« A very personal post about rocking out with the Lord | Main | A quick "sevens meme" »

September 26, 2005

Comments

Hugo

Thread drift alert!
Please return to MRAs and marriage, not women in the military.

jaketk

You had me up until "because". It's far less about feminism having being ruined by evildoers, and far more about old, tired stereotypes about how feminists don't shave, hate men, are ugly, have to have the man be the submissive partner in the relationship, etc. I doubt many young women say "I'd identify myself as a feminist, but the co-opting of that label by Naomi Wolf has made me reluctant to ally myself with that label.

i don't buy into the "evildoer" theory either.

my foster mother's aversion to feminism doesn't stem from a particular writer, i can assure you. some women avoid feminism because of the reasons you mentioned, but i doubt that the factors i mentioned don't come into play. some of the stereotypes you mentioned were porported by feminists. if the feminist movement were just starting, i would agree that its all in the way the media portrays them, and little to do with the extreme branches of the movement. but after 30 years in the forefront, that's no longer a valid argument. it's been around to long to say that feminists haven't caused a major portion of any aversion that exists.

Medium Dave

Thread drift alert!

No kidding, Hugo. How did a discussion about what MRA's do for sexual companionship change into a discussion of the unfairness of feminism and feminists?

NYMOM

"Thread drift alert!
Please return to MRAs and marriage, not women in the military."

It's related.

Since MRAs are blaming feminists for men not wishing to get married and feminists here are saying it's not so...that they are just getting bad press...

I agree with the MRAs however, that it is NOT due to bad press, it's due to feminist's actions...They are responsible for fewer men wanting to get married...as their emphasis on men and women treating sex exactly the same (along with effective birth control) has led to fewer men wishing to get married.

So it was not topic drift, but pointing out that, in this rare instance, MRAs are correct.

mythago

it's been around to long to say that feminists haven't caused a major portion of any aversion that exists.

Sure. Does this mean that nobody who follows Jesus should call himself a Christian, because of the antics of Jimmy Swaggart and Fred Phelps?

Uzzah

it's been around to long to say that feminists haven't caused a major portion of any aversion that exists.

Sure. Does this mean that nobody who follows Jesus should call himself a Christian, because of the antics of Jimmy Swaggart and Fred Phelps?

No, but you got to admit the situation is similar. The Christian religion (and religion in general) has been maligned in the media for a number of years. The likes of the Swaggarts, the Bakers have fanned the flames.. Much as the oddballs of feminism have turned many of the masses off to the movement itself..

bmmg39

"No, but you got to admit the situation is similar. The Christian religion (and religion in general) has been maligned in the media for a number of years. The likes of the Swaggarts, the Bakers have fanned the flames.. Much as the oddballs of feminism have turned many of the masses off to the movement itself..."

It's also not thread drift to point out that, in the case of the military, the feminists (NOW in this case) are correct and the "traditionalists" ("only men should die!") are wrong. It's an example of how feminists and feminism should NOT be the target of MRAs. MISANDRY should be the target, whether practiced by women or by men, whether displayed by people who call themselves feminists or by people who avoid the term like the plague. In many cases (such as challenging gender roles within marriage -- see, it's not thread drift), feminists are closer to having men's interests at heart than traditionalists do.

boy genteel

jaketk

In many cases (such as challenging gender roles within marriage -- see, it's not thread drift), feminists are closer to having men's interests at heart than traditionalists do.

So far I have not really seen this. On the other thread the suggestion was that men should better themselves as the women in their lives want them to. That does not appear to be challenging gender roles so much as it is creating new ones. If it is misandry that turns men away from marriage, then we have address where it comes from. You cannot challenge homophobia without acknowledging that religions play a large part in perpetuating it. In much the same way, we cannot challenge misandry while ignoring that a large part of it stems from feminism. That is not to say we should place all blame on feminism, but that we should acknowledge that much of what is said--"men are dogs," "men are stupid," "men are children," "men are lazy," etc.--is merely the repeating of feminist views. So while I agree we should not focus solely on feminism, we certainly should not let feminist misandry slide.

Hugo

Folks, it IS thread drift. The ONLY topic I want to hear about is what MRAs propose to do PERSONALLY as men as an alternative to marriage. Ideology is not relevant to this thread. We're starting to rehash the same old, same old of countless other threads. If you aren't going to offer personal disclosures (of the kind Gonz and Jaketk began with), then please don't comment here. Further drifts will be deleted.

Mr. Bad

Ok, I'm back (probably to the chagrin of some here). I've finally read through most of this thread and have little to add to the cogent and accurate words of Gonz and jaketk, other than my own personal story (which Hugo asked for):

I believe in marriage and am married, happily I might add. My wife is a strong woman who doesn't buy into feminism because she doesn't need that sort of emotional or social crutch (she gets along just fine in the world without the special treatment afforded to modern Western women as a result of feminism and other PC politics, and in fact is insulted by such things). Thus, we get along splendidly as a Strong Woman(TM)/MRA couple. I know this will surprise many here, but there it is.

