Why I Hate Men Part 2: Guys Take Up Space

18 Feb

I know you all must be tired of all this football talk being as it’s a bunch of yammering about men’s interests on a purportedly feminist website. (I can tell by my hits, but come on, that header image of the idiot football fans whooping it up like monkeys over the Jets was pretty funny, right?) I figured I’d compensate by talking some more about men, but in a much less charitable tone (not that I was all that charitable about football, but I did allow a bit of male perspective onto the site, which I suppose I deserve a fine for). And hence we resume the Why I Hate Men series.

You remember Airport Asshole, don’t you? He was the muse, as it were, that inspired me to write the Why I Hate Men series in the first place. Now, I know I haven’t exactly whipped this series out, but the important thing — according to me — is that I’m getting to it now.  Anyway, Airport Asshole exhibited so many of the characteristics that make men such a generally repulsive bunch that I’ve decided to go ahead and use him as an example to illustrate the subjects of each of the posts in this series. He serves as a particularly fine case study for this post.

Have you ever seen Just One of the Guys? It’s probably my favorite 80s movie — if not my favorite movie of all time — and if you haven’t seen it you’re missing something very major in your life. The story is awesome. Terry Griffith (played by the world’s greatest actor, Joyce Hyser), a popular teenage girl at an Arizona high school, determines after overhearing her journalism teacher and some old perv who also teaches at the school discussing the old perv’s desire to bang her that the reason she didn’t win the school’s journalism contest was because she’s a girl. Because her only dream in life is to enter the field of journalism, and because the contest winner will compete against the winner from a rival high school for a summer internship at the local paper, Terri decides to disguise herself as a boy and enroll in the other school in order to submit her article there. Luckily for Terri, her parents are out of town at the time, her name is Terri, Sturgis-Wilder High School has lax paperwork requirements for incoming students, and the school’s journalism contest’s deadline is two weeks later than that at her original institution, Pearl High School (otherwise the whole thing would never have worked, har har). Hijinks ensue as Terri attempts to pass herself off as a boy while partying her way through two unsupervised weeks with her sex-crazed younger brother, Buddy. I won’t ruin the rest of the story for you, but you need to see it. It’s got Billy Zabka (the bad guy from Karate Kid) as the greatest 80s movie bully of all time, it’s got Billy Jacoby (Brad from Silver Spoons) as the pervy little brother, it’s got Leigh McCloskey (who was unfortunately in Fraternity Vacation with Tim Robbins, retch) as the asshole college boyfriend, it’s got Arye Gross (Gordon Bloomfeld — of the Marina Del Rey Bloomfelds — from Soul Man) as one of the school’s nerds, it’s got a custom title-track written and performed by Shalamar, and the soundtrack features one of the greatest songs ever made, “Trouble” by Lindsey Buckingham. Seriously. See it.

What in the hell, you must be asking, does this have to do with Nine Deuce hating men? Not much, really, but it’s essential set-up for the following clip in which Buddy, on the occasion of Terri’s first appearance as a dude (in a KILLER wing cap), teaches her how to pass for male. I’d recommend watching the whole seven minutes or so, but the essential bit starts at about 4:37.

Buddy, though he may be a little asshole, is right about one thing: guys take up space. Airport Asshole took up a LOT of space, using seats as luggage racks, sprawling out over several chairs, sticking his legs out into the aisle so that anyone walking past would be forced to squeeze by him and all of his personal items. Men take up space. They take up space on the subway, in restaurants, at the library, everywhere. They spread out. They make themselves at home. They take up as much space as they require and, often, much more without regard for anyone else’s existence. It’s not exactly ground-breaking to say that men take up more than their fair share of space (I mean, what woman who has ever lived with a dude hasn’t had to tell him to get the fuck out of the middle of the bed so she can lie down), but that’s really only the most obvious manifestation of the underlying problem with most of the male products of our culture (and most others): a turgid, overflowing, completely unexamined sense of entitlement. And is there any more repugnant personality characteristic than an obvious sense of entitlement?

That sense of entitlement encompasses much more than just a requirement for a lot of physical space, it also includes an expectation on the part of most men that they be free to take up as much of several more abstract forms of space as they want to. Men grow up believing that the world revolves around them (because it does), and that cannot but lead to boorishness. Just think about the behaviors that the average parent and society at large encourage in children. Little girls are taught to take up as little room as possible, to be nice to everyone, to be quiet, to be sweet, to emulate the demure and coquettish behaviors they see adult women exhibiting around them and on television, to keep their opinions to themselves unless they’re handing out compliments, to think of everyone in the world’s needs and wants before their own. Little boys, on the other hand, are encouraged to be rambunctious, confident, and bold. They’re rarely told how to sit or how to walk or how to talk unless they’re exhibiting absolutely egregious behavior, and they learn to emulate the behaviors of the adult men they see around them and on television. And current male role models come in two general types: the imposing, intimidating man’s man who frowns at everyone all the time (think Don Draper and Keith Olbermann) and the bratty asshole “man-child,” the positive portrayal of which has made it possible for Kevin Smith to afford the world’s ultimate gaming system and as many of those Japanese sex robots as anyone could possibly want (I’m guessing — I suppose he could be into collecting Warhammer 40,000 figurines and hanging out with strippers).

What both of these types have in common, and what boys generally absorb as they’re squished into the male gender mold, is a sense of entitlement to take up space on every possible front. Let us look at a few examples:

  • Men expect to get to talk, and they expect everyone to listen to them, whether they know what they’re talking about or not. Now, I see no problem with anyone expecting people to listen to them in discussions in which they possess relevant knowledge, but this goes far beyond that. For example, I have an advanced degree in a certain subject and am in the process of obtaining an even advanceder one. Still, there are men I know who have not taken one course or read three books on the subject who think they’ve got a thing or two to tell me about that subject. Despite the fact that they’re almost always completely factually and analytically off base and despite the fact that I have several pieces of paper from universities (the bastions of the white male-centric epistemological order) people in other countries have heard of that prove that I know more about the subject than these dudes do, I am expected to endure their sophomoric proclamations and to prove to them that I am not wrong for disagreeing with their ill-informed conclusions. Then there are the “intellectual” types who come to this and other feminist blogs to explain things to us womenfolk, operating on the presumption that, even though we’ve been thinking, reading, and writing about these subjects for longer than they’ve been ruminating on the majesty of “alternative” internet porn and how “rad” Nietzsche was, we could never possibly have conceived of what they’re bringing to the table and thus ought to take their uninformed and painfully banal opinions-disguised-as-fact as gospel. They feel entitled to sap the energy of feminists by forcing us to repeatedly explain to them why feminism and not humanism, why the feminist movement does not need male leadership or consulting services, why the female gender role causes more psychic harm than male privilege, why bukkake isn’t a feminist act for the recipient. In short, men, whether they are qualified to or not (and they are most often not), take up too goddamn much intellectual space.
  • Men expect women to give them the benefit of the doubt and to waste our time considering possible excuses for their stupid behavior. When I talk to people I know about porn use, without fail dudes tell me that men can’t help but use porn because ____, ____, and ____ make it impossible to do otherwise. When I note that this or that dude is a homophobic, misogynistic asshole, some other dude will tell me it isn’t his fault, he just grew up in a culture in which he was expected to act like a Pantera fan. I get it because I have also spent my entire three decades in a culture that expects me to behave in ways that I find absurd, but I don’t engage in those behaviors because I’ve realized that they’re absurd and have decided not to engage in them because I am responsible for my own behavior. Weird, I know. But where does all of this empathy go when it comes to women’s behavior? Why aren’t these dudes brainstorming excuses for women’s actions that they don’t particularly like? Because men are entitled to empathy and women aren’t. Doi. Men take up too much emotional space.
  • Men feel entitled to unfettered access to women’s bodies. Men coerce women into sex they do not want by means of emotional manipulation, physical and psychological terrorism, and plain old brute force. They push their partners into sex acts that they might not want to do. They refuse to stop when they’re asked to stop, pretending not to know the difference between yes and no. They grope us, harass us, leer at us, and threaten us, and expect us to take it as a compliment.  Men also think they’re entitled to use pornography despite the fact that women and girls are abused in its production and despite the negative effects their and others’ porn use has on the women they are close to and on women as a group. The world is awash in images of what men want; advertisements, porn, movies, television, strip clubs, women’s fashion, and the female sex role in general all exist to cater to men’s sexual wants to the detriment of women’s free sexual expression and our bodily and mental health. Men and their aggressive, oppressive sexuality take up too much social space.
  • Men feel entitled to use the language that ought to be reserved for discussing real oppression to equate their petty, individualistic grievances with much more serious and widespread phenomena. Men think they ought to be considered equally put upon simply because they can come up with an example of a time a man suffered. They, from their loftily oblivious position, don’t have to think very hard about the issue at hand. If they can come up with a single example to show that they, too, have at one time or another been victims, then they are off the hook and don’t need to acknowledge their privilege. They argue that if women want equality, then women have to be willing to give men equal room to whine about what they’ve been made to suffer. They don’t see the big picture, but rather each tiny incident as if it weren’t connected to larger social forces. Hence, you have men complaining about some overblown case of a false rape accusation but unwilling to confront the reality of what it means to be female in a culture in which women’s sexuality is seen as the property of men. Or you see men suing bars that have ladies’ night because it’s not fair to make men (who make more money than women) pay a cover when women don’t have to, taking no account of anything other than the “unfairness” of unequal cover charges. It’s similar to the old, “If black people can say nigger, why can’t I?” argument. It’s utter tomfoolery, but it’s the crux of every MRA argument, this conception of equality that’s completely myopic (at best) and/or dishonest. Men take up too much discursive space.

Feel free to add to this admittedly short (because of lack of time, not material) list.

Now, I can already hear the complaints of gender essentialism here. I am not claiming that these traits are inborn, or that all men exhibit all of them, but rather that our current cultural construction of masculinity encourages them in most men to varying degrees (translation: I hope I don’t need to say this, but if this isn’t about you, it isn’t about you). I’m also not claiming that the feminine gender role is superior to the masculine one. I have quite a few objections to the feminine role, as I’m sure everyone knows. No, it’s masculinity AND femininity that are the problem, because we don’t need two gender roles arranged in a hierarchy maintained by sexualized violence and political and social repression. The behaviors I’m outlining in this series are bad because they are boorish, aggressive, emotionally violent, and lead to unnecessary suffering on the part of women and the men who have to deal with alpha male bullshit. That these behaviors are associated with maleness reflects badly on the concept of masculinity, yes, but my response isn’t to say that femininity should replace masculinity as a hegemon, but rather that both should disappear, as should the stupid practices associated with them. There are valuable things associated with femininity (caring about people, knowing how to do practical tasks in order to take care of yourself and others, etc.) and with masculinity (I’ll think of something), but only those things associated with maleness are valued because devaluing women’s contributions to the world allows for women’s continued economic and social subjugation. My suggestion is that we do away with these stupid ideas of masculinity and femininity and start judging characteristics based on morality, utility, etc. and THEN decide whether something is worth doing. The behaviors I’ve outlined above fail the test, and not because they’re associated with masculinity, but because they’re rude and destructive.  The answer isn’t to “feminize” men or replace masculinity with femininity in the hierarchy, but rather to get rid of constraining gender roles AND the hierarchy so that we can all just be human and display whatever characteristics come comfortably to us. I still have some faith in the idea that human nature in its natural state isn’t quite as shitty as it is in the current hierarchical order. If you’re a dude and you think this reads like a portrait of an asshole and doesn’t reflect your behavior, then don’t give me shit, do something constructive and go tell it to men who do behave this way. I promise you won’t be hard pressed to find them.

369 Responses to “Why I Hate Men Part 2: Guys Take Up Space”

  1. GXB February 18, 2010 at 1:43 AM #

    I don’t have anything to add myself, but check out the Male Privilege Checklist if you haven’t already. Here’s one from it for any MRAs:

    ‘I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)’

  2. Andrew February 18, 2010 at 2:00 AM #

    A few comments:

    (1) If both males and females are forced into certain constructs from birth, why is it the men who must “level down”, instead of the woman who must “level up”, to ensure equality? This is only justified if the masculine is indistinguishable from the immoral and impracticable. You are theoretically sound when you say, “There are valuable things associated with femininity,” but you are unwilling to actually identify a masculine trait that is both moral and utilitarian. This is not necessarily wrong, but this conclusion would have to rest on 2 assumptions: (1) that morality and utilitarianism are synonymous with “feminine”, and (2) what is traditionally masculine is inherently harmful, at least in the aggregate. I don’t think you would have a problem with this, but you would have to parse the “real” feminine from the “pseudo” feminine; the “pseudo” arguably being any “feminine” aspect that was simply a by-product of the masculine (Think: high heels)

    (2) Why is equality between groups more important than equality between individuals? It seems obvious that any relevant disparity between groups constitutes inequality, and thus true equality would require complete parity between groups. But this could only be true if, within these groups, there was complete parity between every member. Otherwise, new group lines would simply be drawn encompassing the disenfranchised portion of every group.

    • Nine Deuce February 18, 2010 at 2:04 AM #

      You have GOT to be kidding me. “Level down”? The assumption there is that the male role is better or more valuable than the female one and that women ought to be seeking to “rise up” to where men are. Guess what? Where men have brought us FUCKING SUCKS, and the goal is not EQUALITY, but LIBERATION from a system dominated by destructive values associated with manhood. I never made any claim that femininity equates with moral, I said, as I have done repeatedly, that BOTH ROLES need to be destroyed. There is no “real feminine.”

  3. Andrew February 18, 2010 at 2:14 AM #

    Sorry for being unclear.

    I didn’t mean to imply and inherent superiority, but only that since men have an disproportionate share of rights and privileges, they must necessarily “level down” in order to be equal with women. Otherwise, women would have to “level up”, that is, start assuming privileges and rights they are taught to disavow from childhood.

    I don’t dispute that you would like to destroy both roles. But after such destruction, there would still be “good” and “bad” qualities. It seems to me that the “good” ones, “(caring about people, knowing how to do practical shit to take care of yourself and others, etc.)” would be synonymous with what is “feminine” under the current regime.

    • Nine Deuce February 18, 2010 at 2:15 AM #

      No, good qualities would be synonymous with being a functioning human being who doesn’t need to oppress and use other people to get by. And yes, men (and rich people, white people, etc.) do need to “level down” if their privileges come at a cost to others.

  4. Andrew February 18, 2010 at 2:19 AM #

    Well, to be honest, I tried to think of a traditionally masculine trait that fits that definition but it is fairly hard. Competitive sports are out. Strength is out, as it is nothing but a proxy for violence. Height is out, as it is similar to strength and also not necessarily masculine. Even standing up for women or opening doors for them carries overtones of paternalism and hierarchy.

  5. lefemmeferal February 18, 2010 at 3:16 AM #

    ND, this post is full of so much WIN I don’t know where to start or stop. The whole thing is effing brilliant overall.

  6. kristyn February 18, 2010 at 4:24 AM #

    Andrew, why oh why do you even still bother to read this blog?

    ND even had a super-long paragraph pretty much dedicated to you and your kind because she anticipated your petty, typical, unoriginal complaints. But you had to bring them up anyway. Even after she covered them, and for the one millionth time too.

    Perfect example of a man taking up valuable emotional and intellectual space. Taking up space and preventing actual discourse.

  7. ds February 18, 2010 at 5:40 AM #

    kristyn
    Please don’t misinterpret this as supporting Andrew, but his discourse with 92 is the only interesting thing going on yet in the comments. Let the guy air out his complaints and maybe he (and I) will learn something.

    If your idea of discourse is a mutual appreciation society of comments saying “amazing” and “thank you for this” then bring on the Andrews.

    BTW, it’s the internet, he’s not really taking up space, there’s room for more comments. It’s known as an epic thread. woo hoo. toasting in epic bread.

  8. Frances February 18, 2010 at 6:11 AM #

    Hey Nine Deuce,

    I’ve been lurking for awhile and just wanted to drop you a line – the more I read your blog, the more I’m reminded of one of my favorite sites, Sugarbutch.com? Have you ever read any of Sinclair’s articles and (if so), what your thoughts are on her exploration of gender roles, gender in society, etc. If you haven’t been to her site, I really recommend it, although I’ll admit that I don’t think you’ll agree with large portions of what she has to say though. There’s quite a bit that you share though and I think you’ll at least find it interesting.

    Thanks for writing!

  9. Geoffrey Greer February 18, 2010 at 6:40 AM #

    Nine,

    This is my first full venture into one of your tirades, and I must say I was not disappointed by the wealth of vitriol. I think the best part is your conclusion, where you suggest “that we do away with these stupid ideas of masculinity and femininity and start judging characteristics based on morality, utility, etc.”

    I strongly support the notion of eradicating society’s counter-productive labeling system, as such labels tend to be based on little to no scientific evidence whatever but become socially self-fulfilling. I have advocated this very same notion in regards to racial labels, suggesting that we do away with them completely and regard, for example, the color of someone’s skin with no more or less attention than the color of their hair or eyes. Only by doing away entirely with labels can we begin to eradicate the preconceptions that go with them.

    Of course, we are too radical, you and I. Apparently, people are generally weak, and they need these labeling systems, less to identify others, but more to identify themselves. Both racial labels and the gender labels you attack are providing that artificial “fix” for those millions who continue to wander with spiritual aimlessness.

  10. Ren February 18, 2010 at 7:47 AM #

    ND:

    WRT taking up space- annoying dude trait…men (who are generally physically larger than women and all) using that size to intimidate women. Don’t even have to say a word or actually DO anything truly threatening, but get up in ones face anyway and just use their size to, oh, take up more space than they really need or violate that of others (often women).

  11. Imaginary February 18, 2010 at 9:52 AM #

    I had the unfortunate experience yesterday to see a tiny little man-boy practically climbing over his femail TEACHER in order to get her attention for some trivial, lame-ass “joke”. Seriously men, not every thought that stomps through your brain deserves articulation.

  12. berryblade February 18, 2010 at 1:48 PM #

    1. I second the motion of this post being made of win.

    2. Once again, without even starting to read the comment thread, I notice that Andrew has again made a deliciously ridiculous comment.
    ” Even standing up for women or opening doors for them carries overtones of paternalism and hierarchy.”
    Andrew, every time I see you comment here I just wish Nine would ban you, so I just make a reply and then ignore you. This comment just fucking reeks. I shouldn’t even have to fucking explain why but I bet that will be your expectation.

    3. I’m so fucking sick of dudes taking up space and then giving me queer looks when I take up more than half a bus seat or sit with my legs apart or dare to look them in the eye on the bus or dare to put my heavy bag on the seat next to me or blah blah fucking snore.

    You’re right Nine. D00ds just take up way too much fucking space.

