kinds of “absent fathers” outnumber the abandoners. And it is precisely the point of sites like this is to put forth the idea that reproductive plumbing has nothing to do with worth as a parent – and the paternal instinct is as strong and valuable as the maternal instinct.
It also makes it so that men are trapped by the fear of being called homosexual, by the fear of not being man enough.
You might be surprised, Rachel, if you actually knew that many gay men are among the most rugged and manly men around. The flamboyant poofter, again, is obvious, but not the totality. Many men who like men like, are well, MEN. Not effeminate metrosexuals.
And many sissies are as straight as the day is long; whether gay or straight, this type of man is not manly. And most men don’t want to be this. Just like most women, even lesbians, don’t want to look and act like men.
I see how you can feel hurt by feminism.
I’ve already addressed the strawman argument you make. I’ll forbear repeating it.
First, it is not really socially acceptable because of our strict roles for you, as men, to feel little other than rage or drunkenness.
Oh yes, we men are just such callous brutes, aren’t we? Have mercy, we are sinners one and all. Rachel, this is offensive in its sheer shallowness. The amount of men heading up rescue and relief efforts, writing poetry, prose and music, engaging in all manner of pursuits besides “Drinkin’ beer an’ whuppin’ ass” are legion.
Second, you are hurt because you have a whole lot of power in this culture. You have for years and years, and now you feel threatened.
Oh where shall I start on my power? We have the power to be drafted, to be locked up without due process or evidence on spurious rape and abuse charges (Because, of course, the charge is so serious); the power to be systematically locked out of our children’s lives; to be assessed “imputed” income in a child support proceeding far in excess of our ability to make, or our history of making; the power to be eliminated from or denied jobs and education in the name of “Affirmative Action”; to be beat up, not fight back, walk out of a “Domestic Situation” with the blood running from our face and still be locked up as the “primary aggressor.”
Or maybe it’s the host of all-male schools and establishments where no woman is allowed to tread, the exclusive Men’s Scholarships, agencies devoted to our every whim, and the “Violence Against Men Act.” When we get attacked by women, we are never made fun of on Jay Leno, nor when we are sexually harassed.
Yes, Rachel, by all means, let me revel in my power.
This is understandable, but I would say challenge yourself to step outside these boundaries that you've been forced into and you will see that there is a lot of room for you in feminism.
The boundaries I have been forced into, Rachel, are because of feminism. This is oddly like asking a leukemia victim to explore the opportunities cancer presents to him.
Feminism is an “ISM” Rachel – like racISM. It is a peculiar brand of sexism, the glorification of the feminine at the expense of the masculine. What you suggest is akin to asking Martin Luther King to join the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
I can tell you I know scores of men who are feminists and they work every day to make sure that they as men are not contributing to women feeling unsafe or threatened by the power and privilege that you as men hold.
I thought it was us who were threatened, Rachel? Could you make up your mind here?
I had honestly started this intending to not get short with you, but I am losing patience. Exactly what threatens you and makes you feel unsafe? Disagreement?
Does the idea of a man getting due process of law instead of being presumed guilty based on your say-so make you feel unsafe, Rachel? Perhaps the notion that a man might be as good – or, dare I say, a better - parent than you threaten you? Does the thought that the best man for the job might indeed be a man bother you? Perhaps the suggestion that if you made a false allegation of rape, abuse, or paternity against a man; that you should be held accountable for it makes you quiver?
I don’t recall except on the scant fringe elements of Men’s Activism that anyone in the movement suggest that there should be an open season on the female of the species, Rachel. Damn me if searching through the archives here can’t reveal so much as one instance where it is suggested that rape should be declared a national sport, that “Whack-A-Wife” should be marketed as a new reality show, that women should be drummed out of the workforce, or not allowed out without a keeper.
But I will tell you what, Rachel: You sure-as-God-made-little-green-apples CAN find that all through feminist rhetoric directed towards males.
I think, Rachel, that you might be projecting that threat and insecurity. I’d suggest next semester drop that “Womyn’s Studies” class, and take a psychology class to learn what that means. In addition to discovering something new, it’ll have the advantage of not being a fluff class, useless for anything else but being a professional victim.
It is very difficult to call feminism "anti-father" because as a feminist, believe me- I want fathers to be present, I want fathers to be free to love who they want to regardless of gender, I want fathers to feel comfortable enough to raise children and support families in the same way women have for years.
