ArgusEyes
« Previous EntriesArticle Summary
- 15 Questions from a Feminist [2010-Feb-8]
- Cold Calculation [2010-Feb-7]
- It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes! [2009-Dec-22]
- Can we generalise feminism? [2009-Dec-1]
- Indian wife abuses husband in front of son [2009-Nov-30]
- Cherchez-le-Femme [2009-Nov-19]
- Men lose their minds over pretty women [2009-Sep-7]
- The one-stop wage gap video repository [2009-Sep-4]
- The proof for oppression against women: Still missing [2009-Aug-29]
- O.K. Guys.. This is what it takes for the oppression against women to stop [2009-Aug-25]
- « Previous Articles
15 Questions from a Feminist
Monday, February 8th, 2010
By ArgusEyes [source]
Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:
1. What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?
To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.
Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.
2. Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?
What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.
3. Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?
Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:
“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”
Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.
4. Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?
You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.
5. What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?
Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.
Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..
Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.
6. How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?
As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.
7. Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.
Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.
8. (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)
Nope.
9. Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.
That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.
Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.
10. Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?
On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.
11. Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?
Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.
12. Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?
This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?
13. How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?
One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:
“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”
...
“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”
I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.
14. Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?
I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.
However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.
Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?
15. Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?
I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.
Cold Calculation
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
By ArgusEyes [source]
It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes!
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
Oh lordy, I’ve been sent three links in the past day that have raised an eyebrow or two. The first is from long time cyber stalker DianaBoston, who criticises me directly by name. I won’t spoil the video but the crux of it is a moral equivalence so vile and stupid that I almost vomited on my shoes.
Check out some of her comments:
MensRifleAssociation (2 days ago)
Reply | Spam
you sure did swing your club today.
DianaBoston (2 days ago)
Reply
Men use clubs, women use their brains and a sword. The sword of justicia!
Okaaay. Moving swiftly along. We have stereotypes B and C.
I would reply to some of these but I’m just too busy.
Can we generalise feminism?
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
I have been involved in an email dialog with a feminists, Jen, who bills herself as a “real feminist”, by which she means she is not like those radicals. Great. Her criticism of me is that I criticise feminism as some kind of monolithic entity and don’t pay enough heed to the real feminists like her. This discussion is so common in my email inbox that I feel it would be useful to include it on this blog. It is still ongoing so expect updates.
It starts with her original email to me:
I would be responding to your videos on your comments page, but unfortunately, there are way too many stupid people there for my taste, and no matter what I know I will be bashed because I don't hate women or feminists. This is sort of my response to the all of the videos from you I have watched.
I agree with a lot of your points on our culture's persecution of men. Fathers are just as vital to the family as mothers. Though I think it is unfair to blame only the feminists for encouraging things like no-fault divorce and fatherless families. The persecution of men began after WWII when the media portrayed responsible men, men who made sacrifices and supported families, as emasculated, mocking them, mocking the life of a "normal" man, portraying it as being shallow and unfulfilling. The movie Rebel Without A Cause embodies this perfectly. This fabricated portrayal of an empty fatherhood aroused feelings of boredom and discontent in young men who did not like what they had to look forward to. Hugh Hefner's motto of having ties to no one, including woman and family, became the popular manly ideal. This was still the 1950's. If society considered it unmanly to provide for one's wife and family, or even start one, normal, plain women were screwed. The male rebellion of beatnicks and greasers was prompted by fear of castration via fatherhood and responsibility. The female rebellion of I am woman hear me roar BS was also provoked by a fear a different one, of being left in the gutter, in exchange for Hugh Heffners more attractive, sexually active bunnies. Most guys are afraid of castration. Most women fear spinsterhood. Such is a fate worse than death for both. You know what followed in the 60's and 70's.
Since then, our society continually has two views of men: you are either a free man, a womanizing sex God who is a Chuck Norris protege - or you are the emasculated father who is literally drained by his controlling wife and whiny kids. Both are bullshit. Similarly, there are two views of women in society: you are either an attractive sex toy, or you are the ugly saggy-tit spinster, who if she were married, or someone's mother, would be a nagging volatile shrew. Also Bullshit. The true feminists, as well as the deranged psychotic man-hating ones are a mere product of this. But the heart of the evil lies in those who controlled (and still control) the fantasies of the masses in the first place.