  13. kristina February 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM #

    I remember one time when I worked at Target in the shoe dept., there was a little girl that was asking for what the mother considered a “boy’s shoe”( yet it was in the section of girl’s shoes) and the mother redirected her towards a pink shoe. That little girl was not happy but didn’t protest much, but the look on her face said it all. I wasn’t dressed particularly feminine at that time and the mother gave me a disapproving look and I just shook my head showing my disapproval. The way I saw it she was building a weak character for her little girl. I’m sure her concern was about having her little girl “fit in” with the other frilly girls at school…but the way society is now with sex portrayed so abundantly and readily available you’d think mothers would want their daughters to dress more like boys. It creates quite a conundrum they want their girls to fit in, but don’t want them pregnant at 16. I’m not saying that if you are a feminine girly girl that you will end up pregnant, but if you’re not true to yourself how can you love yourself, and from there how can you have someone love you…and more often than not it’s girls who crave that love that are the ones getting pregnant early.

    Really Nine…another fantastic article!

  14. Valerie M February 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM #

    Hear, hear! Great post ND. I love the way your commenters immediately prove your point as well.

    I mean, of course you never will have come across the male privilege checklist before, or pondered the male perspective on the scientificyness of it all. Snort.

    Oh and there’s just one word for Andrew’s posts – scroll!

  15. pmsrhino February 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM #

    Right on, ND. I remember discussing the taking up space issue alot when we’d go over advertising in my women’s studies classes. You see men taking up space everywhere and women being pushed more and more into whatever space is left over. And that kind of entitlement is a horribly detrimental characteristic for anyone to have. And also just really annoying to boot. And I have gotten many a look and sideways glance when I’m out in public and sitting the way I wanna (cross-legged in a restaurant booth, legs splayed in a waiting room, crouching on the floor, etc.) when that way isn’t the way “good” women sit. I will take up an appropriate amount of space in order to be comfortable. I don’t understand why being considerate and thinking about other people is deemed such a feminine, weak and inferior trait. To be otherwise seems incredibly counterproductive to keeping the human race alive. Or, you know, at least alive and happy. But I guess the only happiness that matters is that of privileged white dudes so why do I even bother asking…

  16. TBL February 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM #

    Yeah I just scroll past Andrew’s comments every time. What a waste of pixels, or whatever it is the internet is made of.

    Great post ND. Men really just think that all the world belongs to them and they cannot stand it if a woman ever says ‘step away, this is mine’. They consider it a personal affront on their human rights.

    I was on the bus last week and the dude in front of me took up so much space reading the paper, he used up the two seats he was on, and then draped his arm right over my lap, spreading himself out! I tried to shove him out of the way but he wouldn’t move, and he was a big scary guy, so I just sort of tried to cram myself into the corner so he could have ALL THE SPACE IN THE FUCKING WORLD. I hate men.

    Oh, and ds: if you are learning from Andrew, you really have got a lot to learn.

  17. Kara February 18, 2010 at 7:57 PM #

    Omg you’re brilliant….you’re so dead on point, my ex boyfriend never moved for me, he’d sprawl out on the couch and then expect me to find a place to sit wherever I could. Then I had one moronic friend of his, who once he found out I was a feminist said “If I have to go into the army (which he obviously hasn’t and there isn’t even a draft) then you should have to wear heels.” We got into it, but I wanna throw this quote in his face….”

    Men think they ought to be considered equally put upon simply because they can come up with an example of a time a man suffered. They, from their loftily oblivious position, don’t have to think very hard about the issue at hand. If they can come up with a single example to show that they, too, have at one time or another been victims, then they are off the hook and don’t need to acknowledge their privilege. ”

    Thank you!!!! I am always linking your articles onto my facebook page!!!

    • Nine Deuce February 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM #

      I’d tell him to wear heels until he gets drafted.

  18. B February 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #

    Andrew, shouldn’t the identification of positive traits within masculinity be YOUR job, if you think it’s so valuable? We have enough work reconceptualizing our own gender and trying to minimize the most violent and oppressive aspects of masculinity – why do we have to do your work too?

    Interestingly, though, when I try to think of examples of positive masculine traits, they all seem to require a little “leveling down” before they’re actually worth having. For example, you could say that a positive masculine trait is self-confidently asserting yourself. But when this trait manifests in most men, it manifests as asserting yourself and your needs OVER others and their needs. It manifests as obnoxious self-importance completely out of touch with one’s achievements. It manifests as the expectation that the world is your oyster, and it all belongs to you and therefore you have the right to treat everyone and everything in it exactly as you please. This justifies trampling anyone farther down on the social strata – women, feminine men, racial minorities, the poor.

    The converse feminine trait, of course, is selflessness. Selflessness is positive in that it means you empathize with and care for the needs of others. The problem is that this care for others is required, under the dictates of femininity, to be coupled with self-deprecation. Women are taught never to assert their needs over others, never to claim public space at the expense of a neighbor, never to claim emotional space when there are others whose egos need to be soothed. Specifically, we’re taught to do this emotional work FOR MEN – usually especially those who make the biggest public scenes, since obviously all they need is a little more care from a woman in order to behave. The feminine value of helping others becomes a self-negation in favor of the men who take up the most resources (resulting in a situation where we are constantly expected to perform unpaid emotional, social, intellectual, reproductive and physical labor on behalf of men, and then get blamed as gold diggers when we expect a modicum of support in return).

    I see an obvious solution emerging here…MEN need to tone it down. They need to be more conscious of others spaces and needs. They need to be more polite, speak less, and listen more. They need to help others struggle against injustice, without any expectation of getting something in return (although, they probably will since the liberation of society is good for everyone – that just shouldn’t be the focus). They can stop making everything about men, men’s thoughts, men’s desire’s, men’s rights, men’s needs. They can stop demanding that women do their work for them, and instead do it themselves. In other words…they need to TONE DOWN their masculinity and reclaim the feminine aspects of themselves.

    Of course, women have a responsibility to pursue confidence and assertiveness as well. We need to get louder about our collective and individual needs. We need to voice our frustrations and demand that someone address them, now. You’ve got to realize, though, that this is hard for women who don’t have the cultural capital to get away from the backlash they will inevitably suffer. You’ve got to realize that even the most generous statement of the problem of sexism is considered rude and man-hating. So excuuuuuse us if we’ve decided we don’t care if you think we’re rude, because that label gets slapped on us any time we say something even the slightest bit controversial, or any time we actually try to do the work of asserting ourselves.

    P.S. “Leveling up” is…pretty much exactly what 92 is doing. She expresses some basic thoughts held by many women (men are jerks, porn is bad, getting sexually harassed is not a compliment), and she phrases it with loads of aggression and vitriol – the same aggression and vitriol we are denied by the dictates of femininity as constructed under patriarchy. She refuses to allow her space to be dominated by men. It’s a performative resistance as much as an intellectual one, IMO, and it’s also extremely entertaining for those of us who agree with her. Which probably explains what none of the challengers who come to this website seem to understand…92 might use comments as a platform to clarify her post or engage in some leisurely troll-mocking, but at the end of the day I bet she doesn’t care what you all have to say, because my guess is that she doesn’t write this blog for YOU. I bet she writes it for HERSELF (you know, to assert her justified anger in the public realm, with a little hyperbole, just like men have been doing for centuries) and probably for us (you know, the women who feel the same way and feel empowered or intellectually challenged by her writing, or whatever)

  19. buttersisonlymyname February 18, 2010 at 9:03 PM #

    Each one of these Why I Hate Men episodes reminds me SO much of white people it’s not even funny.

    No offense :P

  20. Rae Kay February 18, 2010 at 9:27 PM #

    Amazingly awesome post, Nine Deuce!

    Thanks for writing out what so many of us see, or are trying to see through the Patriarchal fog.

  21. kurukurushoujo February 18, 2010 at 11:59 PM #

    When I note that this or that dude is a homophobic, misogynistic asshole, some other dude will tell me it isn’t his fault, he just grew up in a culture in which he was expected to act like a Pantera fan.

    I actually encountered one supposedly feminist dude (a counsellor no less) on a feminist blog who argued that all these poor poor men were so emotionally damaged and unable to voice their feelings freely that they HAD to hit their wives and girlfriends. You know all those poor abusers just CAN’T complain to their significant others about things they don’t like because they have been emotionally damaged to such a degree that talking about feelings becomes impossible. As a consequence the wife/girlfriend rules with an iron fist and what is a poor, disadvantaged man to do but to use violence to regain control? (Paraphrasing, of course.)

    I wrote him a nice long comment about him having prejudices towards women (invoking the overbearing nag stereotype) and explaining to him that abusers don’t begin to abuse as a REACTION to something a woman did but to something they FABRICATED as being damaging to themselves and their sense of POWER. And that if any abusers in his counselling sessions would get wind of his stance they would use it to manipulate him.
    He answered that he wouldn’t bother to comment and explained to me that practice is different from theory (obviously, only counsellors have valid opinions about DV)… after not having written a peep about the DV fact sheet I linked to and which I suspect he didn’t even read.

    I so would have liked to shoot back: ” You know what? I feel really sorry for the victims of your clients who you have given a new excuse – let’s call it the “The Patriarchy Made Me Do It” excuse- to bash in their girlfriends’ and wives’ skulls.” But I was already sick and tired of the discussion.

  22. veganprimate February 19, 2010 at 12:50 AM #

    Oh,man…Just One of the Guys…that takes me back. I remember thinking Joyce Hyser looked so much hotter as a guy than all glammed up.

    Anyway, I am so sick of male entitlement and taking up space. I’m carfree, so I ride the bus a lot, and I have to put up with that shit all the time.

  23. Andrew February 19, 2010 at 12:55 AM #

    B,

    I think you actually agree with the central point of my argument. I think what you are saying is that masculine traits are only acceptable if the distinctly masculine characteristics of those traits are “neutralized”. This can only justified, however, by a distinct conception of morality, the boundaries of which I was trying to distill from this post.

    I don’t think there is anything inherently illogical about subscribing to a morality in which the “good” equates to the best parts of the traditional feminine or “the neutral” (The other parts presumably being pseudo-feminine). This would go a long way in explaining why the most subtle elements of patriarchy must be addressed, and why feminism should be embraced by men as well as woman. This even serves to move beyond the gender binary, as both men and woman should conform to the model in the interest of furthering justice. The problem is that nobody seems to want to come right out and say it.

    I don’t think ND is “leveling up” so much as she is pointing out injustices. I think a lot of these injustices would be addressed, in her eyes, if the world as a whole adopted the morality (I think) she is espousing. The only thing I am adding is that this morality seems to be rooted in the the traditionally feminine ideal. This becomes more evident as one tries to justify any action/attitude grounded in traditional masculinity.

    • Nine Deuce February 19, 2010 at 1:03 AM #

      I do not conform to a traditionally feminine ideal, and neither does my morality.

  24. Saurs February 19, 2010 at 1:02 AM #

    Andrew, the short answer to all your admittedly self-centered objections to female liberation is extremely simple: equality is not an inherently zero-sum game.It’s not a game, period. There is no “battle” of the sexes. We’re not playing for points, we’re not on teams.

    MRAs love this childish pretense, that whatever burden (however minute and infinitesimal) is lifted off of women as a second class, even temporarily, automatically is a burden placed upon men, as a whole, that must be fought and resisted, tooth and nail.

    The destruction of male privilege does not result in the destruction of men as individuals, but the destruction of the facade of manhood and masculinity. Is manhood really defined by height, Andrew? Really? You’re that shallow? That‘s what you’re fighting to preserve — the sacred myth that Dudes Are Tall and Strong and Stuff? And, really, Andrew, if the most positive “traits” you associate with men are height and an affinity to play sports, you’re probably the biggest man-hater in this thread, dude.

  25. lefemmeferal February 19, 2010 at 1:13 AM #

    “Andrew, shouldn’t the identification of positive traits within masculinity be YOUR job, if you think it’s so valuable?”

    B, yes exactly. I took Andrew to task for this on my blog, and he refuses.

    And I agree with Kristyn as well. I’ve been reading this blog the past few months, trying to get caught up. I read the comments sections, too, because there’s a lot to be learned. Andrew isn’t one of them. He’s a manipulator, not an intellectual. And it’s stale and tiresome to have to weed through his comments so I can find discourse with integrity.

    BUT – if “discourse” has to mean I have read some psychologically toxic bs, then bring on the short, sweet string of comments. At least they aren’t a misogynistic attack on me or other women (and I won’t have to scroll through fifty pages of androcentric chest beating).

  26. Jenn February 19, 2010 at 2:28 AM #

    Dude, nothing is more annoying than mansplaining. Men do this all the fucking time. You have an advanced degree, you have self-educated yourself in a technical and very nuanced subject. You’ve published papers, read books, and had dreams for weeks about the minutia of this specialized subject. For feminists, this subject is feminism, but for women everywhere — including feminists — this could be anything.

    I hate when people start talking down to me about my own specialties. Especially men. Women I can just write off as stupid and a waste of my time. I can walk away, brush them off, and pretend that I wasn’t “corrected” by some asshole about something I know a lot about and they know nothing. Women usually get the hint unless they’re socially slow. Like they have a legitimate excuse like Autism. Then, they might be annoying, but at least I’m sympathetic.

    Dudes don’t do that. They’re almost always in a position of power to you, so you can’t just say, “dude, you’re full of crap”. You have to field their asinine little theories and nod and rub their little fee-fees like they’re the smartest fucking thing that ever walked the planet. I feel like I’m trying to build up the self-esteem of toddlers. Fuck, I think I get to be meaner to the kids I used to work with than I get to be with entitled dudes, who get all cranky as soon as someone hints that the world doesn’t revolve around their swelled head.

    Even if the dude is of no consequence, and you’re obviously in a position of power over him, you can’t just brush him off and walk away. He’ll follow you. I’ve had to do that several times after academic presentations and panels. Some idiotic undergrad in a discipline totally unrelated to what I just talked about wants to follow me to my car and point out all the “inconsistencies” with my fucking thesis like I should be OH SO GRATEFUL that they took time out of their busy and brilliant schedule to “school” me in all the things I’m doing wrong. Did I mention it’s totally creepy that a guy wants to follow a woman to their car at night to challenge several years worth of her work on a topic they probably ruminated once or twice on before when they were on the toilet?

    It would be bad enough if one dude did that. But several dudes have. Once, a pack of dudes did. All of his friends wanted to “discuss” with me how my thesis in Philosophy was all wrong. Being that they were undergrads in Business, they obvious knew what they were talking about. And they don’t fuck off, no matter how much you brush them off. If you get pissed off — like you should! — then they could get violent. And it’s dark out, and nobody much is on campus, and the only people around are entitled douches exactly like that. So you tell them off, brush them off, give some stupid excuse, pull out your phone and pretend to call someone. Then they call you a bitch, and tell their buddies in your department how rude you are, and then before you know it, your peers (men, of course, but sometimes women too) are all convinced that you’re a horrible public speaker, that you’re rude, bitchy, and abrasive. Then nobody wants to work with you, and you have to beg professors to read your work before you submit it. Because most of them are dudes too, and they’re buddy-buddy with the same douchebags that crash your panels because they all have dicks, and only people with dicks matter. Everyone without a dick is obvious a horrible bitch, even if they are older and your peer in your own department, so all it takes is one 18-year old douche to tell you what you already know, and BOOM, your reputation is busted.

    Yeah, so what you said about men taking up intellectual space? I agree 300%. I thought, as an undergrad, that I would stay in academics forever. Fuck that. As soon as I’m done, I’m going to law school and getting the fuck out of academics. At least if I’m a lawyer, people have to pay to talk to me, even if they are douchebags. I’m tired of having to beg for what my peers and superiors bend over backwards to do for dudes. Fuck, an undergrad philosophy dude mentions the words “undergrad thesis” and they all jump at the bit to mentor this budding young chap that reminds them of themselves. I have to fucking peddle myself like a prostitute for the same consideration, and I’m a effing grad student!

  27. mandor February 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM #

    veganprimate–when a dude sits next to me on the bus and starts spreading out into my space, I brace myself and simply do not move. They’ll push into my side at first, seemingly expecting me to shrink away. It usually takes at least 5 minutes for them to give up and stop. And this is me merely defending my allotted bit of space!

    Reading this post was cathartic and what I needed today.

  28. FemmeForever February 19, 2010 at 3:28 AM #

    Everyone without a dick is obvious a horrible bitch…..so all it takes is one 18-year old douche ….. and BOOM, your reputation is busted.

    Absolutely, Jenn. I HEAR YOU. Actually, all it takes is one slightly negative leaning comment about a woman and no one ever questions or examines the validity of the negativity. It is instantaneously adopted as fact BY EVERYONE simply because it was uttered by a male about a female.

    It doesn’t matter that men, the original inventors, gossip and lie like they were being paid per instance. It also doesn’t matter whether or not the gossiping male has any inside knowledge about you at all. He could be a near stranger or someone who has met you once, and people who have known you for years will adopt the lie as truth even though they never witnessed such behavior from you themselves over years of close proximity. You could be Mother Teresa and the only thing that will matter is that a man has spoken.

  29. Justin February 19, 2010 at 4:58 AM #

    Ok, as a biological male raised in America, who participated in a lot of sports, who has probably internalized more patriarchal positions than he could ever possibly be aware of, who was a participant in sports jock culture in his youth (which was at the time and I continue to believe encourages the worst and most boorish behavior in men), I want to respond to this because I find it as offensive as when men give a list of shit they can’t stand about women. On some of these points I am getting into personal experience, which I know is a horrible way to make broad based arguments, but I know of no academic studies to argue from on some of these points. And given that the author is using an 80’s RomCom to make some points, I want a pass on this.

    1. “Men take up space.”
    The point of departure is that men take up space. Say what!? In my personal experience and relationships, it is as much women as men that have physical space issues. This point is incoherent. Is it really a universal gripe with women that men take up all of the bed? Because speaking only for myself, my girlfriend takes up 60-70% of the bed on most nights, mostly because I am better at sleeping alone and she wants to be cuddled. This is purely a matter of sleep comfort, I cuddle her until I fall asleep, then I migrate into a comfortable position while sleeping, and she does the same.

    2. “Men expect to get to talk, and they expect everyone to listen to them, whether they know what they’re talking about or not.”
    I will cop to having a tendency to act in ways that are perceived as intellectually/emotionally arrogant. However, I am aware of this personal fault and will apologize, cop to, and attempt to make right whenever this causes conflict. As far as giving respect and deferring to someone who knows what they are talking about, that has never been a problem. Maybe it’s because I work in an industry with a lot of highly educated women who command respect, but I like to think its just a sense of decency. The thing about knowing a little something about a few subjects (which I do) is that you realize how much you don’t know about almost everything.

    3. “When I talk to people I know about porn use, without fail dudes tell me that men can’t help but use porn because ____, ____, and ____ make it impossible to do otherwise. ”
    I have never watched porn intentionally. I can count on one hand the times I have seen it, someone put it on at a party, I walked in on a friend, cleaning my dad’s computer and opening the mega-wrong file by mistake. I know, a 30 year old man in this day and age who doesn’t watch porn, hard to believe. I am not asexual or prudish, but I find it degrading and don’t care about watching other people fuck. I also don’t go to strip clubs. I think most of the shit work in this world is only less degrading by degrees. Is this post about me? No, but that is the point, which I will get too at the end of my comment.

