Problems

Oh, how often a discussion on feminism turns to the inevitably stupid counter argument that if men were really in charge, they wouldn’t have any disadvantages in society at all. I can’t count the times this has come up when I’ve tried to make the point that most of the problems men suffer in society comes from the same misogynistic patriarchy that women have to deal with more overtly. Every time, though, it never ceases to amaze me. Not only because I can’t believe I have to explain the fact that the system was not built to benefit men over women and that it just turned out that way, but also at how badly the person who brought it up seems to want to be seen as uniquely oppressed.

You have to ask yourself: why would anyone WANT to be oppressed?

There’s a great guide to what privilege is and what it means here, which I find is my favorite essay to point others too when they find that they’re having a difficult time understanding what privilege is. It’s especially good at explaining why privilege is invisible and why the privileged can seem like such jerks sometimes. I have it bookmarked for just such occasions where I feel I have to explain to others why they aren’t being very empathetic towards victims of oppression.

It’s not because they’re inherently bad people. It’s just because they can’t even conceive of the disadvantages others face because they won’t ever have to experience them. The dog in the linked article is the perfect example of someone who will never understand what kind of discomfort and hardship can come from being below privilege because it is so far out of their realm of possible experience. They don’t even know what cold is.

So, because they have no frame of reference, and no way of really gaining that particular frame of reference, they don’t see the discomfort others go through on a day-to-day basis, or it being the result of the world seeming to be tailor made for their convenience. The privileged see other people and assume that their hardships are the same or equal to their own already.

And when they see others trying to fix problems completely foreign to theirs, they either don’t know what those others are “complaining” about, or they assume those problems don’t even exist. They even get indignant when they see fixes for the problems they think are imaginary, because they see those fixes as inequalities in a system they think has always been fair to them. Think of every person who has ever had a problem with affirmative action. It’s because they see that inequality fix as a special advantage, thinking that the people benefiting are being unfair and trying to get results without actually earning them.

Thus, we start to see the rise of those in privileged seats in society start to form groups talking about all of the unique problems they face and insisting that they are oppressed too, because if they pretend to be oppressed just as they think others are, they think they’ll get some cushy advantages as well. It’s not about being truly concerned with the disadvantages that they have in society and really trying to fix them. Otherwise they would be feminists and civil rights activists and gay rights activists too. No, these people are far more concerned with the benefits they think they’ll receive if they cry and whine and make a scene a bit.

That’s why you still have MRAs talking about the draft, even though that was found to be illegal and done away with decades ago, why they still talk about child custody unfairness, even though the past few years have seen quite the pendulum swing back in men’s favor in that respect, and why they still talk about the lack of women serving in the military, even though feminism has been making great strides in that area. They even want the things they’re complaining about to persist, mostly because they believe the military related inequality would give them leverage for getting what they want from women (i.e.: “I fought in a war to your benefit. Sleep with me.”). They merely want the fixes that other groups get so that they can continue to play on the uneven playing field they have been, all while being completely ignorant of the slope.

Really, if I didn’t have such a thing for arguing, I would have stopped trying to make willfully ignorant douchebags aware of their privilege long ago. It’s obvious that they don’t want to be aware of it, so why should I enlighten them?

Edit: I want to clarify here that I do not deny men have problems as a class, or that there are issues that we can work on regarding injustices that men face. A comment below seemed to believe that I exhibited privilege in denying that men have disadvantages and that I thought they were complaining about nothing. The truth is I believe there are many things men face as a whole that are problematic – most of which stems from the very same circumstances as misogyny – but I do not believe the modern MRM has even attempted to do more about those problems than try blame women and feminism for them. The commenter below has done nothing whatsoever but convince me of more of the same, and thus strengthen my impression that the MRM is less a movement going forward than a few folks who don’t like the fact that more people are making their lives better at the expense of the old biased power system.

Stop Thunderf00t. Stop.

I’m not even recommending his videos anymore, considering how out of line he’s gotten these days. I started to question his perspective on ethics and the treatment of others when he was talking about “desensitizing” Muslims by burning the Koran and drawing Muhammad, but back then I had no idea how bad it could get. Now that he’s grown bored of deliberately trying to piss off Muslims, he’s moved on to his new favorite hobbyhorse – misogyny and how it’s totally okay.

Apparently, he’s put up a brand new video about rape, and from what I’ve seen, it’s horrendous and triggery. I couldn’t get past minute 4, so I don’t recommend searching for it on Youtube to anyone who is sensitive to this subject matter, but the basic idea he’s trying to get across is that it’s ever so silly to demand that our society start teaching boys and men about what rape is and not to do it. To justify his reprehensible opinion on the matter, he goes from claiming that rape is a hardwired sexuality and comparing it to homosexuality, to claiming that rapists are horrible rapey monsters and you could never teach them not to rape anyway, to saying that this campaign of “don’t teach me to avoid being raped, teach him not to rape” is encouraging women not to take normal precautions against this crime.