These puppetmasters who support the psychotic feminists with their media coverage only do so, because they want to tear down those who pose an actual threat to them (fathers who love and stand by their families), not because they really care about justice or women's freedom. They want to make such men afraid to have families of their own, afraid to be responsible, to love fully, afraid to stand and fight. What these fools (the psychofeminists) don't realize is they are playing right into the traps of the tyrants they claim to oppose. Once they are done destroying the will of the only men with the courage to fight for those they love, there will be no men to protect their rights. I say it as a feminist: women's freedom depends on the state of civilization, and the support of good men. It always has and will. No amount of protesting, no law is going to change that.
I apologize for the mouthful. But it seems like you've never been exposed to a real feminist (the "men are pigs" psychos are a VERY LOUD minority, who are definitely more fun to rant about than us boring feminists who are straight, have boyfriends and love their dads), and think you know what real feminism stands for. Usually, we hold a lot more in common than we realize, but don't have the humility to want to listen to the other side. Oftentimes as soon as men such as yourself discover that I am female, or god forbid a feminist, that I can't be reasoned with or care deeply about their perspective.
I am often busy, but would gladly like to hear your response, as I believe you did want to get a dialog going. (Unless you are the male version of the psycho-feminist. I sincerely hope you arent.) :(
My first response to her:
Hi,
I can do a dialog, no problem, and I will address your points but if I may break this down a little bit to make it more manageable by asking you a question.
I realize you are young, but are you prominent in any organization or are you on the front lines of feminist thought promoting your views?
Sincerely,
Mark
Her response:
Hello again! I apologize for the late response - it is Thanksgiving here and I have been spending time with my family for the past week.
As for my "prominence" there is no official feminist organization that I see any need to join as of now, unless one counts forums and various websites and college groups. Honestly, I think one can just as much if not more accomplished through making films that reach a general audience, than by stopping traffic with a mob of annoying protesters - but that is my personal approach.
Yes, I am young, still in college, and have yet to make my grand contribution to humanity. I am not a public speaker or a politician. But I am a storyteller, and can thus reach just as many people through my work.
My response:
Hello again Jen,
I was beginning to think that you had forgotten about me.
Your answer was what I thought it would be. You're an interested individual, right? However, you're not a member of an organisation or on the head of N.O.W. I receive emails from many people who complain that I only attack the radicals and that I don't consider the "real feminists", to use you own term, but when I probe further then I find that they are people who have normal jobs and who don't push the field of feminism or steer its course.
I am not going to ask you introspect and ask you why you consider yourself to be the standard to be measured against for ideological pureness. In short, why do you consider yourself to be the "real feminist" when you are not prominent in the movement and the radicals are the ones behind the wheel? Doesn't it make more logical sense to call these feminists the "real ones"?
Sincerely,
Mark
Her response:
Unlike most movements, feminism is a loose collection of individuals. To think there is but one ruling dogma or only a few key feminists whom we all follow like sheep is outdated. Maybe a couple of older feminists, who mind you are starting to die off - but most feminists that I know, and virtually all feminists of my generation are not man-haters. Feminists do hold one thing in common: we believe that women are as fully human as men and should not be disrespected or poorly treated on the sole grounds that they are "women and therefore inferior".
Many of my ideas come from my mentors - who share my core values and HAVE made contributions to feminist thought. When I asked my mentors what it means to be a feminist, they told me what I am telling you now. As in any industry, those with the ability to succeed, those with the passion and dream to choose his or her own life, should be allowed to do so, man or woman of any race or background (provided they aren't abusing their freedom by oppressing others). Those who seek to punish and oppress men with such vehemence nearly always have some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.
Does Bill O'Reilly represent all conservatives? Does Michael Moore represent the majority of liberals in his country? They are certainly leaders of a sort and do have their following. That doesn't change the fact that most people on both sides think they are douchebags. That's why they are mocked. Likewise, radical man-hating fems are mocked. No one really takes them seriously except for the politicians who support them. Are Muslim terrorists true Muslims? Because they speak the loudest and kill people, I suppose that means they are the only true Muslims and the quiet family of Muslims next door who faithfully observe the five pillars are just a bunch of phonies.
Finally, because I'm guessing you will ask this:
Why aren't "real feminists" out there defaming those outspoken crazed feminists?
It is very difficult ground to tread. I use the Muslim terrorist example because that's a similar reason that other potential leaders do not speak up on public television and in the streets of San Francisco - because then the extremists will even attack their own. Lots of feminists (particularly younger ones) for this reason are quiet and reserved about their more relaxed (but still feminist) views. Instead, you will hear mostly from the trained apprentices of past extremists. Many people want to be leaders, or at least make some contribution, but are afraid to go against the established order - or don't know how to oppose it without being silenced forever.