    4. “If you’re a dude and you think this reads like a portrait of an asshole and doesn’t reflect your behavior, then don’t give me shit, do something constructive and go tell it to men who do behave this way.”
    To my way of thinking, this is similarly offensive as someone writing a post about why they hate black people, followed by a long list of grievances of what “those” people do, things like street crime and drug use, then a qualifier that if you are black, reading this, and don’t do these things then go tell other blacks not to do it.

    To conclude…
    In my personal opinion, and that is all it is, there are ways to talk about gender/cultural issues without this kind of gross mischaracterization and broad brush stroking. I am not talking necessarily about offending my delicate sensibilities, because fuck that, but about crossing the line from salient points about how our society organizes relationships along gender lines to stereotyping. Maybe I am wrong on this, but this post is more of the former than latter.

    The thing you have to be aware of once you form these rigid stereotypes is that once formed, you will seek out evidence that confirms your beliefs and ignore evidence that cuts against it. So I guess you are really only hurting yourself.

    • Nine Deuce February 19, 2010 at 6:01 AM #

      The difference is that when men talk about what they hate about women, they are outlining things that annoy them, and their annoyance derives from misogyny. What I’m recounting are ways in which men feel entitled to infringe upon other people’s rights and existence.

  30. Jenn February 19, 2010 at 6:27 AM #

    Okay Justin: you are not a black dude. Dudes, as an institution of manliness, will never be black dudes. Black dudes have a quality that dudes don’t have: blackness. Blackness is a stigma in this society, so talking about it like it’s wrong is pretty fucking racist.

    Here’s the kicker: manliness isn’t like blackness. You can’t say, “gee, what black people aspire to be as the definition of blackness is fucked up and pisses me off and I generally dislike black people.” No, that’s racist. It’s racist because blackness is stigmatized. You can’t say, “gee, what women aspire to be as the definition of femininity pisses me off because I generally dislike women”. No, that’s sexist.

    You can say, “gee, what men aspire to be as the definition of manliness is fucked up because I generally dislike men”. That’s okay. You can oppress black men, gay men, or disabled men. You can say those things about them and be a bigot. You can’t oppress men.

    Context, man. It’s all about context. We don’t exist in some amazing bubble of equality that is popped as soon as we discuss parts of manliness that suck. We exist in a toilet. Men are the assholes, and their shit rains down upon us. So when we say, “dude, it smells like shit and it came from an asshole,” we’re not saying something untrue or bad. We’re saying something really obvious.

    So whether or not you decide to take a crap on women doesn’t mean that women don’t get to bemoan the stink of the shit that comes out of other assholes. You choose not to take a dump on women. That’s awesome man. Really, that makes you a decent person, which is a real rarity when it comes to people who have the chance to shit on women without consequence.

    But, dude, the bowl is still full of shit. We’re going to pick up that shit, and say, “look at this shit. It’s horrible.” We’ll show it to you. But we’re not going to throw it back and put you in the bowl to shit on. Nah, we want to flush the shit. But you are sitting on the toilet, and only you can flush it. We’re in the bowl. We can say, “look, dude, this shit reeks!” and if you’re cool, you’ll say, “why, yes, indeed it does.” You shouldn’t throw up your arms and say, “it’s not my shit! I had no responsibility! You’re oppressing me with the shits that I had the opportunity to take without consequence but didn’t!”

    No, you need to agree with us. The shit smells bad, and it needs to get flushed. It’s awesome that you don’t add to it. We appreciate it. Now just get the rest of the assholes on the toilet to flush too and stop shitting, and we’re square.

    • Nine Deuce February 19, 2010 at 6:57 AM #

      Shit, Jenn, that was one shitty analogy, and I only mean that shit as a pun, meaning it’s literally shitty, but the figurative adjective shitty that means bad does not apply. I liked that shit. It was good shit. Not bullshit.

  31. Andrew February 19, 2010 at 10:12 AM #

    If I am wrong then someone should be able to identify, within this moral framework, something masculine and acceptable. Nobody has, I can not eithe. Thus, my original proposition stands.

    ND, your morality does conform to the feminine ideal. In fact, if it did not, you’d be able to either (1) point to something inherently masculine that you embraced or (2) point to something inherently feminine (like caring for others, as you mentioned) that you rejected.

    • Nine Deuce February 19, 2010 at 3:12 PM #

      Nothing is inherently masculine or feminine, dude. That is the whole point. My morality is gender neutral. If it encompasses some things you associate with femininity, that’s your problem.

      • tarsier August 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM #

        “There are valuable things associated with femininity (caring about people, knowing how to do practical tasks in order to take care of yourself and others, etc.) and with masculinity (I’ll think of something)”

        Your words, not Andrew’s. These are things you associate with femininity. Unless you are claiming you changed your mind since you wrote the article.

        • Isme August 24, 2014 at 2:01 AM #

          Something being widely associated with a thing, and something being inherent to that thing, are not the same.

          There’s also a difference between recognising that something is widely associated with a thing, and making that association yourself.

          • tarsier August 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM #

            I actually agree with this wholeheartedly. There are multiple ways to read what was said prior and it would appear that I probably misinterpreted it.

            That said, I do think some things are inherently masculine or feminine. Just not as much as is usually treated that way.

  32. GXB February 19, 2010 at 11:30 AM #

    Great, that’ll teach me to make one of the first comments on a post: my comment gets lumped in with the “mansplanations” (nice word, Jenn). I know it’s selfish/pointless to reply to that bit, but that still smarts. We don’t all have time to become experts in feminist history and theory, but we might have real-life experiences and a feel for society, and might even have something new to say. So here I am offering my newly-provoked thoughts NOT because I think people here don’t know more about it than I do, but in case they are of some use. I’m lucky, because in my field people are noticeably not very masculine or feminine; the norms are there but small.

    I know the Airport Asshole type must be so common I hardly register it consciously, though, because I have pretty good intuitions for when guys are this brand of inconsiderate. When a guy (for example) sprawls out on a couch and puts up his feet and gets that particular sort of dull expression on his face, I feel an immediate, familiar revulsion and irritation. I bet everyone knows what I’m talking about. When a woman sits down in a similar way (though I’ve never seen that same expression on a woman’s face) she is usually sending the signal “I am making myself comfortable and would like to rest” but a guy is often sending “I am making myself comfortable, I don’t care about the rest of the world including you right now, so you can just go and deal with the little practical things like cleaning and taxes, but in a minute I might want you to fetch me a beer”. I don’t think it is because I am sexist that I perceive this; I know plenty of guys who sit and relax, even sprawl, without the gestures that send that awful message I just described. In the sense that it is pattern recognition for me it is a stereotype, but not an outdated or unfair one: I’ve met plenty of guys who do this (for some reason I don’t hang around them much!) and can’t even imagine a woman doing it except in imitative jest. If one did, I didn’t get the message.

    My point, probably obvious but not actually mentioned here, is that I think social expectations make it possible for men to tap into certain established roles of aggression and personal space in a way that women cannot, even if they act and think the same way. I take up plenty of space: I am small but I carry a big backpack, and I move fast. Even so, my claims to space don’t get /recognized/ in the way a man’s would. Because of the reactions I get, until recent attempts at measuring others’ behavior, I generally assumed that I was way more spatially pushy than others. When I move past people they startle, if people are in a half-formed line I often have to stare a man down to keep my place, and so on (no, I’m not always so obnoxious). I recently started rethinking incidents like the following. I was in a grocery store with aisles too narrow for two carts. I just had a basket, but a man had a cart and was standing by it looking at things so that he blocked all but a little of the aisle, so I excused myself and got by before he made any effort to move. (He was probably at least 65, so I automatically thought to be careful/respectful of him.) In another section he passed by me, I was unmoving and there was room but he kind of startled as if he didn’t expect me to be standing there in his way, and went around. He did the same thing again and in line after me, so that by the end of my shopping I’d convinced myself that I’d clumsily got in his way 3 times, even forgetting the first time when he’d obviously been an obstruction. It didn’t occur to me until I left the store to feel angry at him rather than guilty myself! He was just one person, but it’s a lifelong pattern for me and I think it’d be different if I presented as male. That’s my addition; am I making sense about why it seems different than just how each man acts, and does anyone agree? Thanks ND and commenters: it’s a relief to have things like this dragged out into words where they can be clarified and dealt with, rather than left in the subconscious to do their worst.

  33. kristyn February 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM #

    Oh, shit.

    See, ds, THAT is what people like me come to the comment section for.
    Not, as you may claim, to read an endless parade of accolades that don’t go any deeper into the subject matter.
    And not to see some doods pull out the same old tired, SHITTY arguments that radical feminists have heard and debunked time. after time. after time. before.

    But to engage each other further. To elevate the discourse. Like Jenn just did, and if I may venture to give an accolade that doesn’t delve deeper into the subject matter — like Jenn pretty much invariably does.

    So if you are surrounded by excellent feminists such as ND, Jenn, and others … but you are learning instead from ANDREW …

    to quote the internet — u r doin it rong.

  34. Faith February 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM #

    “But, dude, the bowl is still full of shit. We’re going to pick up that shit, and say, “look at this shit. It’s horrible.” We’ll show it to you. But we’re not going to throw it back and put you in the bowl to shit on. Nah, we want to flush the shit. But you are sitting on the toilet, and only you can flush it. We’re in the bowl. We can say, “look, dude, this shit reeks!” and if you’re cool, you’ll say, “why, yes, indeed it does.” You shouldn’t throw up your arms and say, “it’s not my shit! I had no responsibility! You’re oppressing me with the shits that I had the opportunity to take without consequence but didn’t!””

    That was pure awesomeness.

    That is all.

  35. isme February 19, 2010 at 2:40 PM #

    Bit of a rant coming on, but I strongly disagree with what ND said immediately following:

    “Men expect to get to talk, and they expect everyone to listen to them, whether they know what they’re talking about or not.”

    The idea that having a degree, or any other form of qualification automatically makes you right is absurd. I am sick and tired of “experts” who’ve somehow managed to get themselves a phd in something they obviously know nothing about. They’re everywhere nowdays.

    Now, presumably ND does actually know something about her chosen field of study, so this doesn’t apply to her, and I also do hate being argued with by people who know far less about a subject than I do, but I am never going to accept that a person shouldn’t be challenged simply because they have a piece of paper.

    “Each one of these Why I Hate Men episodes reminds me SO much of white people it’s not even funny.”

    Well, it makes sense that the privileged oppress the less privileged in similar ways, no matter who they are.

  36. Andrew February 19, 2010 at 4:15 PM #

    Sorry, I keep swapping traditionally and inherently when I comment. The problem I am having though is that nobody is *actually* stepping out of the gender binary.

    If feminists hate the patriarchal shit that men do, as well as the “female chauvinism” that women collaborate in, I don’t see what is left to extoll but traditional femininity.

    I think you have (and I have trying to think about this) made an honest attempt to step outside of this dichotomy. But is this enough when what you end up finding is that everything about the traditional woman is great and everything about the traditional man is shit? I think this is what one must find if their guiding principle is do no harmto others, even tangentially.

    This seems highly relevant though because I think this is what makes a lot of men uncomfortable when they first encounter feminism. You might call this privilege, but there is no doubt that such privilege is traditionally masculine.

    What I am really curious about now, however, is why so many of the readers here hate this idea. You would think that a logically sound, unified theory of morality, grounded in the traditionally feminine, would be welcome.

  37. Justin February 19, 2010 at 4:20 PM #

    “No, you need to agree with us. The shit smells bad, and it needs to get flushed. It’s awesome that you don’t add to it. We appreciate it. Now just get the rest of the assholes on the toilet to flush too and stop shitting, and we’re square.”

    Here is my point, and why I made the racial analogy. I wasn’t comparing male-female relations to black-white relations, I was honing in on the idea that I have the power to control how others behave. Its echoes shit I’ve heard from racists telling ‘well-behaved’ minorities to police their own. Or Christians saying that Muslims are responsible for the acts of a few violent extremists and should police their own kind. It is idiotic to tell decent people that they can somehow change the behaviors of assholes just because they share some arbitrary association, whether its by having a dick, similar skin tone, religion, or whatever.

    Other than that, I spent a few hours last night reading the site and love it.

  38. Justin February 19, 2010 at 4:24 PM #

    I forgot to add that one of the sickest-funniest things on this site was the Holloween post. Most of the stuff here is just maddening, as in it is maddening that a band would call itself the Bukkake Boys with no trace of irony, or that there are 7 pages about donkey punching on urban dictionary (and an imagined variant called donkey swinging). But the dog in a cheerleader outfit cracked me up, the psychological issues that go into something like that are beyond my ability to process.

  39. Valerie M February 19, 2010 at 4:45 PM #

    @ GXB

    The problem is not your comment being the first. The problem is that, yes, you are clearly a beginner at this, yet you don’t take the good old advice of STFU and listen.

    And your last reply to me, by the way, was so dizzyingly condescending and pretentious I just could. not. be. arsed.

    You’re not the worst offender here, but it sucks to see such massive comment threads full of a whole lot of not getting it, at an otherwise great radical blog.

    No one is saying people shouldn’t comment, even if they are new at feminism, and it’s not up to me anyway. In my opinion though, it would be nice if people (general people) assumed that more experienced women had a reason for saying what they say, even if you don’t totally understand that reason (yet, hopefully). Particularly if those people belong to one or more oppressing classes (male, white, etc.)

    Otherwise, why come here? To give us the benefit of your less experience?

    And yes I have learned this lesson the hard way.

  40. FemmeForever February 19, 2010 at 5:05 PM #

    the entirety of Jenn’s shit analogy post

    1) Brilliant! But I’m soooo grateful I already had breakfast.

    Shit, Jenn, that was one shitty analogy

    2) I laughed so hard I cried, to the point that my stomach hurts and my terrified dog ran over to see what was wrong with mom.

    3) Thanks to both of you for a stellar, unbridled, all-encompassing, screaming laugh of the morning.

  41. GXB February 19, 2010 at 6:49 PM #

    Hello Valerie,
    Took me a while to realize you meant my linguistics comment: sorry, I suppose I was condescending (common-but-false assertions will bring that out in me in fields I do know something about). I am sorry to you and to anyone who feels similarly about my comments. I hoped to be amusing, oh well–usually I don’t intend to contradict any of the various feminists here who obviously know what they are talking about. I’ll try to back off and see when I might be getting in the way.

  42. Pixie February 19, 2010 at 11:13 PM #

    Justin, the way women are treated in society is not as a result of the behaviour of a “few” men. We are not telling you to “police your own” (ie: men). Let me break it down for you. If I see a woman being an arsehole, I tell her to stop being an arsehole. If I see a man being an arsehole, I tell him to stop being an arsehole. The difference is, because I’m a woman and therefore am subhuman and have no right to have an opinion (much less tell a man what to do- the shock! the horror! the outrage!), 99.9% the man is not going to listen to me, and I will be dismissed as some “crazy bitch”. Most men only listen to and respect the opinions of other men. If enough men stand up and say ” hang on, it is DISGUSTING the way women are treated, let’s change this”, then the rest of the ones acting like arseholes are more likely to listen and possibly change.

  43. FemmeForever February 20, 2010 at 1:02 AM #

    If enough men stand up and say ” hang on, it is DISGUSTING the way women are treated, let’s change this”

    Which will never, ever happen. Since men are the ones who invented the disgusting behavior. Why would they want to change Nirvana?

  44. Justin February 20, 2010 at 1:36 AM #

    Well, everyone, I am not walking back on everything I worte, I do wish I had thought longer and harder before reacting. I have since spent FAR more time thinking about this post and many of the others that I went back and read following the comment I left and how they relate to me than I have thought about what I disagreed with in this post, and I readily admit that I am far more guilty than I think I allowed here. For what little it is worth, I wrote a semi-confessional that is far more exhaustive than I could fit into a comment here.

    Point being, some of us are listening and changing. Even those of us who are conceited in thinking that we are doing right and treating others with respect.

  45. Justin February 20, 2010 at 1:38 AM #

    Pixie,
    I understand that. I thought I took care not to phrase it in the cliched “a few bad apples” terms. Its more accurate to say a bushel of mostly bad apples, I know that and if it didn’t come across then I want to clarify. I still stand by the points I made.

  46. Lucy February 20, 2010 at 4:09 AM #

    Andrew,

    Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean that traditional femininity is the only choice left if one rejects patriarchal masculinity and what you call “female chauvinism”. Funny how feminism and feminists have managed to come up with other ideas besides “Hey, let’s go with valuing traditional femininity most highly even though that’s the thing that’s been used to oppress women!”. I suspect your problem is caused by the fact that you seem to want keep pushing the traditional gender binary back onto everything when evaluating value. You want to get cookies for traditional masculinity (and thus by extension, for men) when part of the point is to stop giving out cookies, to stop framing everything in a traditional gender binary. Thus, you’re going to be frustrated when you try to champion traditional femininity as well, for the same reasons. Feminists, at least most feminists, are not interested in being bound by patriarchal limits and values. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you might understand why you’re barking up the wrong tree.

  47. kristyn February 20, 2010 at 7:27 AM #

    Why –shouldn’t– men ”police their own”?

    Of course, some of you, like me, may come from an anarcho background where ”police” is a dirty word. However, ”police” in this case is a verb meaning ”to regulate”, not a noun meaning ”a bunch of entitled nightstick-and-mace-carrying nobs in blue who will trample on your rights as human beings, possibly while arresting you under false pretenses and/or torturing you.”

    If men policed, meaning called out inappropriate behaviors and encouraged constructive behaviors, among their own … well, like Pixie said.
    That, and it ain’t women’s fuckin’ job to babysit, for a sure thing.

    Just like it’s not POC’s ”job” to make sure white people stop saying and doing racist things, it’s not women’s ”job” to convince men that women are human.
    So, yeah, actually. Please do police your own. Even, and especially, if you are not part of the problem. Because we’re tired of doing it, and they never listen to us anyway.

  48. isme February 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM #

    “Which will never, ever happen. Since men are the ones who invented the disgusting behavior. Why would they want to change Nirvana?”

    I don’t buy that…I mean if we are to accept that men will forever want to dominate women, then surely we must also accept that every other group with a history of dominance over others will forever wish to keep it, which fortunately is not true.

    “Why –shouldn’t– men ”police their own”? ”

    I think at least part of the problem is that it moves some of the responsibility aware from the person in question.

    Secondly, lumping people together into a group, and saying that it’s all “their” responsibility to ensure none of “them” does anything wrong is always a massive oversimplification.

  49. Pixie February 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM #

    To be honest, I think the lousy habits of most men are developed and perpetuated in childhood, as stated in other comments. Unless entire generations of men change and enough fathers start educating their sons on what is a considerate and appropriate way to act towards all human beings from the day they are born, this bullshit is going to take eons to disappear.

    Justin, why shouldn’t men object to and challenge the shitty behaviour of other men? I object to and challenge the shitty behaviour of other human beings regardless of whether they are male or female. Like I said, most men who act in a hateful way towards women are not going to listen to the opinion of a woman who dares to challenge their “privilege and authority”. But they may listen to another man. The privileged majority usually only listens to the privileged majority. Or maybe you don’t want to challenge other men because you secretly like the oppression of women, as a lot of self-professed “good men” do?