I have heard this a thousand times from feminists, Rachel, and each and every time it has come with the unspoken qualification “…so long as they act like mothers, and do it in the women’s fashion, because it is a better way.” Your “In the same way women have for years” doesn’t lead me to think you are any different
It’s odd and produces in me cognitive dissonance when I hear a feminist say this and complain about the Men’s and Father’s Rights Movement, Because we want the exact same thing – except that we want to be Fathers in the manner of men, not mothers in the manner of women.
I suppose that really is the issue, isn’t it?
I am sorry I came upon your site because it makes me feel unsafe in spaces where men may be believing that young boys should not be taught that domestic violence is bad,
This angers me, Rachel. Because domestic violence is bad. And it’s bad when directed towards men as well. And what is just as bad is when there is a false accusation of it to gain advantage in a divorce or custody proceeding.
but I also hope that you will think about what your privilege as a man in this society really means for those who do not have it.
Again – what privilege would that be?
What would be the consequences you'd face if you called yourself a feminist?
Since feminism is based on the dislike of the male, I guess I would have to hate myself.
Tell me, though, Rachel – what would it cost you to become a “Men’s Rights Activist?” To fight for a real egalitarian treatment of men and women before the law, and in society?
I guess you would have to surrender that privilege and preference you have.
Pete Jensen
Click here to check out Pete Jensen's blog on MND
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Jensen is a Computer Engineer and Curmudgeon who lives in the wilds of Southern Indiana. He enjoys satirizing political correctness, and mocking its advocates. If you’d care to write him and talk reasonably he welcomes it. If you’d care to write him and froth at the mouth ideologically, he welcomes that too. You’ll be grist for the mill, and know in advance he doesn’t regard any such diatribes as privileged communication. That’s right, you too can wind up lampooned by his searing wit and insightful barbs in front of millions on the internet.
--------------------
Don't bogart...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
50 usernames ? Need me to prove it ?
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
OffWithTheirHead
member
Reged: 02/07/08
Posts: 147
|
|
Was this supposed to be facetious?
;)
--------------------
No pity upon Feminazi PIGS!
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Make it 51 .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
OffWithTheirHead
member
Reged: 02/07/08
Posts: 147
|
|
No. SuperEric is 55 and will be for a little bit longer...
--------------------
No pity upon Feminazi PIGS!
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
As soon as I get the time ( maybe later this evening ) , i'm gonna PROVE E ric's foolishness . Of course , because he's a born LIAR , he'll never admit it . This applies to you too , figment of his disturbed imagination .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
CrapStinks
enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 219
|
|
I see... Or is that I really smell, your pooh pooh?
Me thinks that you created an oxymoron out of your last post, neer do well...booglepooh.
If you PROVE something, there is no room for debate. Kinda like the laws of the universe. I know... You know nothing about this subject since you have your head so stuck, so far up your ass that you can't think straight anymore (if ever).
Here's an idea:
Keep your head up there, go to the Mafia Board (a hateful group of women) and rejoice with your own ilk for a change!
You, booglepooh, are one sicko that needs to be locked up-just like your mentor, Britney.
And, when you feel this urge to "expose" the members of F_IRM, don't bother. We already admit to it.
But, do feel free to expose the lies of the feminazi PIGS as we do. Honest. You can do that and who knows? Maybe you will get "stars," too! ;)
--------------------
Crap Stinks
(just like the feminazis do...do...)
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Keep switching usernames E ric , more PROOF .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
WhosTheCutest
enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 285
|
|
Ifeminists URL:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/1124.html8
FOX News URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139444,00.html
Best to all,
Wendy McElroy
Norma Khouri’s international best-seller “Honor Lost: Love and Death in Modern-Day Jordan” is http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment030703.asp an indictment of ‘honor killings’: the practice of killing women whose behavior has shamed the family. Khouri’s lifelong friend Dalia, a Jordanian Muslim, was murdered in Amman by her father for falling in love with a Christian.
Fearing for her life, Khouri fled Jordan to asylum in Australia. The sensation caused by the book is flawed by one thing; the story may be a lie from beginning to end.
An 18-month investigation of “Honor Lost” (titled “Forbidden Love”
outside the U.S.) was conducted by the Australian Sydney Morning Herald
(SMH) and Amal Sabbagh -- the Secretary-General of the Jordanian National Commission for Women.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464854793.html?oneclick=true
On July 14th, the resulting expose rocked the literary world.