This is my last response to her:
Hi Jen,
Believe it or not, your message is almost word-for-word verbatim from what many others have sent to me on a regular basis. I get this criticism all the time. They say I can't pin down feminism because feminists believe all sorts of different things. Yes they do, and so do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, black liberationists and on and on..
If feminism is free-floating and nebulous then there is no point in the term is there? It has to mean something doesn't it?
I read a lot of liberal pro evolution blogs and these guys rip into conservatives all the time. But I realise that evolution denial is a common trend in conservative circles relating to their religiosity. I don't feel the need to defend conservatism against these attacks by saying that not all conservatives deny evolution, because I realise that the criticism is legitimate and fair.
There is an indiscriminate attitude that predominates in many people. What you said can be made a stock response to any criticism of a group or ideology. What you are essentially doing, whether you realise or not, is shutting down debate and it's a bad idea. Being discriminate and generalising is the essence of wisdom, if you cannot find patterns then you cannot achieve any valuable or accurate macro level picture of life. Whilst feminist do differ on things, you can generalise about the views they hold. I'll give you an example. I can think of no feminists I have encountered or heard of, apart from an ifeminist, who would accept the MRA view of the wage gap (yes we can generalise MRA's too). They would overwhelmingly say that this is proof of ground yet uncovered for women and would be activist on this issue. Criticisms of this attitude and association of it with feminism, like in the conservative example above, is legitimate and fair.
Sincerely,
Mark
Indian wife abuses husband in front of son
Monday, November 30th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
This has been passed onto me by a good friend so I won’t do too much of my own commentary and simply report the videos which are on YouTube. They aren’t in English unfortunately. It is a 4-parter.
Indian Wife Abuses Husband, Son Witnesses (on IndiaTV)
Purushottam Mahajan was physically and mentally abused by his wife, he has videotapes of about 60 days of abuse, many men do not even have this evidence, some of them suicide!. The Police has not yet taken action on Purushottam's complaint against spousal-abuse, even after 2 years of his complaint to various police and other authorities.
Cherchez-le-Femme
Thursday, November 19th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
Cherchez-le-femme means “Find-the-female” in French. It is a term that I got and modified from Charles Krauthammer where he mentioned “Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif” (find-the-Jew) in reference to the Time’s Joe Klein who decried the odious attempts of "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs.". I’m not touching that one now so don’t even try, but ever the thief, I will attempt to crowbar this term into the popular discourse, by which I mean i will use it a lot, so remember who came up with it first, alright?
Before your brain drops out with my inconsequential wittering (hey, I’ve been away a long time), let me introduce this piece from the BBC, Poor women ‘bear climate burden’:
Women in developing countries will be the most vulnerable to climate change, a report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned.
The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.
They do most of the agricultural work, and are therefore affected by weather-related natural disasters impacting on food, energy and water, it said.
Regular readers will notice similarities to the “Greener Gender: The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?” essay that I wrote some time ago, in which I criticised author Gerd Johnssom-Latham for bandwagon jumping and using climate change to server her ideological agenda. The exact same thing is happening here. Notice the middle paragraph in the quote above. “The agency said there was a disproportionate burden on those women and called for greater equality.“. Call me a fool if you want, but that sounds like a roundabout way to solve the problem. If an deleterious phenomenon is going to disproportionally affect a certain group of people then one would think that the first order of the day is to mitigate the effect, not to propose a social solution targeted at the group of people, people like this are meddlers and they irk me.
This is where the term “Cherchez-le-Femme” comes in. This is the phenomenon we saw in the “Greener gender” report and in this report from the UN. People with an agenda are extraordinarily adept at linking a lot of things that happen in the world to their particular agenda. Certain people are obsessed with Jews, and everything that happens comes back to the Jews somehow, it really is quote boring talking to such people. This is why I am skeptical about climate change. I will accept that it is happening to a certain degree because as I know from defending evolution and science on so many occasions, that it takes a little bit of chutzpah to go against the scientific community. However, as an astute observer said on the Dennis Prager show one time, climate change has become catnip to a bunch of failed “isms”. It is a ripe fruit dangling in the faces of various political groups, to be picked and used to advance their purposes. The imaginary female that will be damaged by the next big thing must be sought by the feminist and identified as a victim to be solved by the medicine they offer. Hence the reason they say “more equality” is needed rather than “stop global warming” or even “raise the standard of living”.