    Essentially it boils down to this: Men need to stop seeing themselves as men and more as human beings who just happen to have different (but not necessarily better) genitalia to the other half of humanity. Having a dick and being a heterosexual white dude should not guarantee you rights over and above the rest of the world.

  50. kristyn February 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM #

    ”Secondly, lumping people together into a group, and saying that it’s all “their” responsibility to ensure none of “them” does anything wrong is always a massive oversimplification.”

    Assuming that people do not know this, that they don’t just choose to use it as a rhetorical device, is also a massive oversimplification. I’m not a child. I have critical thinking skills just like you do.

    Also, by your logic, albeit taken to its logical conclusion, we should not ”police” rapists and murderers either, because they should be aware that their actions are wrong.

    Please tell me how that one would work.

  51. FemmeForever February 20, 2010 at 5:56 PM #

    I don’t buy that…

    Well, of course you don’t because you’re of the mind that men can be rehabilitated. Their hatred and oppression is accidental. They don’t know any better, the poor orgasm-giving darlings. We just need to teach them, that’s all. News flash – THERE IS NO CURE FOR FREE WILL.

    I mean if we are to accept that men will forever want to dominate women, then surely we must also accept that every other group with a history of dominance over others will forever wish to keep it, which fortunately is not true.

    Really, let’s ask Israel if antisemitism has been cured after millennia of discourse, war and death.

    Let’s ask POC who continue to be marginalized, hated and institutionally sabotaged after centuries of discourse and death, weather the phrase “post-racist America” holds any validity or ever will.

    Let’s ask the LGBT community whether or not people are still dying everyday, after decades of discourse, from the hatred and refusal to tolerate their humanity.

    One cannot reason with hatred. Hatred is not rational. It is not a misunderstanding. It is not caused by a lack of information and therefore it cannot be cured with any amount of information. People choose to hate because they want to hate. Because they insist on having any reason, no matter how minuscule and stupid, to prop up their pathetic undeserving lives over and above somebody else’s life.

    This is especially true for men. They hate the fact that they can never be as worthwhile and truly valuable as women are and therefore they have to punish us for showing them up as the puffed-up, insubstantial, false images that they are. Men know the value of womanhood oftentimes better than women do because every day of their existence they are reminded how utterly sorry they are in comparison. Instead of bringing themselves up to par to be worthwhile people too, what they will always choose is to retaliate against us for their woeful inadequacy.

  52. Andrew February 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM #

    Lucy,

    I can understand the motives for wanting to get beyond the gender binary. The problem is that only the language is changing, and not the practical effects. While “traditional femininity” might serve as a useful tool of oppression, it is also something that many females, including some radical feminists, are very proud of. This includes their ability to care, to nurture, to act reasonably, etc. You could argue that a lot of women don’t do this, but you wouldn’t argue that a lot of women, or even people in general, shouldn’t do this.

    That is what I am getting at. We can all accept that we are trying to move past a binary, but the fact that everything “good” aligns with behaviors that are “traditionally feminine” or neutral can’t really be denied.

    As for policing one’s own…

    The other night I was at a bar and a female friend was freaking out because a guy had touched her ass and done some other inappropriate shit. She wanted to tell the bouncer but I decided I wanted to talk to this guy instead. I went over and called him out for this and his friend actually got up in my face about it. There was no fight, but I made it clear that everyone in the bar knew he was a creep, and that if he did it again I wouldn’t mind hitting him in the face for it. About 30 minutes later his friend who had gotten up in my face before actually came over to apologize, while the offender quietly slinked out of the bar…thinking back on it I applaud him for owning up to the obvious fail in defending a creep who grabs random women’s asses.

    I don’t know what this means…are there paternalistic overtones inherent in my behavior? Was my behavior motivated out of sheer masculinity instead of a genuine desire to help this girl? Maybe, subconsciously, I was just trying to get laid? Or, conversely, is this exactly what the readers here want to see happen?

  53. wiggles February 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM #

    “morality seems to be rooted in the the traditionally feminine ideal”

    Except when “being a man” and “having balls” is equated with courage and clear-sightedness. And when opening doors and pulling out chairs for people is exclusively male-coded behavior that’s supposed to be so friggin’ awesome as to cancel out all gender-based discrimination.

  54. wiggles February 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM #

    btw, I was an extra in Just One of the Guys. Yellow shirt, cafeteria scene. I walk by just when Billy Jacoby is making orgasmish noises. Blink and you’ll miss me.

    • Nine Deuce February 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM #

      wiggles – That is awesome. I’ll go watch it and keep an eye out for you.

  55. Geoffrey Greer February 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM #

    I agree with this concept of “policing your own.” However, I do think that the message is more powerful if all concerned parties, men AND women, are doing what they can to police. Of course, chauvinists will not listen to the message if it comes from women alone, but the more reinforcement there is, ESPECIALLY from the home camp, the better.

    There must also be a combination of radical and moderate forces at work. When Woodrow Wilson finally caved and moved to grant women’s suffrage, there were two women’s groups at work. One group was moderate, and tried to change the system from within the system, using democratic means, etc. The other group was the one picketing the white house, causing disturbances, and regularly getting arrested. In the long run, Wilson worked with the moderate group to take action. However, he would never have given the moderates the time of day if the radicals had not been threatening the social stability of the nation.

    My point is, everyone plays a part.

  56. Valerie M February 20, 2010 at 8:31 PM #

    Isme, what are your examples of groups that have happily given up privilege over others in the past, without the groups they oppress rising up in revolution against them?

  57. Lillie February 20, 2010 at 9:07 PM #

    Oh, God – ‘mansplaining’! I’m so adding that word to my vocabulary…

    I’d add my voice to the chorus of women having unpleasant experiences of said mansplaining, but as I have nothing intelligent to add to the ongoing interesting discussion, I’m just going to make a small aside comment on men taking up physical space…

    Of course, there are obvious exceptions, like my father, who’s the shyest and most retiring man imaginable, and would be happiest if he could just fade into the background. (Also my grandfather, who was – interestingly – a very ‘manly’ man, and confident in his manliness, but also extremely neat and organised and considerate, and took up little space in general.) But what I find interesting is that taking up space seems to be such an internalised part of masculinity that it doesn’t even necessarily have to do with entitlement issues. Not saying it doesn’t, most of the time, but that it may also have motivations elsewhere.

    Case in point: a shy, retiring guy I once knew, who had some serious issues with self-esteem. This is a guy I had a crush on, and who had a crush on me (which eventually led nowhere, for reasons I obviously won’t go into here…). Anyway, I only mention the crush part because for this reason I spent a lot of time observing his behaviour. Among other men, he would be quiet, kept himself to himself, occupied very little space when seated, and had a withdrawn and hunched posture: it wasn’t hard to imagine him with his ears drawn back and tail between his legs, like a submissive dog. Among women in general, he wasn’t much different, except that the ‘submissive’ stance less pronounced: he just seemed withdrawn and kind of invisible. But when he was close to me, he would not only engage in various nervous preening behaviours, but also suddenly sat with his legs spread comically far apart, leaned over tables as if he were marking them as his territory, etcetera… just, you know, took up more physical space in various ways. Even his movements seemed to take up a lot more room to manoeuvre. The change was so obvious that even my friends were amused by it, so I’m guessing in this case it was less of an entitlement issue, and more of an (attempted) show of masculinity.

    Well, this is hardly the most illuminating anecdote in the world, and probably pretty obvious all in all, but it was a minor revelation to me. Since then, I’ve paid more attention to the phenomenon of men taking up more space to impress women, and I keep noticing it a lot. You’d think the opposite were true – that a man would try to impress a woman by being more considerate, and giving more space instead of taking it: in line with holding doors open, say. (Which is a can of worms in itself, but you get my drift.) But no. So I think it’s not only a case of taking up space originating from a sense of entitlement, but also that masculinity is equated with all things BIG. The shy guy I mentioned was also short and rail thin, so his efforts at suddenly enlarging his personal space were more obvious. I guess in a typical bigger male these things would flow more naturally, basking in a general sense of entitlement.

  58. kristyn February 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM #

    ”There must also be a combination of radical and moderate forces at work. When Woodrow Wilson finally caved and moved to grant women’s suffrage, there were two women’s groups at work. One group was moderate, and tried to change the system from within the system, using democratic means, etc. The other group was the one picketing the white house, causing disturbances, and regularly getting arrested. In the long run, Wilson worked with the moderate group to take action. However, he would never have given the moderates the time of day if the radicals had not been threatening the social stability of the nation.

    My point is, everyone plays a part.”

    Do I smell mansplainin’?

    Dude, I know you are trying to help, but it might have occurred to you that some of us have maybe studied history, too. Not all women are blithely unaware barely-high-school-graduates who haven’t read or studied anything outside of what’s fed to them in regular curricula.

    Also, you MAY have noticed that there IS a ”moderate” feminist movement. It is easily discovered by Google searching. Or, you know, the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton ran for the highest public office in America.

  59. Justin February 20, 2010 at 9:34 PM #

    “Justin, why shouldn’t men object to and challenge the shitty behaviour of other men? I object to and challenge the shitty behaviour of other human beings regardless of whether they are male or female.”
    I never said they shouldn’t object to bad behavior. My point is that as a human being, you are primarily responsible for your actions. The actions of others that share some characteristic with you have nothing to do with you. If you can step up and let others know that you don’t agree with them or that they are treating someone badly, then do it, but that should be universal. What has been said in this thread is that is men’s responsibility to police other men, and that women shouldn’t have to do it.

    “Like I said, most men who act in a hateful way towards women are not going to listen to the opinion of a woman who dares to challenge their “privilege and authority”. But they may listen to another man.”
    A valid response to this is that an asshole who isn’t going to listen to a woman probably won’t listen to a man either, he’ll just call him a ‘faggot’ or something.

  60. wiggles February 20, 2010 at 10:36 PM #

    “I don’t know what this means…are there paternalistic overtones inherent in my behavior?”

    Wait. What?! The woman you were with was assaulted and you got to decide how it should be handled? Told the assault victim not to worry her pretty little head about it and tell the bouncer, because you’d go over and handle it with a little man-to-man talk? You’re asking whether this is paternalistic?
    And who did the assaulter’s friend apologize to? You or the woman who was assaulted? The fact that you don’t bother to mention that gives the impression that you don’t think that matters.

  61. wiggles February 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM #

    As far as whether members of privileged groups should “police their own,” I’m going to give a qualified yes. As a white, able-bodied (for now), protestant, racists, disablists, and anti-semites are probably somewhat more likely to listen to me if I tell them they’re full of it – unless they’re misogynistic too. If, for instance, a racist makes a racist statement in the presence of a POC, and the POC expresses offense, the racist will generally brush off the protest as irrational emotionalism and an inability to take a joke. If I, white lady, express offense, the racist is going to see that in a different way. Which is still racist as I’d be taken more seriously just due to my whiteness, but maybe it makes a slightly bigger dent in denormalizing that sort of thing, I don’t know. As long as I’m not being savior asshole and demanding cookies, I don’t see how it can hurt.

  62. kristyn February 20, 2010 at 11:19 PM #

    ”What has been said in this thread is that is men’s responsibility to police other men, and that women shouldn’t have to do it.”

    What’s wrong with that? Women have been trying for a very long time, and we’ve gotten nowhere.

    Again. Do you think that white people should call other white people out when those people say or do racist things?
    Or do you think that POC — people of color — should bear the onus of pointing out racism, since they are the ones directly affected by it?

    Also, you’re completely missing the point, because multiple people have written about this right above you in the comment thread and all you have to do is read.

  63. lefemmeferal February 20, 2010 at 11:36 PM #

    “A valid response to this is that an asshole who isn’t going to listen to a woman probably won’t listen to a man either, he’ll just call him a ‘faggot’ or something.”

    No, it’s not valid. It’s not acceptable for women to continue to be publicly abused as long as a male is not called a faggot. This is male privilege: that male feelings and dignity come before women’s.

    Just because another male may dismiss you or be nasty to save face, it doesn’t mean that other males won’t listen to or agree with you. It doesn’t mean that the male in question who wants to save public face won’t go home and think about what you said. Stranger shit has happened, the question is why shouldn’t you at least take the chance to begin with?

    FFS. For all the man-hating accusations feminists get, it’s males who seem to have the least confidence in your own sex. When feminist-sympathizing males hide behind sexist males they are in fact acknowledging the idea that sexist males are superior and stronger than feminist-sympathizing males. They are acknowledging their privilege and power. They are operating under the assumption that something isn’t worth doing if it means they aren’t going to be reacted to in the way they feel entitled to be reacted to. They want to help women but don’t want to lose their privilege either. But you can’t have equal rights without those in a position of power giving up their privilege.

    Choose to do whatever you wish, but cowardice reflects badly on ANYONE who engages in it. Social change has never been simple, clean or easy to deal with. If you think it’s bad for a man to deal with, just try to imagine how women feel. Yet we fight on knowing that questioning the status quo won’t win us brownie points.

  64. Pixie February 21, 2010 at 12:09 AM #

    Justin, so what if someone calls you a faggot? Get over it. Have you tried calling other men on their sexist behaviour? Try it. My point is that you must challenge other HUMAN BEINGS (men) on the way they treat other HUMAN BEINGS (women) for anything to change. Men all share “some characteristics” and have “something to do with one another”, they are human beings, as are women. If you aren’t part of the solution you may as well be part of the problem.

    Yes, I do think it is primarily the responsibility of men (as fellow human beings), to police other men. For fucksake women have to police every god damn other moral stance on the planet, give us a break.

  65. Andrew February 21, 2010 at 12:12 AM #

    Wiggles,

    I think my motivation was that the bartender/bouncer would have handled it a little too impersonally. I was personally offended, so I felt like I has a personal problem with this guy too. But this is exactly why I shared the story. It seems easy to say “men should police other men’s behavior,” but how that behavior is policed becomes an epic problem.

    Is violence an acceptable deterrent? What about the overt posturing and masculinity that is inherent when two men have a disagreement involving a woman? Should the woman be in control of what’s done on her behalf? Is that practical? Does having men fixing these problems imply that woman can’t fix them themselves? Is acknowledging that fact problematic?

    There is no doubt that standing up for someone being taken advantage of should be the rule. But what constitutes “standing up for” and “taken advantage of” becomes really hard to define depending on one’s beliefs.

    P.S. He apologized to me and her friend, the other girl wasn’t around at that point.

  66. wiggles February 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM #

    Andrew – Too impersonal? How did that get to be your decision?
    If your idea of standing up to bigotry is to negate the subject’s wishes and swoop in there and maybe do some face-pounding, you’re not getting it.
    If it was a racial assault on a non-white guy, would you have decided for him how to handle it?

  67. one angry girl February 21, 2010 at 1:16 AM #

    Is it tacky to mention that I have a shirt for this?

    http://www.oneangrygirl.net/space.php

  68. Jenn February 21, 2010 at 4:44 AM #

    Know what’s awesome? When a dude gets all whiny because sticking up for women would label him a “faggot”, and he really really really wouldn’t like anyone to dare insinuate that he is homosexual.

    Know what’s even more awesome? That I’m both a woman and a faggot. AMAZING! So, you don’t want to stick up for women (making you someone who cares more about the opinion of other men than the rights of women, which probably means you’re sexist at least some of the time) because it means that people might think you’re gay (making you someone more concerned about the approval of men than the rights of women, and more frightened of being labeled gay — because people who think you are gay are accusing you of something horrible because being gay is horrible).

    So, in other words, you’re a coward who doesn’t give a shit about women because other men might think you are gay. And women are less important than men’s opinion of you, and homosexuality is the WORST THING EVAR!!!eleventy!!

    Wow, dude, it’s like you think that women being oppressed because we are women and homosexuals being oppressed because we are gay is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy less important than your reputation as a he-man who likes to talk shit about bitches with his totally-not-faggot buddies.

  69. isme February 21, 2010 at 5:59 AM #

    “Also, by your logic, albeit taken to its logical conclusion, we should not ”police” rapists and murderers either, because they should be aware that their actions are wrong.”

    Um…what? What has that got to do with what I said?

    “Let’s ask POC who continue to be marginalized, hated and institutionally sabotaged after centuries of discourse and death, weather the phrase “post-racist America” holds any validity or ever will.

    Let’s ask the LGBT community whether or not people are still dying everyday, after decades of discourse, from the hatred and refusal to tolerate their humanity.”

    And do you yourself persecute people of different sexualities or ethnic groups, or has our society progressed beyond that point? Yes, there’s still along way to go, but there has been massive progress, with many supporters amongst the privileged groups. There’s no particular reason why society should decriminalise homosexuality, for example, other than it being the right thing to do. And yet it happened. The situation is very far from perfect, but if the desire to persecute was so mainstream, it’d never have got that far.

    • Yvonne March 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM #

      Decriminalizing oppression. All it does is mean the government no longer approves of it. The end of segregation did not end racism. It just made it hide better. Decriminalizing sodomy didn’t end homophobia. Especially since LGBT rights are still not on the books including EEOC protection and legal medical and estate laws. If you think massive progress means just that white folks can no longer murder black folks and get off because the jury was all white you are a privileged fool. None of it has lessened in any way. That’s a straight white cis folks claim. As a queer cis POC I can tell you that is no more rooted in reality than the tooth fairy. And the “change” is about the same. Small and came after pain.

  70. Andrew February 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM #

    Like I said wiggles, it’s a tough issue. I might have very well decided to negate her wishes in lieu of my own. But there will be a lot more of this if men really started to police other mens behavior.

    On a not so unrelated note. I don’t think Justin is saying he would not stand up for women on account he would be called a faggot. I think he is saying that his influence is irrelevant and he is not in an any better position to police mens behavior than woman are. Men might take more social ques from men, but not if they think those men are “faggots”.

    I think this is a good point. A paradox exists where women won’t be stood up for in any meaningful way unless it is alpha males who start pushing for it. Alpha males, however, are probably the reason women are in the position they are in to begin with.

    In short, it’s not just any men who need to police men, but the “right” type of man.

  71. Pixie February 21, 2010 at 5:25 PM #

    I second what you said Jenn. :)

  72. Justin February 21, 2010 at 6:40 PM #

    “Justin, so what if someone calls you a faggot? Get over it. Have you tried calling other men on their sexist behaviour? Try it. My point is that you must challenge other HUMAN BEINGS (men) on the way they treat other HUMAN BEINGS (women) for anything to change. Men all share “some characteristics” and have “something to do with one another”, they are human beings, as are women. If you aren’t part of the solution you may as well be part of the problem.”