Khouri’s book is riddled with factual errors as well as what Sabbagh called a general “lack of knowledge of Islam and of Jordan.” For example, the book refers to Kuwait as Jordan’s neighbor when the two countries share no border. It describes the Jordan River flowing through the capital of Amman when no such tributary exists. These are strange errors from someone who hails from Amman.
More damning was the revelation that Khouri had left Jordan at the age of three and lived in Chicago for almost thirty years.
http://www.amanjordan.org/english/daily_news/wmview.php?ArtID=4761 Lying for fame and fortune is nothing new. The intriguing aspect is how our society has become so gullible as to gulp down claims of victimhood without pausing for evidence.
It could be argued that any book from a major publisher has automatic credibility. In Australia where “Forbidden Love” became a runaway hit Khouri was published by Random House. In America, the publisher of “Honor Lost” was Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002ST9DY/102-3548859-6200941?v=glance
Publishers Weekly a touchstone of publishing credibility reviewed the book as, “The timeless tragedy of Shakespeare's star-cross'd lovers…[A] deeply affecting story of a Catholic man and a Muslim woman secretly in love in contemporary Jordan.”
The book’s acceptance by major publishers and reviewers merely highlights the original question: why does society no longer require evidence before believing almost any claim of victimhood?
Khouri’s hoax is a dramatic illustration of how harmful such gaping incredulity can be to real victims and honest dialogue. Malcolm Knox, Literary Editor of SMH, commented that Khouri “spent much of 2003 retelling this story, reducing listeners to tears and anger, in interviews, book festivals, bookshops and other events…Khouri became a standard-bearer for oppressed Arab women and triggered a publishing trend of similar books.”
Meanwhile, Sabbagh -- a woman who has fought on the front lines for the real victims of honor killings -- stated: "We feel defamed by this book.” She feels defamed because Jordan has courageously opened up the topic of honor killings for global examination. Now the issue is being defined by sensationalized fiction, not reality.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6129 Rana Husseini is an investigative journalist at the English-language newspaper Jordan Times. Husseini has written tirelessly against ‘honor killings’ and must be credited with pulling the issue into the media’s spotlight.
Husseini has produced a list of 73 clear errors in “Honor Lost.” For example, Husseini writes, "She [Khouri] talks about a jury and we [in Jordan] don't have juries; she talks about killers being bailed out, but killers are never bailed out in Jordan."
Husseini is understandably resentful of Khouri. With courage and persistence, she has battled to spotlight a hideous crime against women:
honor killings. Now a con artist seems to be distorting and exploiting the pain of murdered women.
The irony is heartbreaking. Jordan is one of the most ‘advanced’ Arab nations; it leads the Muslim world in officially and publicly condemning honor killings. Yet, now, the world’s image of Jordan and its acknowledged problem has no relationship to those realities.
Why would the world allow a con artist to define an international issue? Quite simply: no one is willing to demand evidence.
As a columnist, I routinely require evidence from alleged victims.
I do so without accusation or rancor simply because I think facts are essential before reaching a conclusion. Evidence is rendered more essential by two circumstances: 1) where there is a victim, there is also an accused who deserves the light of inquiry; and, 2) an open accusation is a public matter.
Accordingly, I initimately know one reason why probing questions are not asked. Those who ask them are automatically accused of vicious motives. If a reviewer had quizzed Khouri, she would have been accused of apologizing and enabling Islam’s violence against women. If the reviewer had been a “he”…well, forget about it.
Emotional rhetoric replaces fact in virtually all reporting of ‘victimhood.’ How could a request for evidence possibly compete with Khouri’s media spots which reportedly reduced “listeners to tears and anger.” The audience anger would have automatically lashed out at anyone who asked for such a presumptuous thing as substantiation.
The sad Khouri saga is not an indictment of honor killings. It is an indictment of how society has so fallen in love with victimhood that it took 18 months and an international effort to debunk a claim that should have immediately collapsed of its own weigh. But, then, that would have required asking a question.
--------------------
Who's The Cutest?
That hater and slayer of feminazi PIGS!
Off with their freak'n heads!
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
——————/´ ¯/)
—————–/—-/
—————-/—-/
———–/´¯/'–'/´¯`·_
———-/'/–/—-/—–/¨¯\
——–('(———- ¯~/'–')
———\————-'—–/
———-'\'————_-·´
————\———–(
————-\———–\
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