 

I would have a million things to say in response to all of Thunderf00ts mansplaining bullshit, but it looks like it has been said before, and probably better than I ever could. Visit SomeGreyBloke’s blog here: http://somegreybloke.blogspot.com.es/

 

As for Thunderf00t himself, he should have stuck to what he knows – science that contradicts religious claims rather than social justice matters that he clearly doesn’t understand.

What Did He Do Right?

We’re hearing an awful lot about how conventions are often dangerous places for women, what with all the harassment and assault going on at these places. There’s a lot of talk about what harassment and rape IS, and what men are doing wrong when expressing their desires. There’s a LOT of talk about what to do about men overextending their desires to women, and the policies that should be in place to prevent women from feeling uncomfortable.

I know a woman who got into a long-term relationship that stemmed from what was supposed to be a one-night-stand. She’s still very happily with this man for three years, and they don’t appear to be getting tired of each other. Not only did they start out this incredibly loving relationship with pure physical attraction, they started it out at a convention, and it’s working out great.

My friend above thinks it would be prudent to also tell men what they’re doing RIGHT so that we can avoid hurting women at conventions and gatherings more. That way, when they know what is correct behavior, they can differentiate. After all, it’s not easy being told what you’re doing wrong until it’s put into context by what you’re doing right… right?

Right.

Here is what her lover did to win her over in only one night, fellas. It’s all the things he did RIGHT.

#1. Engaged her like an equal: It’s not enough to just talk to a woman, guys. After all, she’s not at a convention or gathering to talk to YOU. She has not been waiting for YOU the entire con. She came to the con to talk ABOUT the things all of those at the con have in common. When you’re at a con, you already have an advantage for mutual conversation, so don’t waste it by assuming that she just wants your attention or that she only wants to talk about you (AKA: Fake Geek Girl Assumption). You should be equally sharing information, and equally getting to know each other.

#2. Made his intentions clear: A lot of guys get stuck in what the internet has lovingly dubbed “the friendzone” because he tries to strategize using very VERY false information given to them by our culture. Society has told them that if they push the right buttons and become friends with a woman first, she’ll eventually warm up to him enough to fall in love. Not only does this treat friendship as a meaningless pitstop on the way to sex, but it’s deceptive. Women are not going to think you’re very nice if you try to trick them into liking you, and more than likely, you’ll just be wasting both your time.

What my friend’s current boyfriend did to cut through that fluff is let her know right off the bat that he was attracted to her. No games. No gimmicks. Just pure “hey, I think you’re attractive, do you want to have dinner with me and my friends?” She might have reacted in several ways, including rejection, but it’s a hell of a lot easier this way, and he wasn’t going to lose much if she said no. If she had, he would have just gone to dinner with his friends and been done with it. No harm, no foul.

#3. Did not assume anything: Even when she agreed to eat dinner with him, hang out with him all night, and even share a hotel room with him, not once did he assume that she was going to have sex with him. Obviously, she had made her intentions clear as well, the reason why she had agreed to sleep in his hotel room to begin with, but he didn’t assume he knew what was going on in her head until she expressed enthusiastic consent. What this means is that he recognized that she was another PERSON with her own wants, desires, and agency, and he made absolute sure that they aligned with his. If she had the slightest reservations, he would not have pressed the issue. Why?

“I didn’t want to mess up all the fun we’d had the whole time before we were alone together. Sure, I think she’s beautiful and amazing and I want to have sex with her, but I had a blast with her the whole afternoon before, and I wanted to have more fun with her in the future. If I tried to have sex with her when she didn’t want to, that would have ended our association. But, if I didn’t just try to have sex with her, either way it turned out, I’d have another friend I could still hang out with and have fun with. It seemed like the second option was way better. And it worked out, so…”

This is obviously not a failsafe guide on how to get laid at conventions. This is not a pick-up handbook. The couple above didn’t get together because one of them tricked or manipulated the other into being with them. There is NO strategy any PUA could possibly give you that would get you what those two have.

They are together because they respected boundaries, understood the other person was autonomous, and made no assumptions. Neither one of them used any of these actions as a strategy to get laid either. Their primary objective was just to have fun, and their actions were not predicated on intercourse.

If your expectations don’t revolve around a certain outcome, you’ll be satisfied no matter what happens. And that’s what they did right.

In Defense of Feminism

“You can’t really be a feminist. You don’t hate men, so you wouldn’t have a reason to be.”

“Actually, the reason I’m a feminist is because of my dad.”