    Pixie (and others), My point is NOT that I give a shit if someone calls me a fag for sticking up on behalf of someone else. I already am over it, the point is that I read some of the comments here to mean that just because I am anatomically similar a chauvinist will listen to me over women. Or that it is not enough for me to be responsible for my own behavior, but I also am responsible for changing the behavior, or policing, of other men. I agree that we shouldn’t walk on by when people behave badly, no matter what the issue, but the expectation that by virtue of having a penis men can change/are responsible for the behavior of other men when all we can do is offer feedback and they can tell us to fuck off or heed the words as readily as they tell a woman. Maybe they are more likely to listen to those they consider equals, maybe not.

    I think what I am saying definitely applies to some but not all comments here. Krysten wrote, “If men policed, meaning called out inappropriate behaviors and encouraged constructive behaviors, among their own.” OK, I get that. But understand that to ‘police’ when used as a verb means a lot more than that, so until someone redefined the term for me to mean to offer feedback then it makes more sense, but it isn’t what someone thinks of as policing when they hear it. I definitely agree that it incumbent upon all of us, regardless of gender, to stick up for others who are discriminated against for whatever reason. To ignore a problem or injustice is to tacitly support it, I get that.

    However, Krysten followed that with, “That, and it ain’t women’s fuckin’ job to babysit, for a sure thing.” It’s not men’s job to babysit either and we are back to the idea that somehow men are responsible for (and have power to change like a babysitter can tell a ward to go to bed) changing the behaviors of other men by virtue of being men.

  73. Jenn February 21, 2010 at 7:22 PM #

    The situation is very far from perfect, but if the desire to persecute was so mainstream, it’d never have got that far.

    Now you’re conflating legal persecution with all persecution. Most guys who use “faggot” to demean other men probably don’t want to live in a country where we hang people for being homosexual. But they are entirely content to live in a country where it is perfectly acceptable to socially persecute those that fall outside of the norms they constructed.

  74. kristyn February 21, 2010 at 9:01 PM #

    First of all, Justin, please learn how to spell my name correctly when you are responding to me. I know it’s tricky, but the spelling is is RIGHT THERE above you in the comments. You can LOOK AT IT to make sure you’re getting it right. Thank you.

    ”But understand that to ‘police’ when used as a verb means a lot more than that, so until someone redefined the term for me to mean to offer feedback then it makes more sense, but it isn’t what someone thinks of as policing when they hear it.”

    NOOO. Really? I didn’t UNDERSTAND that’s what it meant. Even when I went on to EXPLAIN how I DID understand what it meant.
    It’s not like I have ever read a book, done research, or thought critically before, Justin, so thank you for explaining to me what I need to understand here.
    And it’s also not like I write for a living, either, so I’m ever so glad you’re here to tell me what words mean.

    ”I definitely agree that it incumbent upon all of us, regardless of gender, to stick up for others who are discriminated against for whatever reason. To ignore a problem or injustice is to tacitly support it, I get that.”

    Wow, dude, how magnanimous of you.

    ”However, Krysten [sic] followed that with, “That, and it ain’t women’s fuckin’ job to babysit, for a sure thing.” It’s not men’s job to babysit either …”

    Way to let yourself off the hook.

    ”… and we are back to the idea that somehow men are responsible for (and have power to change like a babysitter can tell a ward to go to bed) changing the behaviors of other men by virtue of being men.”

    And, way to miss the point completely. Again.

    How did you get ”by virtue of being men” out of what I wrote? What I wrote was, ”by virtue of being a DECENT HUMAN BEING.” Clearly it was not that obscure a concept, because other commenters have understood quite well and expressed the exact same thought. But yet you consistently whinge and say you can’t do that, it’s not fair, boo fucking hoo.
    Fortunately, I’m not too frustrated, because you clearly aren’t even reading the comments, just block-quoting them so you can then say, ”Nooo, I can’t do THAT, it’s not faaaaair.” As you proved with your inability/refusal to correctly spell my name.

    Again, as lefemmeferal expressed, I too ”hate men”, but have more faith in them than the men here do.

  75. kristyn February 21, 2010 at 9:20 PM #

    Also, to get away from men taking up yet more space — what do other womyn do to combat the space-encroaching phenomenon?

    Someone mentioned upthread about taking up more physical room even when pressured, and not yielding. A-fuckin’-women. As a daily user of the New York City Public Transit system, I encounter this at least once every 24 hours, and it gives me pleasure to hold my own ground. That really surprises men, though, so maybe if more women did it … in, say, twenty to thirty years, we might have a generation of people who don’t assume that women are ”naturally” passive and yielding and ”instinctively” take up less physical space.

    Also, seated posture. I like to put my feet and knees far apart and lean my hands or elbows into my upper legs when I’m engrossed in conversation. Not only is it pretty comfortable, it lets the other person know that I’m interested and engaged in what they’re saying. I find that when I do this when talking with other women, they start to unfold their legs and take up more space as well.
    However, if I happen to be speaking with most men, it tends to puts them off. As if they’re seeing a dog acting like a master and it gives them some kind of mental disconnect.

    Fortunately, lounging is a radical act too. Simply being at ease in your physical self is a radical act. Showing that you are not intimidated or on edge, that you are comfortable enough to sit back and own your surroundings, can really throw people for a loop. Naturally, it can carry some dangers, but so can breathing while being female in this culture, so you might as well get comfy while we’re constantly keeping an eye out for a possible physically hostile situation to arise.

    What are some other radical actions that you do and/or that we could all do to start reclaiming the space that has been denied to us as human beings who don’t have dicks? Let’s get a little list going of physical, intellectual, and emotional strategies.

  76. wiggles February 21, 2010 at 10:52 PM #

    kristyn – The thing I often run into (literally) is men who walk over you, like you’re part of the floor or they just expect you to leap out of their way. On sidewalks, in store aisles – they’ll just look right through you and walk straight into you. For a long time, I’ve been making a point of not budging, but it’s still a conscious effort not to move to the side when someone’s barreling toward me as if I’m invisible. It’s like playing chicken.

    Andrew – men policing other men’s behavior toward women doesn’t mean you ignore a woman’s wishes so you can play cowboy. It’s the bouncer’s job to kick out people like that, as it’s not in any bar’s interest to encourage a sausage-fest, and the officialness of being kicked out by the establishment would have been a lot more effective than your little man-to-man.

  77. geoffreygreer February 21, 2010 at 11:20 PM #

    Kristyn,

    I don’t know why you’re attacking me. I’m sorry if I offended you; I was trying to make a relevant example. I wasn’t trying to suggest you don’t know your history. It’s a public post. There will be some readers who aren’t as well read as you, and the “mansplainin’,” as you call it, is more for the benefit of your opponents in this debate, not for you. If everyone were as enlightened on the subject as you are, we wouldn’t be having threads like this at all.

    My only intention was to suggest that men should police their own, but also that women should not give up. I recognize that many women feel “they’ve gotten nowhere.” All I’m saying is that they should keep fighting, and that better men should join the chorus.

    Please inform me me if my gender automatically disqualifies me from participating in civil conversation with you ladies, and I will happily bow out.

  78. Justin February 22, 2010 at 1:05 AM #

    Kristy,
    Apologies for spelling your name wrong earlier.

    That is all.

  79. FemmeForever February 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM #

    Isme, your reply is completely non-responsive.

    We’re not talking about my persecution of others or yours or any other individual’s. Nor are we talking about whether there has been some degree of legal progress in society.

    We are talking about the fact that over indiscriminate stretches of time the rule, and not the exception, continues to be that the oppressed are still not free, still not safe, still can’t live in unobstructed peace and are still persecuted in both the public and the private arenas.

    Would you believe that in 2007 I worked for a CORPORATE MANAGER who drove to work every day in a vehicle that sported a confederate flag placard in lieu of her rear license plate? We weren’t in the south and the manager didn’t have familial ties to that state. 2007! But other oppression is still just a deflection from the topic at hand.

    The point is that men hate women because they want to. They derive tremendous pleasure from doing so. There will never be a time when men won’t believe they are fully entitled and justified in oppressing women (see all of recorded history) and men certainly won’t stand up against a world order they invented, think is peachy keen, and provides gargantuan benefits.

  80. Pixie February 22, 2010 at 2:01 PM #

    Wiggles, I get that too, I’m barely 5ft so a lot of men think that they can just trample me. That used to happen a lot until I started shouting at the arseholes who do it and refusing to move. It may not be the most “civilised” way of going about it but it definitely works fairly consistently. When it doesn’t work at least the guy looks like a shitbag to whoever is nearby for trying to trample poor little old me, which is almost as satisfying as standing my ground. (I once had a sweet old lady give some jock a whack with her cane across the shins for trying to knock me over, which was priceless).

    On public transport I find that using my elbows helps get the message cross that “you are violating my personal space, now move”. It works most of the time.

    When some arsehole is trying to take up “intellectual” space by bullshitting his opinion at me about something I know a lot more about, I make a point of breaking down his opinion piece by piece (ie: reality/fact vs. his bullshitting). Sometimes it works, but I invariably get called a bitch. Does anybody have any better ideas for dealing with opinionated but ignorant fools?

    As for someone taking up my personal space in a sexual way (feeling up my arse or something), to be honest most of the time I’m so shocked that I’m not sure how to react. No matter how you act you are usually labelled a crazy loon. I don’t like lashing out physically, the police here don’t take someone feeling you up as “assualt” and most of the time I’m left speechless at the audacity of the bastard who does it. Any fail safe ways of dealing with this?

  81. Level Best February 22, 2010 at 3:03 PM #

    And, ironically, men have taken up way too much space on this thread. 92, Jenn, and other women here, I appreciate you.

  82. Andrew February 22, 2010 at 4:00 PM #

    Wiggles,

    So just to be clear…in the future I should not police men’s behavior? Got it.

    What about if there is no bouncer? What if the bouncers don’t care? Do the rules still apply?

  83. S February 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM #

    Hey ND, great post. What’s the beef with Tim Robbins?

  84. michelle February 22, 2010 at 6:46 PM #

    Ugh – made me think about how I was at the store the other day. This dude is ahead of me in line and is taking FOREVER and a DAY to pay for his shit, because he’s too busy talking to his buddy. When he finally pays for his stuff and gets his receipt – he leaves the two cases of beer and junk food on the counter whilst he goes to talk to his buddy some more, taking up ALL THE COUNTER SPACE. Just leaves it there – there isn’t even a square inch to place my measly juice. And the lady behind the counter just says, “boys will be boys.”

  85. kristyn February 22, 2010 at 7:21 PM #

    ”Kristyn,

    I don’t know why you’re attacking me. I’m sorry if I offended you; I was trying to make a relevant example. I wasn’t trying to suggest you don’t know your history. It’s a public post. There will be some readers who aren’t as well read as you, and the “mansplainin’,” as you call it, is more for the benefit of your opponents in this debate, not for you. If everyone were as enlightened on the subject as you are, we wouldn’t be having threads like this at all.

    My only intention was to suggest that men should police their own, but also that women should not give up. I recognize that many women feel “they’ve gotten nowhere.” All I’m saying is that they should keep fighting, and that better men should join the chorus.

    Please inform me me if my gender automatically disqualifies me from participating in civil conversation with you ladies, and I will happily bow out.”

    Geoffrey, thank you for the civil response. However, if you feel that female frustration = ”attack”, you may not really be in the league of ”supporter”, but in fact of ”opponent.”

    Clearly, this is the internet, and yes this is a public post. That being said, most of ND’s readers are educated (self- or otherwise) people, and most of them know their history. Especially the history of women’s rights, given that this is a feminist blog for people who have interest in feminism. ”Opponents” might not be as educated, but they probably won’t be as swayed by discussions of history as we’d like them to be.

    If you were suggesting -to ”opponents”- that this blog is good because it offers a radical bent to the moderate feminism that is in wider mainstream vogue, then okay, that is less frustration-inciting than telling US we need to be more moderate in order to ”win votes” — which is how I originally read it.
    But you are still mansplainin’ it to the ladies, and that is still frustrating. For one thing, ND is going to keep on truckin’ with the radical feminist thing, no matter how many times Andrew sidetracks the discussion or other dudes whine that it’s NOT FAAAAIR WAAAH. With or without external approval, especially from dudes, she’s gonna keep on keepin’ on and so are a lot of her commenters.

    As a man, you have probably never noticed mansplaining. I left off the ”g” upthread as a rhetorical device, which I don’t feel the need to explain or justify to you. But just search ”mansplaining” and you will find multiple, multiple examples of it and what it means. One thread alone reached over 500 comments, many with more than one example contained therein.

    Last, I feel that you are perhaps ingenuous in your ”feminism.” For one thing, because you insinuated that, because I mentioned that I know my ”stuff” and do not appreciate mansplaining, -I- am the know-it-all and don’t I just think I’m so smart.
    Well, the thing is — ”if we were all as smart as you, we apparently wouldn’t be having this conversation then, huh, little girl” is not only sprung almost verbatim from the same emotional and psychological tactics my abusive, incestuous family used to undermine, tear down, degrade, and abuse me for eighteen years … they’re also based upon an incorrect assumption.

    I’ll tell you what I told my uncle, the one who molested me and used to beat me across the face for no reason. And if I may, I’m asking permission of the women on here and not you by the way, I’ll tell it to you on behalf of other intelligent women you may come across.

    I talk back. Get used to it. I think I’m smart because I am.
    If you can’t wrap your head around the idea of a woman knowing as much as or more about something than you, or about her owning that fact proudly and engaging in discussions without feeling the need to play herself down to boost your ego … then you are in fact not a feminist and your attempts at ”civil” conversation ring as hollow as a bell.

    Thank you.

  86. kristyn February 22, 2010 at 7:26 PM #

    Justin — you still misspelled my name. k-r-i-s-t-y-n, all small caps.

    Is it on purpose, to show that you don’t even see women as human beings worthy of the respect of their own names?
    Or is it just borne out of a less purposeful but no less profound disrespect for females?

    Normally this is not a big deal, but as I said, it just kind of reinforces the idea that a. you are not reading any of the commentary except as it suits you to block-quote, and b. you do not afford proper respect to women.

    And now no more about men for right now. michelle, that is such an egregious and typical example of men taking up space. Ugh. Next time that happens — would you feel comfortable moving the man’s shit to one side? Just pushing it the fuck away so you can pay for your juice?

    ”Boys will be boys,” what a disgusting but also totally typical thing to say. But we don’t have to play that game.

  87. kristyn February 22, 2010 at 10:14 PM #

    Oh, also, just as clarification — I reread my comment and realized it looks different than I intended.
    I’m not trying to say ”michelle, you did something wrong/are a Bad Feminist/should do something different.” I probably would have done the same thing as you, just with extra glaring and perhaps the addition of ”Boys my ass, these guys are assholes” muttered to myself. Which you may have also done.

    It’s just fun to reimagine narratives. Like the time at the store when some guy tried to cut me in line, then shouted, ”You STUPID fucking CUNT” when I asserted my own place — I stiffened my spine, stood my place in line, and said nothing. But in my imagination, I turned to this guy and said, ”Would you say that to your own daughter? Would you say that to another man? Please don’t say that to me.” Maybe next time I’ll be so bold.

  88. wiggles February 23, 2010 at 12:17 AM #

    Pixie – Elbows are very useful. Nice and hard and pointy. I use them on the sidewalk too.
    I don’t know what to do about the sexual assault if the cops won’t do anything. They’re wrong that it’s not assault, obviously. Maybe find the statute on the Internet and print it out and file a complaint against any officer who refuses to do anything. I once got a “he’s just having fun” from a cop in resp0nse to a harassment/assault charge I tried to make. I was young and naive and like, “Seriously? People still say that shit?”
    If nothing else, get some pepper spray and zap any guy who messes with you.

    Andrew – you’re one of those guys who clings desperately to his prejudices and preconceptions. There’s nothing more I can tell you. I can’t make myself any more clear and I’m sick of repeating myself. Good luck pulling your head out.

  89. Geoffrey Greer February 23, 2010 at 12:54 AM #

    Kristyn,

    I’m sorry to have frustrated you. This is not my intent. It also not my intent to “take up too much space” in this thread. Perhaps I have already. ND is a personal friend of mine, and I am engaging in this blog to support her. She and I do not agree on everything, but that’s not as important as the things on which we do agree. I thought my input would be useful to other men who wander onto this blog looking for fights or trying to “mansplain” things to you. I get the gist of what this means.

    I’m sorry to have incited such wrath from you. And I’m sorry you are reading more sarcasm or disdain in my words than I intend. It is unfortunate that this forum denies me the facial expression and tone of voice that would assure you I am not trying to take anything away from you, nor am I at all bothered that you know more about the topic than I. I do not claim to be an expert on women’s history. Most of all, I am sorry that you could possibly mistake me or my motives for anything resembling your abusive past. I am well aware that, in this thread, I am a blind, lame fox in a heavily armed hen house surrounded by land mines. Demeaning you is the furthest thing from my mind. I hope you can read all of my words from here on out at face value, without trying to divine any snide undertones, of which I have none.

    I don’t claim to be a “feminist.” I’m not even sure I know what the definition of this term is, at least not by the standards of ND and her fan base. Nevertheless, I do support equal treatment of all human beings and all living things. That being said, while this is, as you wrote, a blog for feminists who have interest in feminism, it will nonetheless attract readers who are not feminists, and for lack of a better term, are “opponents.” Since this Andrew character seems to be the favorite target in this group, let us take him as the exemplary reader who doesn’t know the first thing about the topic, is totally uneducated, and for better or worse, needs to be “schooled.” It is readers like this that would benefit from anecdotes like mine, all the more useful because they are not coming from the “enemy camp,” for lack of a better term. I was not looking for approval or endorsement from the ladies. Perhaps in the future I will be sure to address such comments directly to the men who need to read them, rather than to the general audience, who already knows.

    To clarify, I *was* in fact suggesting that this blog is good because the radical is necessary to augment the moderate.

    You think you’re smart because you are smart. I never meant to suggest otherwise. I’m sorry if you read that in my writing.

    You talk back. I accept that. I don’t ask anyone to play herself down to boost my ego. I only ask that you do not judge me according to all the awful men you’ve ever met simply because I have similar genitalia. Just as you are not ignorant simply on account of your gender, I am not a lumbering oaf with a monosyllabic vocabulary and a testosterone-slathered brain. I believe that we can have civil conversation whether or not I am what you would call a “feminist.”

    May you be happy.

  90. lefemmeferal February 23, 2010 at 1:22 AM #

    “I don’t think Justin is saying he would not stand up for women on account he would be called a faggot. I think he is saying that his influence is irrelevant and he is not in an any better position to police mens behavior than woman are. Men might take more social ques from men, but not if they think those men are “faggots”.”

    Excuse me, so you speak for Justin? And Justin hasn’t expressed a problem with this?

    This is interesting – you guys refuse to “police your own” yet you speak for one another on behalf of one another? And allow each other to do just that?

    In-freakin’-credible. Really, you just made my ironic day.

    You’re willing to babysit each other as it suits you – but not if it helps women? See, you really aren’t all that different from the males ND described in her post. You’re still sexists, men watching out for men, feeling entitled to take up space on ND’s blog comments for no other reason than to preserve your male privilege.

  91. kristyn February 23, 2010 at 1:59 AM #

    Geoffrey, that is all very fair, and I thank you for clarifying. The Internet is, in fact, a hard place to have these conversations for the reasons you listed.