That said, just because I personally believe in marriage and have enjoyed a successful one for well over 10 years now, doesn't stop me from strongly encouraging men to avoid marriage if at all possible, and to absolutely avoid becoming a father. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about that. I do this for reasons I've discussed before in other threads, i.e., because society and the legal system are stacked heavily against men and in favor of women, and thus, parenthood and marriage are generally speaking not only a raw deal for men, but a very real threat to their health and well-being. I am not a parent, and never will be, for that very reason. And until our society wakes up and smells the coffee vis-a-vis the wholesale discrimination against men and the ramifications thereof, I will continue to counsel my brothers to avoid exposing themselves to the risks of marriage and parenthood.

With the encouragement of society, women have become 'damaged goods' from the perspective of many men. Is this men's fault? No. The responsibility for this rests solely with women; in Western societies they are persons with free will who are (or at least should be) responsible for their own behavior. And all the shaming in the world re. chiding men for being "afraid of strong women," "afraid of commitment," etc., only serves to alienate men even more from women. Yet women refuse to see this, try to shame men even more, and the phenomenon snowballs because rather than try to understand men, they project their own personalities on us. Clue time: Most men don't respond to shame the same way women do; most of the time it doesn't work on us.

If all of this animosity between men and women causes a drastic drop in fertility rates, so be it. Let the human species die out - I don't care. It won't happen in my lifetime, and perhaps the earth would be better of without us. As for women being unhappy about being childless and alone when they reach middle age and beyond? I care even less about that. I think a lot of men are quite happy and fulfilled living the single life, and men's happiness and well-being is what I care about.

So Hugo, that's what I'm doing, and what I counsel my brothers to do as an alternative to marriage. I know it sounds cynical, but I am a product of my culture, which currently is gynocentric to the point of being obscenely so, which is why I don't much care about it any more. As a masculine man, a gynocentric society offers almost nothing of interest to me.

Joseph

Alas, poor me. I have never had the opportunity to "expand my consciousness" in the way you suggest, because the people who consent to sleep with me only do so when they expect to physically enjoy it. I don't know what it's like to be such wretched company in and out of bed that I have to pay people to tolerate my presence. Truly, mine is a life half-lived, at best.

This is an interesting response. A series of smart aleck responses rather than an intelligent answer. Such comments were once made about homosexuals.

Prostitutes are just like waitresses and retail workers: their ability to deal with spectacularly unpleasant customers is sadly underappreciated and undercompensated.

Undercompensated? In major cities sex workers can command up to $1000/hour.

Joseph

>The ONLY topic I want to hear about is what MRAs propose to do PERSONALLY as men as an alternative to marriage.

One MRA I know says that when he thinks of getting married again, he juggles rattlesnakes and that clears his mind on the topic!

(Really, he said that.)

For the big picture: the real issue is, what do women have to offer that makes it worthwhile for a man to be associated with one for a lifetime?

One the downside we can rehash divorce, child custody, alimony issues (all of which make marriage a bad deal for men); nagging and whining and sexual blackmail ("no sex until I get that new sofa"); false charges of "spousal rape" and battery. And then we have the common issues of changes in interests as couples grow older.

Joseph

Here is what I have heard from feminists over the years:

  • Men are oppressors.
  • Men are rapists (and we live in a rapist culture).
  • The marriage bed is a scene of nightly rape by husbands of wives.
  • Women are more likely to be beaten/raped by an intimate partner (e.g., a husband) than a stranger.
  • Commitment is a trap (and marriage is especially bad because the wife gives up her name and takes that of her husband).
  • Marriage is the central institution of oppression in patriarchical society.

    Given all this, why would a woman want to marry?

    One can be a cynic and point out that men ought to be making women happy by not marrying them.

  • Joseph

    OK, I know I've posted several times here, but perhaps marriage is a dying institution in the US, and our civilization will collapse in a generation.

    jaketk

    we don't even have public executions yet, so i think our civilization has got some time.

    what i am trying to figure out by hugo's questions is what exactly he expects. marriage in and of itself is an intimate relationship. however, hugo appears to only be focusing on sexual relationships, which do not have to be a part of intimate relationships. so his questions come off more like, "what are you going to for sex because i know you're not gay?" but it isn't sex that's being avoided. intimate relationships can be formed with anyone, so if i have those close relationships already, why should i go out of my way to form another one when i have no desire to?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    My Photo

    Regular reads

    Blog powered by Typepad
    Member since 01/2004