“You’re a feminist because you hate your dad?”

She laughed. “No. I love my dad. He was awesome when I was growing up! He made me laugh, disciplined me right, but he also treated me with respect. He always told me I could be whatever I wanted, and supported me through all the childhood dreams of being a doctor, the president, an astronaut, the works. He got me matchbox cars and Tonka trucks, Barbie dolls and tiaras, whatever I wanted, but only if I was good. He got me my first game console and played racing games with me all day! When I got older, he told me that sex was something two or more people did to have fun, but that I had to be careful because it could have consequences. He never acted patronizing about it, even though he was my father. He gave me the information I needed, and trusted me to make the right decision with it. He would always urge me to strive to be better than him, to be the best person I could be, even though I was a girl.

“He’s such a good dad, a good man, a good person, really, that I started to notice when people treated me differently because I was a girl. I really noticed when people acted like I didn’t belong because of my lady parts, or treated me like I was a cute decoration. I noticed when men treated me like I was there for their amusement, or acted like I should be sleeping with them for validation. I noticed when guys made fun of me because I was a girl, and that everyone around me thought it was normal and an okay thing to make fun of. I noticed when I didn’t have very many female characters in things I watched or read that I could look up to.

“I noticed all of these things because my dad treated me just the same as anyone else. He treated me like a person. And I wanted to be treated that way by everyone else too.”

Intersectionality

This picture is one of the more impactful of Civil Rights photos I have ever seen. Look at that glare, that “don’t mess with me” visage. She clearly means business.

Can you believe that this woman had the microphone taken away from her at the March on Washington in 1963 before she could even speak? You might ask why, but I think we’re all pretty familiar with the history equality movements have with the lack of intersectionality. Feminism and the LGBT movement has done it too. It has been a pretty prevalent practice amongst these groups to exclude people who don’t fit the image of the movement from the dialogue, even though they play a crucial role in it.

Take Rosa Parks for example. I doubt any of us would have known who she even was or that she existed if not for her part in introducing Martin Luther King Jr to the stage. Even so, she’s talked about more like a mythological figure rather than a person. In school, I learned about Rosa Parks as I would an archetype or a metaphor, and I didn’t know until a couple of years ago about Rosa Parks’ long history of activism, even before the bus incident. She was not new to civil disobedience, but because of her new link with Martin Luther King Jr, suddenly her efforts were notable.

Parks and Richardson were not really recognized for their efforts, and when they were, those efforts were usually talked about in third person by a man. Their identities as women almost overrode their identities as black activists, and that was why they could have used intersectionality between feminism and civil rights back then.

That’s why we still need it today. When I’m only now hearing about Gloria Richardson, we haven’t fixed the problem. It’s still there, and it’s making it hard to acheive equality on all levels with all people. When we’re still thinking about oppression in terms of who’s facing what because of which characteristics, we’re pigeonholing ourselves right into ineffectual extinction.

Only once we realize that the same forces are at work in all oppression, whether you’re black, a woman, or both, can we really take off toward true equality.

Conspiracy Theorist At Last

I normally see myself as a pretty down-to-earth person. There’s not an awful lot that I think is by design against me, but then again, I suppose it depends on how you define “by design”. For instance, I see current sexist attitudes in my culture as arising and changing from the agricultural revolution’s new concept of “personal property” and “paternity”, so I don’t think it’s deliberate. It’s a deeply rooted behavior passed down through generations as a way that genders relate to one another. It’s fairly obvious to me that this has to stop, but it’s not intentional, at least not generally.

But the intentional misogyny of the Men’s Rights Movement has me thinking a little differently. It has me thinking that maybe powerful feminists are behind the scenes, pulling the strings. Not because men are really the ones who are oppressed – most of the “oppression” men experience actually comes out of misogyny, as the insults and shame of a man usually come out of being called a “woman”. It’s not because men are seen as utilities in society – their utility is usually seen as superior to sitting around and being an object, and they even get glory and praise for the service to the community they do, while women get ridiculed for the same services (EG – military).

No, it’s because I can think of no greater way to bring people over to feminism than to create a grassroots movement that so perfectly represents why feminism is still needed, BADLY. I mean, when feminists talk about men hating women, there the MRAs are, hating women. When feminists talk about male privilege, there the MRAs are, to exemplify what it means and how they have it. And when feminists talk about how women are constantly objectified, sexualized, put down, mocked, or otherwise not taken seriously as human beings for the crime of having a vagina, there the MRAs are, showing EVERYONE that this is the truth. They just come out of the woodwork to prove feminists right!

I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t just an incredibly successful viral ad campaign – BECOME A FEMINIST, IT’S MORE RATIONAL THAN BEING AN MRA!