    You certainly didn’t incite my wrath, just frustration. Maybe it’s the internet that makes me seem ”wrathful.” But it’s just a lifetime of being treated like an idiot. Like a fool. Like less of a human being. Not just by my family, but by my colleagues, my ”friends”, a number of my lovers, and random guys on the street. It’s not a bad thing to say ”I’m not taking it any more.”

    By the way, it’s also not ”reverse sexism” to assume that most guys Don’t GET It, because most of them just don’t. So while it may be a bad habit, I do honestly assume that most men in any given conversation are going to treat me like a stupid child, until they prove otherwise. Which many of them do, and then conversation can be achieved without me wishing I could run away or wash myself until I bleed. This is something I share because it’s a common experience that many women can identify with.

    That being said, though, you are still making presumptions, possibly based upon the internet’s limitations. Is a woman’s expression of anger, sadness, and frustration automatically the mark of a disturbed, wrathful, unhappy person?
    You seem to think so, while again -I- could be wrong. Women often get stereotyped as, well — you must know how we get stereotyped. Where the word ”hysteria” comes from and why. And that feminists, those who express feminism and long to be seen as full human beings, are often castigated as being ”angry” ”disturbed” ”bitches.”

    Wishing me happiness is another strange clue that something’s ”up” here. It’s an odd thing to say, like ”Don’t be crazy”.
    I’m actually quite happy, thank you. Just not when men are treating me like a child, assuming I am stupid, and/or abusing me.
    I could take it a step further and add that I won’t be truly -content- until men stop treating all women like shit and abusing them, but you may interpret that as a sign that I’m ”unhappy.”

    So I’m just saying, it’s good you support us, even though we’d all go marching on even without you. Many if not most commenters here largely discount Andrew, for example. But I do suggest you rethink all the navel-gazing, woe-is-me-because-of-you-angry-feminist statements like ”I can’t even talk to you because of my penis!” and the presumptive statements such as ”I bet you are really really unhappy, huh.”
    We have to police our own language endlessly in order to keep from saying the wrong thing. I did so upthread, in fact. So afford us the same courtesy, if you will.
    And please don’t argue how this is reverse sexism, that you have to work soo much harder because you are a man and we are judging you re; your genitalia. If you do, hopefully someone else might set you straight, because that is a conversation which really DOES make me unhappy.

  92. Grafton February 23, 2010 at 6:37 AM #

    Justin: 1. “Men take up space.”
    The point of departure is that men take up space. Say what!? In my personal experience and relationships, it is as much women as men that have physical space issues.

    Er, you describe yourself as a jock, and well. Obviously. I am a nine-stone weakling. I’m also a little autistic and I not only have a bigger area of ‘personal space,’ I hate to be touched. I won’t move such that another person is in my space if I can help it, and will give space to avoid being too close, or god forbid, touch.

    The result of this is that I don’t take up much space, and I probably look like, as Lillie said, ‘a submissive dog’ or at the least, just out of it. And the result of that is that other men walk all fucking over me. They will go out of their way to make me move, spread out, bump into me. All that stuff that the women have described.

    Women do not do this. When women infringe on my space it is because they are talking to other women and don’t notice me, or because one of those space-taking guys has forced her to shift over. One guy walking down the sidewalk may take up enough of it to make me step off the curb and he’ll look right at me while he does it. It’d take two or three women who are distracted and not really noticing me to do the same.

    Yeah, yeah, my wife will snuggle up to me in the night and I’ll scoot away ’cause I don’t want to be snuggled and eventually fall off the edge of the bed and get up and take her side. But this isn’t relevant, it’s comparing apples to a kick in the teeth.

  93. veganprimate February 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM #

    On sidewalks, in store aisles – they’ll just look right through you and walk straight into you. For a long time, I’ve been making a point of not budging, but it’s still a conscious effort not to move to the side when someone’s barreling toward me as if I’m invisible. It’s like playing chicken.

    Yep. I call it Sidewalk Chicken. And I’m getting pretty good at it.

    http://veganprimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/i-am-the-queen-of-sidewalk-chicken/

    And a few days ago, some dude was talking on his cell, looking down at the ground, coming straight at me. I know for a fact he saw me. How do I know? B/c when he got really close, I stopped. He immediately looked up and then moved aside. So, he must’ve seen me the entire time. He knew I was female, even though he wasn’t looking directly at me, and he didn’t care about coming straight for me, b/c he assumed I would get out of the way of his royal highness. But as soon as I stopped, it triggered something in his pea brain.

    That’s the trick I mention in the Sidewalk Chicken post for women to do if they’re too afraid to just keep walking and hold their position. It’s a bit of a cheat, but it works really well. If there are scary-looking guys coming down the street, I stop. They walk around me; I win. I’m afraid to bump them b/c they might call me a name or become aggressive. I’ve never had anyone get nasty or aggressive if I just stand still. It’s my go-to move if I’m not feeling real confident.

    I’m getting better at holding my own on public transportation. I’d love to say something to these idiots, but I’m afraid. I had a really sweet victory a few months back. I was on the bus when a blind man got on. He sits next to me and then proceeds to have some sort of non-verbal tourette’s fit. He keeps jerking and hitting into me. Now, I know that there’s no way he doesn’t realize he’s bumping into me. If he’s blind, his other senses should be heightened; plus, he was really banging into me hard. He had to have felt it. I was really wanting to tell this dude off, but I was feeling nervous. He was doing it like every 15 seconds. Well, he knocked into me one too many times, and I just lost it. I pulled my arm back and then elbowed him HARD. He said, “Oh, excuse me.”

    I put my nose back down into my book and smiled.

  94. kristyn February 23, 2010 at 6:49 PM #

    veganprimate, yeah! I love playing Sidewalk Chicken! And I always play to win. ;) But now I have a name for the game.
    Also, nice blog too. mAndrea is over there as well, which is a good sign.

    Taking up sidewalks is also related, to a smaller degree, to class privilege; when I am walking in, say, Midtown or Brooklyn Heights, the classier/richer neighborhoods, groups of women often hog the sidewalk as well. They will see me, then actually actively discount me because I’m visibly working-class. It is an observable process, one which does not happen in Bed-Stuy or Bushwick, ”the Hood.”
    With class-privileged women, I typically win Sidewalk Chicken by continuing to walk where I am walking, thereby bumping into them, whereupon — and this is the key difference between privileged or oblivious women and any given men — they always act really surprised and sometimes ashamed. ”Oh … right, that girl who looks like a fashionable bag lady probably has feelings too, and doesn’t want to break her ankle or get impaled on that ornamental fence! Oops.”

    Men, of course, will hog the sidewalk regardless of their social class versus mine. They take for granted that they own me, that they are ”above” me and are entitled to my space. Then they get real surprised when I stop and stare at them until they change tack.

    ”Even though you’re poor as dirt, you walk just like a princess,” some guy, who was not coincidentally from a lower rung of society as well, once told me — and quite appreciatively. Probably the only time a stranger has ever said something that didn’t make me feel like meat.

  95. Geoffrey Greer February 25, 2010 at 1:14 AM #

    Kristyn,

    Again, you are reading too much into my words. I wished you happiness because I am a Buddhist, and saying “May You Be Happy” is a common courtesy in the practice, as well as a common meditation. It is called Metta. As I wrote above, I have no hidden agenda. So by all means, may you be happy.

    Geoff

  96. kendallmck February 25, 2010 at 4:31 PM #

    The number of times I’ve squeezed my 110 lb ass into a subway seat, sitting demurely with my legs crossed and my shoulders turned as to take up AS LITTLE SPACE AS POSSIBLE while some giant oaf next to me spreads his legs out over three seats like he’s getting a Pap smear is enough to prove this shit is real. I’m mad at myself every time I shrink myself down to make it more comfortable for the entitled space-sucker next to me, but the alternative is basically sitting in his armpit.

    Which brings me to my next complaint. Whenever I’m on a subway and I have a guy next to me who also has a guy on the other side of him, he – consciously or unconsciously – sits WAY more on my side of the seat than the side next to the other dude, sometimes even spilling into my chair. My unsubstantiated but probably true theory is that they’re more comfortable being physically closer to a lady than dude (which might make you a fag ohno!), so they think it’s perfectly acceptable to encroach on a woman’s space just so their masculinity isn’t threatened by the super-homoerotic act of touching a stranger’s arm in a crowded train.

    (They seem to not notice or care how uncomfortable it can be for a woman to have a guy rubbing up on her, but whatever).

  97. Pixie February 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM #

    I’m so proud of how I dealt with 2 arseholes “taking up space” today, I have to tell you all.

    I was on the bus with my grandma. There were 2 little posturing fools behind us, both about 18 years old talking loudly about how cool they were taking drugs, having sex with drunk chicks and generally getting drunk off their faces, blah, blah, blah.

    Then, their conversation turned to “politics”, which of course they were absolute experts on. Imagine the following conversation peppered with curses (generally used as adjectives),and frequent use of the word “cunt” and “pussy”. I don’t have the time or patience to add them all.

    * Shitface 1: “I don’t care what anyone says, women make shitty leaders. They have no power and don’t know how to do anything right.”
    * Shitface 2: “What about our country (Ireland), we have a woman president?”
    * Shitface 1: “Nah, that doesn’t count. In the scale of things we are a tiny country with no power. She may as well be in the kitchen where she belongs because she does shit-all.” (Not true, our president has done A LOT. Google her and see).
    * Shitface 2: “I suppose you are right. But what about Germany, don’t they have a woman president or some shit?” (I presume he was talking about Angela Merkel, German chancellor).
    * Shitface 1: “She’s fucking pathetic. Germans have no power, they are a bunch of pussies since world war 2.” (Because nazis, as long as they are male, are obviously inherently better leaders than us weak women).
    * Shitface 2: “Haha. Ye. Women are just good for fucking, cleaning and cooking. Who wants to hear what shit they have to say? But if they are ugly I suppose they have to pretend to be smart and take whatever fake “power job” a man doesn’t want. But we know who secretly calls the shots…”

    I sat there shocked, listening to these 2 little bastards spouting this crap. I looked over to my gran, who was close to tears, (this is a woman who grew up and lived through one of the most oppressive times for women in the history of the Irish state). I wasn’t entirely sure what to do. No one else seemed shocked and these shitfaces were shouting so loud you couldn’t but hear them. While I was considering what to do I shot them a filthy look.

    * Shitface 1 to Shitface 2: “What is that FUCKING BITCH’S problem? I’ll say what I like where I like. Ugly bitch probobaly isn’t getting any.”
    * Shitface 2: “Haha. Ye. She’s just pissed because she has no power and isn’t getting any cock.”

    I stood up and walked over to them. They immediately shrunk back, because they were not expecting it. I said: “I wonder if your mother ever considered aborting you? Now that REALLY is power.” They both went pale and got off the bus ASAP. I was shaking when I sat down, but my gran’s smile said it all.

  98. Pixie February 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM #

    Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to get it all in!!

  99. winter_lights February 25, 2010 at 7:21 PM #

    “Airport Asshole took up a LOT of space, using seats as luggage racks, sprawling out over several chairs, sticking his legs out into the aisle so that anyone walking past would be forced to squeeze by him and all of his personal items.”

    This behavior has never made sense to me. Seems like it would result in a lot of people bumping into you, knocking over your bags, stepping on your lunch, and in general your life becoming worse.

    If not being an asshole isn’t enough to discourage this behavior, what about self-interest? Yet it persists. Bizarre.

  100. FemmeForever February 25, 2010 at 10:31 PM #

    while some giant oaf next to me spreads his legs out over three seats like he’s getting a Pap smear

    Thank you for that. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

  101. Bean February 25, 2010 at 10:50 PM #

    Yes. For once Deuce, yes, I completely agree with you and think this is a great post. (Well, I have quibbles, but I’ve voiced them already.)

    The taking-up-physical-space thing has been a huge peeve of mine for years. I first really noticed it when I was 13 or so. Our school bus routes were designed so that no one bus carried more than a maximum number of students…but in reality, several of the boys ended up taking up a seat to themselves at the back. So the GIRLS ended up standing in the aisles of the bus, or sitting three to a seat on each other’s laps. Yeah, because that’s safe.

    Since coming out as trans, there’s been some question in my mind as to how much space to take up in any given situation. I naturally tend to sprawl and sit with my legs apart…but unlike when I was living as a female, it reads differently. At best, it’s taken more seriously as a claim on the space.

    And even if I make no clear claim on the space around me, I’ve noticed that women (of all racial backgrounds) and men of color are sometimes reluctant to try to claim the space for themselves. Because if I read as a white male, people are far less willing to risk challenging me for space. When appropriate, I responding by offering the space (like a seat beside me), to demonstrate I haven’t claimed it. People are often still uneasy about taking it. (There is still something unfortunately paternalistic and/or racist about that, since it could still be interpreted as me deciding who is entitled to the space, but I fail at this point to see ways around that.)

    Like mandor upthread, I’ve noticed other guys jamming their legs up against mine so that they can sit with their legs spread wide apart on the bus. If I even defend my space, they press my leg HARDER, trying to force me to concede the space. Unlike with mandor though, they don’t give up with me. I’m not sure if that’s because I read as a butch female/effeminate male, or possibly where I live, but the competition never ends unless I give up. Otherwise, we will spend the entire bus ride locked in a silent, unacknowledged leg wrestling match.

    That doesn’t happen too often, since I (assuming they read me as male) tend to refuse to engage in pissing matches and concede only just enough space to avoid one.

    Other things: revolving doors. Cisgender guys tend to throw their entire weight on the door (sometimes without even looking where they’re going), forcing the door to spin faster and whoever else is inside to double-time it, or get smacked in the heels from behind by the door.

    (Jesus, that has bugged me my entire fucking life. I go out of my way to avoid revolving doors for that sole reason.)

    And bathrooms.

    Cisgender men largely come in two types: first, the type who quietly come in, avoid eye contact or any other social interaction, do their business and leave.

    And the second type: Men who come in very loudly; slam stall doors open (I’ve even seen – more than once! – guys go along a row of stalls violently KICKING each door to see if it’s locked rather than duck their heads to look for feet…actually, I don’t think men ever check for feet, since even the quieter guys will all try pushing the doors); slam stall doors when they leave; loudly inform the entire washroom of any interesting bodily functions they are dealing with (no, not kidding about the updates…); pee on the seat and not bother to flush (of course!); use 50 billion sheets of toilet paper and clog the toilet; take 50 billion sheets of toilet paper and throw it on the floor; ejaculate on the floor; ejaculate on the wall; pee on the floor and wall (I once walked in on a guy who was going from stall to stall peeing on the floor in each…); scribble racist and sexist graffiti on the wall (more than the women’s, I can say); fart loudly at the urinals and then laugh uproariously; leave paper towel blocking the sink drain; use paper towel to open doors and then throw it on the floor…

    …Oh, yeah. And use the handicapped stall. For the sole reason that it’s “roomy,” as per their minutely update.

    (Which is as much able-bodied privilege as it is male privilege, i.e. LITERALLY taking up space meant for people who are disabled when it’s not necessary to do so.)

    And there aren’t even any women around, so this is entirely a show of dominance and a general lack of consideration for everyone around them. Fifteen years using the women’s, and I never saw behaviour a fraction that awful.

  102. fannie February 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM #

    Just One of the Guys is the greatest ’80s movie of all time.

    It’s funny because whenever I think of male entitlement, guys who take up too much space, and mansplaining, I too hear Buddy’s voice explaining that “Guys take up space” (and also, “All balls itch, it’s a fact” aka- the male entitlement to touch/fondle their genitals in public because, unlike vaginas, balls sometimes itch.)

  103. kendallmck February 25, 2010 at 11:13 PM #

    Whoa Fannie. The thing about balls itching and male entitlement to touch their junk in public without any social consequences is so true. I’ve never really analyzed it, but there have been millions of times where I’m dealing with a painfully itchy crotch or buttcrack, and I suffered silently because a woman scratching her between her legs in public just does NOT fly.

    Unfair.

  104. Bean February 25, 2010 at 11:16 PM #

    @ wiggles

    People barrel into me ALL the time. Men, women, practically any age – they ALL expect me to dive out of the way. Drives me nuts.

    My great-uncle finally gave me a tip for dealing with crowded places like malls: walk more slowly than everyone around you. They will virtually always yield.

    I can’t say how well this would work on a sidewalk, though. And unfortunately, it doesn’t help when you’re in a rush. Or just impatient, like me.

    @ Andrew

    Privilege (male, white, able-bodied, whatever) basically comes in two types:

    -The kind of thing that everyone should have/should be able to do – but which only the majority group has or can actually do in reality. (E.g. express anger without having it dismissed and/or blamed on your gender/race/sexuality/whatever.)

    -The kind of thing which NO ONE should have/should be able to do – but which the majority group has or is able to do anyway, at the expense of others. (E.g. taking up space that should be shared with others, as per this post.)

    It’s a bit more complicated than that (like, privileging your own emotions and perceptions such that it’s possible for you to dismiss someone else’s on the basis of their sex/race/etc. is ALSO a privilege no one should have), but that’s a really general idea for you.

    In the first case, yes, the less-privileged group needs to “level up” in a sense (what is this, an RPG?). In the second case, the more-privileged group needs to “level down,” because the privilege they have is unearned in the first place. And, again, comes at the expense of others.

    Women largely can’t “level up” UNLESS men are forced to “level down.” That’s how it works – you can’t HAVE privilege in the first place unless you’re already a level up.

    It doesn’t really have anything to do with everything masculine being associated with immorality, or whatever it was you were trying to say in that first comment there.

    Men shouldn’t “level down” because there’s something inherent to men which is bad, and they should therefore try to be more like women. Men should “level down” because men being a level up comes at a cost to women.

    And if it will keep you from posting any more to this thread, please feel free to email me for any more discussion of what male privilege is:

    beandelphiki (at) livejournal (dot) com

  105. Bill February 26, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    Another reminder of how much of a man I am not.

    Nobody listens to me, but they feel free to step all over me, borrow unrepaid money, and just generally treat me like dirt.

    Part of me wants to “Man Up” and start telling people where to get off, but that would be vulgar, and masculinity is the world’s greatest evil.

    At least I am getting old, fat, and have a small peen, so nobody is trying to sleep with me and give me their STDs. So I don’t have to suffer as much as women.

    BTW…does anyone else see the irony (and tragedy) that my female roommate insults me by calling me a woman? As if that were really an insult. I have no plans on becoming a “mutilated man”, but I would be honored to be able to call myself a woman.

  106. Alina February 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM #

    So sad to read some of the comments here and see how many get pushed around.I myself am more of a pusher I push if some1 takes up too much space, or like expect me to move away,dudes reaction is sometimes calling me names or think I was trying to hit up on em.Also if some1 pushes me and I can tell its cuz they didnt care about watching where they step, I always call them up on it many times it ends up in a fight.Men take too much anything…..lolz, everytime after I read some thread on here Im always in a mood with my bf even if he hasnt done anything,like the first time I red this post bout men taking up too much space I criticized him about it.