I must also point out for people who don’t know my views. There is a problem in the third world, you’d have to be blind to not see it. Women in many countries around the world have less rights, some people say “therefore feminism” whereas I say “therefore equality”. Contemporary feminism as a solution the the plight of women in the third world is a bad idea. You can look to this and other blogs to advance that particular case. One last observance on this issue, the executive director of UNFPA is Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. If you go to her bio then you will see her dedication to standard feminist causes. I have highlighted the instances of the word “women” in the image below to show this. Now, I don’t normally dig into people’s past but it goes to the central message. Ms. Obaid is clearly a feminists who is looking to climate change as the catnip to sell her cause. It’s sneaky and veiled and will turn people off of her cause in the end.
Men lose their minds over pretty women
Monday, September 7th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
I think most men in the audience can think of a situation in his life where he degenerated into a pile of mushy brain goo in the presence of a stunner, It’s happened to me.
So here is a study: “Study: Men Losing Their Minds Over Women”. Didn’t really need to be done but it’s always useful to have some kind of scientific backing when dealing with people who have problems with reality.
The study measured brain function in 40 male heterosexual student volunteers, who were asked to perform a standard memory test in which they were shown a stream of letters and had to quickly say if each was the same as the previous letter. They then spent several minutes talking to either a man or an attractive woman and then repeated the test.
The researchers found that even a few minutes with the attractive woman was enough to make the students slower and less accurate on the test. The more attracted they were, the worse their results.
They also studied the effects on women students of being in the company of handsome men, and found the test scores were unaffected.
…
The idea for the study came from one of the scientists, who was so impressed by a beautiful woman he met that when she asked where he lived, he had forgotten his own address! He had temporarily lost his mind.
Topics: ArgusEyes | Comments Off
The one-stop wage gap video repository
Friday, September 4th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
The “Why Men Earn More” playlist on my channel needs more maintenance then I have been giving it. As we all know, the wage gap argument is the most common retort in any argument with a feminist.
In a similar vein to many creationist/evolution debates. Their claims are simple – there is a gap and therefore sexism. Whereas our answer requires knowledge and understanding of markets and human nature, the viewpoint of the feminists has won in the popular culture – it is the commonly accepted “thought” despite having little thought in it at all.
A subscriber contacted me and told me about a dialog he had with a friend about the wage gap. We have all been in situations like that where, afterwards, we felt that we could have made a much better case for our side than we did. Or you think the classic “Damn! Why didn’t I say that?”.
Here is the playlist as it stands now. I have Warren Farrell’s videos in there and I have recently added Walter Block’s excellent lectures to it as well. If you know of a good video on the wage gap then email or comment on this thread and it will be added.
The proof for oppression against women: Still missing
Saturday, August 29th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
This post garnered a lot of discussion in the comments thread, which I am happy to see, I started this reply to a poster named bob who makes the cases for why women are more oppressed than men are. These are oft-repeated arguments so I felt it was important to dedicate a new post to my reply.
“Women get beat, raped, and exploited more.”
Men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, if you’re talking about D.V. then some say it happens to men a lot too. I’m not going to commit to stats since I am not a stats guy but I’m damn sure it happens to men more than those paltry handful of D.V. shelters that accommodate males. Rape does affect women overwhelmingly due to the nature of the crime.
However, for both D.V. and rape the same answer applies. These things are both crimes, therefore how is this oppression against women? We continually push, as a society, for more laws and services for women who have been raped or battered so we realise that this is a problem. Consider a crime where men are more likely to be the victim, like violent crime in general, it is accurate to say that violent crime oppresses men? No it is not, since it is not perpetrated by the state, but by individuals on other individuals and is recognised as being illegal.
The important part is where you claim women are exploited more but you’ve merely changed the words you use. Women are oppressed, women are exploited.
Never a scrap of evidence on how. The nearest you came to it was when you said this:
“Look at Middle Eastern countries.”
We are living in the west, criticising feminists in the west, who complain about the west and try to affect legislation in the west, they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west and when I ask how, what do I get in reply? “Look to the east”. What a crock.
“Women get paid less, men don't get to retire as soon.”
You’re missing the importance of the retire issue. This is government policy which treats men differently based upon their sex. Why do we always restrict freedom of speech to the government? Because government is the necessary totalitarian mechanism of control over all citizenry, you cannot escape the government. However, if the bakery doesn’t want you to say certain things then you can always walk out, you can never “walk out” of the government.
I realise this important distinction which is why I distinguished between the types of oppression and state that the state mandated instance of oppression are surely the worst kind and if men win in this area then what is the point of going further? The things I pointed out involve government action or funding. Do the feminists have an example of where the government acts in this way? Lets see..
The wage gap is a common example. Does the government enforce different pay on people based upon sex? Well no, it doesn’t. In fact, there is legislation passed in 1970 (1963 in the U.S. I think) that says that companies cannot pay people differently based upon sex, so if this does happen then it is like in the rape and D.V. examples where individuals in companies are choosing to pay women less. It is against the law. Therefore no government oppression exists.
The wage gap is the most sheepish feminist line out there. You’ll hear it spouted again and again when talking about these issues. It seems strange to me that so many people view the world as being so systemically sexist through-and-through as to make such a gap so pervasive throughout society. Ever since I first heard about the gap I though it was B.S. since I am not inclined to believe such conspiracy theories.
Feminism has won the culture war, its effects and ideas are pervasive in society to the extent where people can get ostracised for misplaced comments and heretical thoughts. Yet despite this people are still such sexists?! Any man will know a number of women in his life, his mother, sister, aunt, grandmother. Do so many men want what is bad for women?
I don’t want to portray that I am simple minded to how convoluted humans can be, I know that nothing is simple, taller people earn more than others because people subtly prefer taller people. Will the position of an attractive person when compared to a similarly-abled unattractive person be better? I would put my money on “yes”. However, I honestly do not find the feminist line on the wage gap to be persuasive.
The economists I know do not support the mass sexism explanation for the wage gap, these are people who actually look underneath the underneath in matters of markets and wages. I have not seen thoughts which support the feminist line in what I have read in the works of Milton Friedman, Walter Block, Thomas Sowell, etc. I see again and again that the wage gap used as proof of victimisation is made by feminists and feminists-economists (effectively like a “creation scientist”) and other groups of the activist victimist mentality such as racial groups.
In fact, I would play the victim if I wanted to. Check this out.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_503DRRB.pdf
Those Asian women sure did a great job of breaking through that glass ceiling didn’t they? Having studied computer science, I can tell you that for all their flaws, the Asian students had a fierce work ethic. It would be an unfair world that dictated that the rest of us who had not worked as hard had to be raised on a pedestal to their level to close this “gap”.
As Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it, Asians always kill the yarns that the victimists try to sow.
We've frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?
There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on.
You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.
There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.
One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...
I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.
But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/an_interview_with_thomas_sowel.php
It’s 4am and this is getting long. So I will end it there. I am truly interested in hearing rebuttals to my points here since I am interested in finding the truth on these matters. I have not heard the feminist come back with reasonable counter arguments to points like these. They usually make the claims and then these claims work their way into the zeitgeist. But as for not, that elusive proof for oppression against women is still missing.
Topics: ArgusEyes | Comments Off
O.K. Guys.. This is what it takes for the oppression against women to stop
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
By ArgusEyes [source]
Some people can believe crap that can make your head spin. Some chick (I honestly thought she was a boy until she spoke) is moaning the usual moan about how I said all feminists were a certain way and I cannot possibly criticise feminism ever because they’re all different. Yeah, the usual stuff.
It was the little exchange we had that was so delicious, I may very well take it down as an all time classic feminist line.
I wrote:
Yes, a person who thinks she is oppressed will likely become a feminist, and yes, viewing oneself as being oppressed will make one angry.
However, history is replete with people who deluded themselves into believing fantasies that weren't true, and didn't ponder their own fallibility or potential to be wrong. Feminists fall into this camp. Acting on faith with emotion is the cause of so much evil, it is in this way that the feminists perpetrate sexism and oppression upon other's heads whilst at the same time claiming that they are against such things.
If you can provide that final elusive proof of oppression against women, outside of petty grievances about wolf whistles or myths like the wage gap stemming from systemic sexism, then we can start to find some common ground. But until you do so then to decry yourself as being oppressed as a woman in the year 2009 is worthy only of contempt.
She replied:
Again it seems that you're solely speaking from your personal experience with feminists. you cannot say that all feminists do all these things you stated because you dont' know every feminist. this may be some trend you are writing about or w/e but to make broad blanket statements is pretty pointless.
i honestly dont feel like going through the trouble of proving the oppression against women but until the day where a woman can go out side and walk wherever she wants, wearing whatever she wants, no matter what time of day and feel completely safe, then oppression against women doesnt exist, or when parents start feeling safe about leaving their children with a male babysitter.
part of being a human being is constantly questioning your opinion and changing your opinion. i think its funny that you're falling back on to the "feminists have some deluded sense that women are oppressed" argument. ive heard it all
Hard to know what to say to that. I just left it at:
I wish you the best in your wait for utopia.