  107. Rachael February 26, 2010 at 2:48 PM #

    Oh, man…In response to fannie and kendallmck’s comments, I hear you. Labia itch SUCKS, and of course, you can’t relieve the itch in public. So you have to go to the bathroom every time.

    Really, I’m less bothered by the fact that I have to do that, than the fact that a lot of men don’t feel they do.

    Also, I don’t see what the big deal is about butt-scratching through one’s pants, since you’re not even touching your skin. Hell, except for the anus, most people’s butts are probably cleaner than their hands. I don’t see what’s so dirty about scratching one’s butt cheek, but it’s seen as SO MUCH WORSE when women do it. So there’s another thing I won’t do in front of strangers.

    I do pinch my nipples, though, when they itch because of dry skin. I am NOT going to suffer that in silence.

  108. concetta Falcone-Codding February 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM #

    Thank you for your great articles, I thank you for your hard work in helping both genders break away from the prisons we are living in.
    concetta

  109. kristyn February 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM #

    Alina, don’t be surprised that some people ”take” getting pushed around.
    Even if, let’s say, every individual woman who comments on this blog has, in fact, broken free of every aspect of harmful social conditioning that tells us to accept every encroachment and be ”a good girl” — which I know is not true, because despite my punk-rock past and defiant rage, I definitely haven’t and I’m a woman who comments on this blog — we don’t live in either a vacuum or a woman-friendly society. Other people are still conditioned to see a woman standing up for herself … in, let’s simplify, a bad light.

    Bystanders are often complicit in our oppression.
    And so there often isn’t a lot of choice but to ”take it.”
    In my situation with the ”stupid cunt” guy at the Whole Foods, for example. I would have loved to stand up for myself, but if he started screaming or hit or pushed me, no one would have stood up for me and I would have likely been ejected from the store for causing trouble. The situation was probably the same for michelle, who had counter space stolen from her.
    Not to mention that most law-enforcement groups do not take kindly to people ”causing” disturbances on public transportation. Let’s say I push back against a guy who is pushing me — ”gettting a Pap smear,” I like that — and he pushes me really hard, calls me a dyke or a cunt. I say something back, it escalates, perhaps he even hits me, but there is definitely some yelling. The cops show up, and everyone on the train says ”This crazy bitch started it,” and I go to jail.
    Because men’s bad behavior is never seen as the cause of the problem. Some jerk taking up our space, touching us unless it’s overt sexual assault, calling us names … never the problem. Us uppity little bitches talking back, now that’s the problem.

    So it’s good that you stand up for yourself! But it’s not good to judge other people for not doing the same.
    Let’s encourage each other to think up safe ways to stand up for ourselves instead. Let’s get some of this solidarity we desperately need.

  110. kristyn February 26, 2010 at 8:46 PM #

    Also, Rachael, fannie, kendallmck, a-women.

    Men have the privilege of touching themselves in public, to whatever degree that they wish. Not just masturbation, of course, although some of them do that too.
    I mean, they can put their hands on any part of their bodies they want, at any time, and don’t get leered at or shunned for it.

    It’s not even as egregious as ballsack-scratching, though that pisses me off too — if only because of the itchy-crotch thing that I sometimes encounter in public places such as subway platforms where there is no restroom to duck into, and really. really just wish I could discreetly take care of without getting stared at.
    Or the butt-scratch, which I too employ whenever I feel the need, and also get stared at for.

    It’s smaller things too. Adjusting or smoothing clothing. Hiking up pants and the like. Putting hands in one’s pockets or thumbs through one’s belt loop. Scratching an itch on other, more public parts of one’s body.

    If I may illustrate this with a story — Once, at work, I had an itchy collarbone, caused by the unforeseen problem of bra straps sliding down off of my shoulders under a slippery blouse. So, because I feel as though I own my own body, and also because it was better for public image than having my bra slide off and my breast come spilling out, I reached inside the collar of my blouse and discreetly fixed the problem.
    I had, and fixed, this same small problem several times over the course of my shift. But then I noticed that one patron kept looking at me in a specific way. Leering at me. He could not stop looking at me with that disgusting little look that men get when they are looking at women they have reduced to body parts.
    All because he could catch a glimpse of my collarbone from time to time and thus, I assume, imagine my breasts or something. All because I had the audacity to brush my own hand against a part of my own body, in public.

  111. Andrew February 27, 2010 at 12:35 AM #

    Bean,

    If masculinity is privileged behavior of the second type, it must be inherently immoral. I think you just explained why.

    Like I said before, I can’t think of any masculine behavior that wouldn’t reek of the privilege you find odious.

    The reason for leveling down might not have anything to do with embracing femininity. But since we are castigating the masculine, leveling down will have that effect, as the feminine or neutral is all that’s left.

  112. Jenn February 27, 2010 at 5:38 AM #

    Oh my God. Thank you so much to the kind ladies that shared the various stories about Sidewalk Chicken. I totally tried that shit out last week on campus and it works. Hallelujah! I’m so incredibly sick and tired of having to walk in the gravel and get pointy rocks all up in my sandals or flats. It also has the added bonus of having men look at me like I’m Super Bitch, which is oh-so-very fun. I figure that if I annoy men with the space I take up, that means I’m encroaching on the space they wrongfully seized for themselves.

  113. R.Sole February 27, 2010 at 8:11 AM #

    What if some of the objectionable male traits are there because they were useful for species survival and thus have a genetic/evolutionary basis rather then being the product of considered choice by the men displaying them? Aggressiveness is not only useful but essential for survival in many situations such as wars, law enforcement, civil emergencies etc.

    If it were possible to get rid of traits like this, it might be fatal for the survival of whatever social group implemented it.

    There’s also the problem that if they are traits bred through millions of years of evolution, then it will be pretty much impossible to eradicate them, even if every 5 year old boy has to take gender studies courses for the next 16 years.

  114. isme February 27, 2010 at 1:13 PM #

    Yeah, if only men were sentient creatures capable of deciding what they did by themselves, instead of relying totally on instincts.

    You can’t honestly say that requiring men not to act like fucktards is going to doom the species by emasculating it or whatever.

  115. wiggles February 27, 2010 at 4:51 PM #

    R. Sole – I fail to see what evolutionary benefits there might be to marginalizing half your own species.

    Andrew: “Like I said before, I can’t think of any masculine behavior that wouldn’t reek of the privilege you find odious.”

    Several examples have been given in this very thread, but never mind *fingers in ears* lalalalalalala

    • Gowan October 12, 2014 at 7:59 AM #

      Yeah, one would think that, as women are the ones who make the babies, it would benefit the species to give more of everything (space, food, respect) to women.
      Women who are stressed during pregnancy (and in a patriarchy, which woman isn’t?) are more likely to have babies who are prone to depression. Patriarchy is responsible for the sad state of psychological health in the world.
      That’s evolution, too, of course … it will, eventually, lead to the extinction of the human species.

  116. bluecat February 27, 2010 at 5:40 PM #

    Andrew, I can’t help noticing that you’ve mistakenly conflated gender-coded traits with male privilege – definitely not the same thing. “Leveling down” requires sacrificing unearned, societally detrimental privileges (i.e., any privilege that entails infringement on someone else’s rights, e.g., men earning more than women). Either you agree that men and women deserve equal rights and privileges or you don’t. It’s really that simple.

    Absolutely nowhere in 92’s post or anywhere in this thread has anyone intimated that femininity is the gold standard to strive for. There are positive and negative traits associated with both masculinity and femininity. What is positive about traditionally defined masculinity: assertiveness, courage, reason, risk-taking…and perhaps more, but that’s all I can think of at the moment. What is positive about traditionally defined femininity: compassion, morality, empathy, nurturing, sensitivity. The problem is that none of these traits are inherently masculine or feminine, but those traits associated with masculinity are ultimately prized and held up as the gold standard in our society, including the negative ones. Increasingly, the negative traits are becoming the gold standard, and if we continue on this trajectory life is only going to become more and more unpleasant for everyone. Arrogance, dominance, violence, avarice, ruthlessness, conquest, objectification. (Anyone who’d like to add to the list, feel free.)

    There are, indeed, equally oppressive traditionally feminine-coded traits: submissiveness, subservience, martyrdom, naivety. No one is advocating a society founded on these traits, either.

    Ideally, we would strive to embrace the most societally beneficial traits, masculine and feminine, without granting priority or special status to any of them, as all would be equally admirable: assertiveness, compassion, courage, morality, reason, empathy, (responsible) risk-taking, nurturing, sensitivity.

    It’s not about eradicating masculinity, per se, but about turning the current socially dominant paradigm on its head, which, unfortunately, extols the very worst traits associated with masculinity. Does that make sense?

  117. Andrew February 27, 2010 at 7:53 PM #

    Bluecat,

    That makes a lot of sense, actually.

    The problem I guess is that the traits you associated with masculinity: courage, risk taking, reason, etc., create imbalances among the groups that possess them. It is because someone is courageous, reasonable, or a risk taker, and other are not, that the person in possession of those traits comes to be in possession of a disproportionate share of resources. Otherwise, the incentive for these behaviors is removed.

    The feminine characteristics you mentioned, are equally culpable though because they justify the “collaborator’s” co-option into the system.

    Maybe I was wrong about the means, but I still think I am right about the end. If the goal of feminism is equality, the masculine traits should arguably still be abolished, as they create inequality. This is not necessarily true of the feminine traits.

    The question is what traits are left in a world in which disparity between individuals does not exist? Will everybody have to level up and have equal amounts of courage, risk, aggression, reason, etc.? Or will these traits be too dangerous, and thus removed because of their high potential to create disparity between the groups that possess them and the groups that do not?

    If we chose to level up, a burden is then placed on women to assume those traits if they do not presently have them. If we chose not to, the masculine traits become severely muted in an effort to secure equality. This would be a de facto leveling down.*

    * The leveling up and down framework is not a result of RPG’s, or an implicit ranking of the qualities tied to a level. It is a common phrase used when analyzing equal protection in the area of constitutional rights. Simply put, when two groups are disparate, equality is only achievable if the disfavored group “levels up” and assumes what they have been denied; or the favored group “levels down” and gives up any special privilege it previously had.

  118. bluecat February 27, 2010 at 9:04 PM #

    The problem I guess is that the traits you associated with masculinity: courage, risk taking, reason, etc., create imbalances among the groups that possess them. It is because someone is courageous, reasonable, or a risk taker, and other are not, that the person in possession of those traits comes to be in possession of a disproportionate share of resources. Otherwise, the incentive for these behaviors is removed.

    The feminine characteristics you mentioned, are equally culpable though because they justify the “collaborator’s” co-option into the system.

    I’m afraid you’ve misconstrued what I was getting at. You’ve equated “courage” with “dominance”, “risk-taking” with “conquest”, “reason” with “ruthlessness”. What we have here is a linguistic break-down. You can be a brave, assertive individual without being an arrogant, self-centered asshole, no?

    If we embrace positive masculine and feminine traits equally, reason will always be tempered by compassion, assertiveness by empathy, risk-taking by responsibility, ambition by morality. Instilling ALL societally beneficial traits in female and male children, sans priority or special status, means there will be no more craving for domination and conquest. It will evaporate like so much noxious gas. It’s impossible to be a kind, empathetic individual and exploit others for personal gain. Evil simply can’t happen if you always consider the ramifications of your behavior on others and society before acting.

    By the by, aggression and assertiveness are NOT the same thing. Assertiveness is fearless, dignified, mature self-expression. Aggression is self-expression by way of verbal or physical violence. Bullies are aggressive; confident, respectful people are assertive. Is it possible to survive in our society without embracing aggressiveness? Realistically, I would have to say that as a last resort, aggressiveness has its place. Sometimes, unfortunately, it’s the only language bullies respond to. Again, as a last resort.

  119. Andrew February 27, 2010 at 10:31 PM #

    Bluecat,

    Well-said. But I can’t agree that a risk-taker, even tempered by responsibility, does not expect a return on that risk that justifies the potential loss. This return always advantages someone against another, resulting in disparity.

    The accumulation of privilege, though responsible or in accordance with a certain moral code, is still an accumulation of privilege. This accumulation has a disparate impact on groups without such privilege.

    How can a system devoted to erasing disparity tolerate traits that necessitate disparity?

    After your last post, I will concede that the differences between men and women could be reduced to such an extent that men and women could, theoretically, act exactly the same without being completely feminine. However, those traits which were previously masculine would still work to create disparities, and inequalities, and thus, discrimination. This is because society prizes masculine behavior for its competitive potential. This is a potential you won’t find in the traditional feminine traits.

    If removing competition from the world is valuable, I think removing masculine traits from the range of acceptable behavior becomes valuable as well. If you would argue that competition in the world is not inherently problematic, then I would urge you to think about how one can reconcile a competitive instinct with a world where people are not treated differently.

  120. Valerie M February 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM #

    ‘Equailty’ is not the goal of feminism. The goal of feminism is the liberation of women from male domination. So, equality laws are (in theory) just one way to provide a means to that end.

  121. Miss Smarty February 28, 2010 at 3:22 AM #

    Andrew,

    Okay I’m kinda drunk, so this analogy might not be so great:

    Imagine the patriarchy as an insane asylum, where you and I involuntarily reside. In order to make it difficult to escape, everyone is issued straight-jackets to wear. While your straight-jacket is blue (masculinity) and mine is pink (femininity), they are both still straight-jackets. The answer to escaping the insane asylum (patriarchy) is not for you to remove your blue straight-jacket and don a pink one (or visa versa). Neither the pink or blue straight-jacket is better than the other. They both restrict our movements and ability to truly be free.

    Now I understand we may have become accustomed to the straight-jackets. After all, it’s all we’ve known our whole lives. After awhile, it might be hard to imagine what it could be like without a straight-jacket. A straight-jacket of the mind, if you will. It is the limits of our imagination to confine changing our predicament to only getting rid of the blue straight-jackets and all of us wearing the pink ones. No matter the color, the straight-jacket keeps us from escaping.

  122. veganprimate February 28, 2010 at 5:31 AM #

    The problem I guess is that the traits you associated with masculinity: courage, risk taking, reason, etc., create imbalances among the groups that possess them. It is because someone is courageous, reasonable, or a risk taker, and other are not, that the person in possession of those traits comes to be in possession of a disproportionate share of resources. Otherwise, the incentive for these behaviors is removed.

    The question is what traits are left in a world in which disparity between individuals does not exist?

    Andrew, this right here is your problem. Yours and most men’s. Feminism is about the oppression of one class of people by another class of people. The classes being the two sexes.

    Men argue individuals, which makes no flippin’ sense in the face of class oppression.

    Of course, a risk-taking person will get a bigger share of resources than a non-risk taker. But we’re talking about ALL men having a bigger share of resources over ALL women. Because men have oppressed women, that means that even weak, ugly, non-risk taking, lazy men will have power over women b/c men look out for their own, and they fuck women over.

    Risk-taking women don’t get resources b/c they are called irresponsible and denied things by the men in charge. Courageous women don’t get resources b/c they are called bitches or worse. Women are punished more severely for crimes that men get a mere slap on the hand for.

    When men speak of individuals, they are assuming an equality that doesn’t exist, and they are assuming that men have all the resources b/c they are faster, smarter, braver, etc. No, men have all the resources b/c they have oppressed women.

  123. Hashed Browns February 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM #

    Just want to say before any of my posts here or elsewhere are read: due to my youth I am likely less experienced and less educated than many here. Due to this I will do my best not to overstep my bounds of reasonable discourse and speak about things I likely don’t know jack shit about.

    So I will start with a few questions, so that I can get a few things straight. ( I am reading a lot of your posts and such, and googling even more, but this is my first encounter with this sort of feminism. I’m not quite sure I know quite how to address it. So these questions are more to get my balance in this conversation than anything else. Please be understanding if I misunderstand some things.)

    Now that my disclaimer is out of the way, time to fire up the old ignorance cannon and ask some questions that I will likely regret asking later.

    Also note: While I may be unable to reply in bulk to all that may answer me, my questions are directed to all feminists who are here and claim they hate men, or agree with the original arguments made for the hatred of men stated in the OP.

    1: Do you hate men in virtue -maybe essence is a better word?- of themselves or in their effigy? What I mean to ask is, do you hate a man, regardless of social conditioning. Does the physical condition of a man cause you hatred for him? Or is your hatred for men purely based on the social actions of men? What they do, say, think, ect.

    2: Can you give me your definition of feminism? I am not entirely sure the one I have is matching up. When I think of feminism I think of Woodrow (sp?) Wilson being president and the picketing for the right to vote. I am not to familiar with the current form of feminism you seem to belong to.

    3: Much less important, and fairly unlikely, but are any of you religious?

    4: Do you think that men hate women? If so, do you think that men as a whole actively and consciously hate women on individual level ? ( To simplify, do you think that most men knowingly hate women, and though their hatred is individual, they oppress women as a group?) Or do you think that most men are oblivious to the oppression you claim they -I use claim because it is impossible to tie everything you state into a provable offense of discrimination. I simply can’t say most men are accountable because that is a logically impossible generalization- cause?

    5: Have you always hated men?

    Please remember I ask these questions and likely more will come, simply because I need to understand some things before making an argument or discussion point for or against your statements.

    • Nine Deuce March 1, 2010 at 4:51 AM #

      HB:

      1 – The answer is in the post. I hate masculinity, not people with penises.
      2 – There are 200+ posts here with my definition of feminism all over them.
      3 – No.
      4 – Yes. Most hate (and by hate I mean associate negative traits with) women unconsciously, but almost all do (actually, even most women do).
      5 – No, and I don’t even really hate them all now, I just dislike many of them on account of their entitled behavior. See the posts.

  124. The Horse I Rode In On February 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM #

    I’m so glad you are not afraid to say “I Hate Men.” It’s like a breath of fresh air.

  125. kristyn February 28, 2010 at 9:42 PM #

    Miss Smarty, that is a brilliant analogy that you’ve made. Drunk or no, you have produced an eloquent and concise summary of the human condition under patriarchy.

    However, don’t feel bad if Andrew doesn’t get it.

  126. stonefawx February 28, 2010 at 11:51 PM #

    yeah, ditto that. one of the most annoying things about patriarchy is the assumption that women should ‘rise above’ awful male behavior.

    I’m already above, regardless. hating men for what they do has nothing to do with my inherent goodness as a person. it has only ever been male created religion that says loving your enemy will get you somewhere.

  127. isme March 1, 2010 at 11:24 AM #

    Hashed Browns, as to number 4 (and I admit I’m in the minority, most people here disagree with me, often very forcefully) I’d say no (in most cases).

    By analogy, schoolyard bullies don’t harass people because they hate them (IMHO, I’m no child psychiatrist), they harass them because they are there, and weaker than them. Fortunately, they are usually unable to cause serious harm, but if there were able to, I’d quite imagine school bullies raping or murdering people for the hell of it to be quite common, without them particularly hating any of them.

  128. Alina March 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM #

    @Kristyn

    A few years back I was in the subway with a friend of mine and there were 2 guys looking at us and making comments like they wouldnt pay more then 50 euros to sleep with us or something like that.Then I deffended us and somehow after me insulting them badly the 1 slapped me in the face and ppl in the subway told him off but didnt get phisically active.Then we followed the 2 boys till they ran off…..I guess you are right most times as a woman its very hard and you cannot count on help from strangers even though I am sure that the police would of been on our side.

  129. Andrew March 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM #

    Vegan Primate,

    For me, eliminating oppression can not be about anything other than the individual. This is partly because there is actually very little uniformity with these broad, generalized groups.

    Men may have a bigger share of resources than women, but not every individual man has more than any individual woman. If the privilege of the male is so uniform, you would expect to be able to draw the oppressive nature a bit narrower than every man and every woman.

    Even if you were right though, I still don’t see how you get beyond the individual as you must alleviate each individuals separate oppression before there can be any equality between the groups. For example, were Hilary Clinton to become president, nobody would say that oppression against women has stopped. Visa versa, if oppression against women ceased against every woman but one, there would still be oppression against women.

    This demonstrates that disparity between groups, even if that group is just one person, matters. It doesn’t matter what the groups are; if the disparity is based on an arbitrary group assignment, there is oppression. I, at least for myself, have to conclude that as long as competitive behaviors abound, whether in men or women, disparity, and thus, oppression will continue to be realized.

  130. bluecat March 1, 2010 at 8:55 PM #

    How can a system devoted to erasing disparity tolerate traits that necessitate disparity?

    Andrew, you seem to be having a tremendous amount of difficulty differentiating between strength of character and narcissism. I’m having a hard time understanding why the differentiation presents such a challenge.

    I’ll try presenting the concept from a slightly different angle: In abusive relationships, there exists something called a “power over” dynamic. One party continually attempts to exert power over the second party through coercion and/or manipulation. Patriarchy is an abusive relationship between men and women. It’s the same dynamic between all oppressors and oppressed groups. (I think Miss Smarty gave an excellent analogy as well.)

    “Power over” dynamics can only occur within a social framework if narcissistic traits are fostered in a particular group. If I feel like I have special status and am entitled to have something you have, I’m going to damn well take it from you.

    Courage, assertiveness, responsible risk-taking, et al, are part of the make-up of an emotionally healthy individual who contributes to society in positive ways. I suppose you could say that when combined with narcissism, these traits can manifest in negative ways. They are not socially malignant traits in and of themselves.

    Narcissism is the fuel, patriarchy is the fire. Women are the poor damn animal roasting on the spit.

  131. bluecat March 1, 2010 at 9:27 PM #

    @Hashed Browns:

    1: I actually treat every man I meet as a potential feminist ally until proven otherwise. I’m wary, but I like you until you give me reason to hate you is my M.O.

    2: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

    3: No.

    4: Some do, I don’t believe most do. Oppression doesn’t happen because one group of people “hate” another group of people. It happens because one group of people are collectively endowed with a superiority complex, sense of entitlement, and an underdeveloped ability to empathize with those not belonging to their special club.

    5: Masculinity is the problem, not men. I think most men have the potential to be exemplary human beings, but the way our society is constructed, the odds are against their fulfilling their potential.

  132. wiggles March 1, 2010 at 10:26 PM #

    No one’s saying that traditionally feminine-coded traits (compassion, gentleness, etc) are good and traditionally masculine-coded traits (courage, assertiveness, etc.) are bad. It’s just that when women exhibit traditionally masculine traits, they’re often punished for it (called bitches, put in their place, denied opportunities for not being “team players,” that kind of thing). And sometimes men who exhibit traditionally feminine traits are punished (by being feminized – interestingly enough – called fags or sissies). And sometimes men are venerated for exhibiting traditionally feminine traits, like when a dad displays nurturing by nursing a kid’s boo boo, he’sFather of the Year, when a mom who does the same thing is just doing her job (and is probably doing it wrong in some way to boot).
    Or the female Canadian hockey team the other day expressed pride in victory and had a little party and there was a big stink about how “inappropriate” that was, even though male hockey players do that kind of thing all the time with no media controversy.
    The point is we need to get rid of those binaries that dictate that only men can be assertive or courageous and only women can be gentle or compassionate.

    And anyway, not to speak for her, but I think the gist of this series is that being soaked in male privilege makes men obnoxious and inconsiderate, which is true.

  133. Andrew March 2, 2010 at 2:02 AM #

    Bluecat and Wiggles,

    I would agree that soaking in privilege could make even the best of us obnoxious and inconsiderate. I would also agree that privilege is behind most of what is obnoxious and inconsiderate. I also understand that 7 (or 8, or 9) times out of 10 men are the “fire” and the women are the “animal roasting in the pit.”

    The only point I am trying to make is that unless feminists would simply like to “flip sides”, there needs to be a new morality guiding the way all human beings treat one another. It seems to me that acting in ways which secure advantages over others would be antithetical to the morality described above. It also seems to be me that such behavior is either (1) inherently masculine or (2) behavior that men have cultivated in the masculine construct and expelled from the feminine.

    Therefore, I still can’t think of a way in which a moral model could include masculine behaviors, at least the ones that value competition (assuming some don’t).

    In short, Bluecat, I don’t believe that risk-taking and courage are gender neutral traits of character that are narcissistically elevated to create privilege and oppression. I believe that they are inherently exploitive traits that men have reserved for themselves by way (and as an extension of) their privilege. Because of this belief, it seems imperative to me that any moral system which eschews hierarchy, or at least disparate impacts based on arbitrary group identities, should remove competitive impulses from the range of acceptable behavior.

    • Jessica July 22, 2013 at 3:32 AM #

      I in the searcher and saw your name 45 fucking times!!! Why don’t you fucking understand that it doesn’t matter if you believe you are mysiginistic or not, or consciously act mysoginistic or not, you will still perpetuate it, because you are a MAN!!! Even if you do nothing and live in a cave in Siberia, you hurt womyn, understand? There is no such thing as “I am not guilty, I never hurted womyn”, by your mere existence, you put us down. NOW FUCK OFF!!!

      • Sugarpuss July 22, 2013 at 8:35 PM #

        HAHA! Awesome!

        • Gowan October 12, 2014 at 8:09 AM #

          He does take up way to much space on this blog. Admittedly, I don’t read his posts anymore, he never seems to say anything new or interesting.

  134. Rachael March 2, 2010 at 4:03 AM #

    Hashed Browns, you asked if “any of you are religious.” I don’t know if you meant “any of you rad fems,” “any of you readers/supporters of Nine Deuce,” or what.

    But I will answer that question: Yes, I am religious. It’s not something I really discuss here because it’s irrelevant. This is ND’s blog, not mine, and I tend to only talk about things in relation to her posts.

    I have, over the years, finally separated myself from the Catholic Church, after I realized that their stance on almost everything–abortion, gay rights, gender roles–is in direct contradiction to my beliefs. Just like with feminism, I’m trying to find out where exactly I am on the spectrum in regards to religion.

    I should also point out that I don’t, at this point, call myself a radical feminist. I can’t speak for ND, or for any radical feminist, because I am not one. There are some issues where I disagree with some schools of radical feminist thought, and I’m still not entirely sure what defines a “radical feminist.” I read ND’s blog because I agree with a lot of what she says, and that which I don’t agree with makes me think.

    Plus, she just says it so cleverly.

  135. kristyn March 2, 2010 at 4:29 AM #

    Also, Hash Brown, what are you doing? Are you contributing to the discourse? Trying to educate yourself? Trying to educate us?

    Because it’s great if you are trying to learn about feminism, but something tells me you aren’t. So as it stands, you are mostly just taking up space. Which, since you may not have read that either, is what the post is about.

    If you’ve come here to argue and to ”reform” us wayward womenfolk, here is some news — you aren’t ”teaching” us anything we didn’t already know.

  136. kristyn March 2, 2010 at 5:53 AM #

    Oh, and I just did that thing that I asked others to do — called him by the wrong name, or anyway spelled it wrong.
    I swear it was a typing-while-slightly-drunk mistake and not an on-purpose passive-aggressive assault. And that is the only thing I will apologize for.

  137. lizor March 2, 2010 at 3:46 PM #

    “Narcissism is the fuel, patriarchy is the fire. Women are the poor damn animal roasting on the spit.”

    Nice.

  138. Michelle March 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM #

    I use to skateboard (misogyny central).. And men felt entitled to take up all of the space at any kind of park, it was completely annoying. They’d whip around really fast and if I got in their way? OMG. They would literally yell at you and be like, “you belong over there.” – all condescending and shit (I was so intimidated, I’d usually just practice pop-shuvits on the sideline – if men hadn’t taken up so much space, I prolly woulda gotten good – which I’m sure is what they were afraid of). It was especially bad at the FDR skatepark (philadelphia). It would seem practical to me for the people who are better at skateboarding to navigate around the people who suck. Am I right?
    Skateboarders consistently intimidate women out of participating in that sport.

    I use to go to a lot of hardcore shows (it’s music, not porn for those who don’t know) and men were the same way there and they’d get all paternalistic if you were standing near the pit… Like you better get out of here (specifically to the women) you might get hurt!!! For those who don’t know – I’ll explain. The dancing in a pit, at a hardcore show – involves a lot of arm swinging, karate kicking etc and people DO get hurt (I’ve gotten a concussion in a pit myself) – it is fun dancing though (even though I hate to admit it). It’s like the top of the totum for displayed masculinity. I was standing on the side of a fairly moderate pit once (only like two guys dancing) and this guy literally walked towards me and punched me square in the nose – it was totally intentional. I’ve been hit plenty of times on accident (which I handled graciously). He sort of “skanked” (a form of dancing) towards me, swung his arm back and literally aimed for my face… And if that wasn’t bad enough – some other guy decided to come along and flex his muscles and start a fight…(I was just going to wait for him to be skanking again and trip him, haha). Sometimes these pits will take up almost the entire venue and everyone keeps getting pushed back further and further (sometimes you can’t even avoid them).
    ANd speaking of space, at every show – there would be like 15 different t-shirts from every band for men. For women (who were typically smaller)? You’d be lucky to find ONE t-shirt and sometimes there wouldn’t be one but they would sell g-strings. YEP, thongs with the band logo on them… Again – men taking up space and even when a band has female merch – it’s still about men taking up space (buttfloss ain’t for womens comfort, that’s for sure).
    After I read this post last week, I decided to buy a couple of yoga balls to take up some space in my bf and my apartment. He leaves his workout equipment EVERYWHERE and I consistently stub my toes on it (I woulda bought something big and hard but I don’t want more shit to stub my toes on, haha)… So now I have my balls taking up some space! haha (the irony).

  139. kristyn March 3, 2010 at 12:02 AM #

    Michelle, your balls are delicious irony.

    Punk-rock is a lot like that too. Even though it’s supposed to be all egalitarian and shit, it blows. And activism — ”oh, little lady, are you sure you should be at this action? you may get hurt! because really what this is, is a dick-show where manarchists try to outdo each other in outrageous actions until someone gets fucked up.” It has nothing to do with subverting the system in power, and everything to do with little mens reasserting the size of their own dicks. Power PLAY.

    Damn, this thread is like therapy for me. Hopefully for other women as well.

  140. Rachael March 3, 2010 at 5:43 AM #

    Come to think of it, there’s a sort of patriarchy-ordained “fear of taking up space” that even affects my behavior on feminist blogs.

    I am an apologizer. I actually used to be worse in high school, but it’s still pretty bad now. I’m often afraid to make my presence known if I’m commenting on a well-known blog or website. With this blog, for example, and some other rad fem blogs, I have to fight with the side of me that’s desperately seeking approval or reassurance that yes, my input is valued. I also feel the need to keep reassuring other people that I admire them or value their input.

    I can get terribly long-winded when on the subject of something I’m passionate about, so I often stop with “Oh my God, did I say something offensive? Am I just sounding like an idiot?” Another example is my previous comment–I was afraid I might be derailing, or that I shouldn’t bring up religion here, so I threw in a generic “ND is awesome!” comment at the end. I meant everything I said about ND, but at the same time, I’m aware that complimenting someone too much can lead to sounding insincere.

    It’s worse in real life, when I’m talking to men. I’ve been told time and again that men don’t like women who talk too much, or are too opinionated, or that are “angry,” or “nagging,” or “controlling,” or “clingy”…Well, I’ve come to realize that those sorts of things have had a bigger impact on me than I first thought. I’m afraid to speak my mind, which can be another way of “taking up space.” I’ve given my opinion on things in a very calm, polite, and respectful way, and told in no uncertain terms that I’m a fucking idiot. I’ve been called naive, obtuse, uptight…

    I’m afraid it’s made me afraid to speak my mind about feminism on non-feminist sites. The crazy thing is it’s always the assholes who make me feel worthless who then turn around and say that I shouldn’t “let others get to me.”

    I’m trying, dammit. I’m trying. And discussions like this, about ways that we can overcome insecurities like this, really give me hope.

    • Nine Deuce March 3, 2010 at 8:22 AM #

      Rachael – Your input is most def valued here.

    • Gowan October 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM #

      “I can get terribly long-winded when on the subject of something I’m passionate about, so I often stop with “Oh my God, did I say something offensive? Am I just sounding like an idiot?””

      It is a pity that men aren’t more worried about sounding like idiots. Especially in the comments on feminist blogs.

      Women worry too much and men too little, that’s the problem here.

  141. sneeky bunny March 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM #

    Rachel your post really spoke to me. I too struggle with many of the same feelings you’ve described. I’ve been lurking on the inter net for literally 15 years and only recently found myself able to begin to engage, for fear of conflict, or looking stupid. And I agree, 92 is awesome. ;)

  142. Grafton March 3, 2010 at 9:24 AM #

    Rachel: Come to think of it, there’s a sort of patriarchy-ordained “fear of taking up space”

    Yeah. It appears that people (like women) who are supposed to remain marginalized and ‘stay in their place’ are told that they are being really outrageously forward when they act in ways that are normal for others. This is why women ‘talk too much’ when they talk less than men, and why black people are ‘loud.’ If you unhunch and take up a reasonable amount of space, some asshole is bound to say you take up too much, and some other asshole will agree with him. Sorry. I have a good supply of fuck-off if you need a little extra some days, though.

  143. concetta Falcone-Codding March 3, 2010 at 11:34 AM #

    this site is one of the few sites which speak the truth, as women we need to open our eyes and chance things for our children.

  144. concetta Falcone-Codding March 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM #

    Also- thank god we can have a site like this, for us women today!

  145. wiggles March 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM #

    I was thinking more about my last comment re traditionally feminine-coded personality traits and actually, beyond the traits that are linked to childcare, I’m hard-pressed to think of any positive ones. If I think more seriously about how “woman” is generally viewed in our (and practically every), what comes more to mind are traits like manipulative, duplicitous, shrill, overly emotional, demanding, flighty, irresponsible, materialistic (diamonds! shoes!), perpetually childlike, vain…
    How we’re supposed to be all those things plus compassionate and nurturing at the same time, I’ll never figure. Same with the contradictory ideas that men are inherently rational and controlled yet can’t be expected to refrain from assaulting drunk women in mini skirts.

    • Nine Deuce March 3, 2010 at 7:51 PM #

      And wiggles wins comment of the day.

  146. wiggles March 3, 2010 at 8:07 PM #

    Yay! Even with the typo. There’s supposed to be a “society” or “culture” in there.
    I was just mulling that ‘feminine traits good/masculine traits bad’ argument and I was like, hold up a sec.

  147. GXB March 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM #

    Rachael, I think it was you who linked somewhere on this blog to a post you’d made on another site where you talked about radical feminism and then a chorus of non-listeners attacked you. For what it’s worth (though I am a newbie to feminism), I thought you sounded great on that website, defended your points well, and I would bet that there were listeners who heard you. Maybe someday we’ll live in a world where you only have to say something once for people to take it in. And chocolate-chip cookies will grow on trees all year round. (wishful joking)

  148. Immir March 4, 2010 at 7:24 AM #

    “..there are the “intellectual” types who come to this and other feminist blogs to explain things to us womenfolk, operating on the presumption that, even though we’ve been thinking, reading, and writing about these subjects for longer than they’ve been ruminating on the majesty of “alternative” internet porn and how “rad” Nietzsche was, we could never possibly have conceived of what they’re bringing to the table and thus ought to take their uninformed and painfully banal opinions-disguised-as-fact as gospel.”

    LOVE IT

  149. Rachael March 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM #

    Thanks, ND. I appreciate it.

    GXB – Yeah, that was me. But some good came from it: I finally realized what an asshole a certain friend of mine was, and broke it off with him. Although his words still haunt me today, I don’t need people like him in my life. I’m glad I ditched him.

  150. concetta Falcone-Codding March 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM #

    I think it is wonderful that this post is here, because I think we are all frustrated with our position in the world versus men. More and more women are becoming enlightened to the fact we are not equal…period. We can’t compare this to women in Africa or anywhere else in the world, we are Equal…period. We can’t say, “Oh well, at least we are not in Africa.” No! that is wrong. We are not equal anymore than the women are in Africa. Discrimination is discrimation. Period.
    concetta

  151. Alina March 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM #

    quote;Hashed Browns
    have u always hated men?

    That is a kind of a stupid question and no I for one didnt always hate men.

    I think most men are aware of the opression and some others do just what their mates do they copy their behaviour.Another problem is that they have been raised in a certain way that doesnt fit nowadays way of life anymore and that kinda clashes.Then others are willfully sexiest at any given occassion to mainatain the patriarchy,to feel more *masculine* mask the fact that they rub one to gay porn….really theres many reasons for it.

    I am not religious and I find the bible to be extremely sexiest but Im sure Im not telling anything new.I hate how Eve was made out to be fault for being kicked out of the paradise and as punishment (well besides being kicked out and all the shiz) she got a monthly bleeding……then imagine somewhat religious girls when they get their period thinking ah its cuz Eva fucked up its the womens fault.In some parts of europe maybe in many I dunno, if u got your period then its unholly to go to church….freaking fucking hell…thats just outrageous.

    Every time a man says women I have enough of them, or that we talk so much or some *specific feminine behavior* I wanna say then stay single.Even though its them that starr at girls in clubs and get an errection and an imaginary free pass to rape if a girl dances with them.

    Reminds me of a joke;
    Men are from earth…………..Women are from earth…….deal with it!!!!

  152. syndicalist702 March 4, 2010 at 9:12 PM #

    “My suggestion is that we do away with these stupid ideas of masculinity and femininity and start judging characteristics based on morality, utility, etc. and THEN decide whether something is worth doing.”

    Right. The Fuck. On.

  153. syndicalist702 March 4, 2010 at 9:51 PM #

    Kristyn writes…
    “Why –shouldn’t– men ”police their own”? “
    We absolutely SHOULD police our own.

    On another subject, a good moral system always includes provisions for humility, not taking what isn’t ours, examining ourselves before we examine others, etc. This post helped elaborate the many ways in which these apply. 9-2, have you any papers published on this subject?

    • Nine Deuce March 5, 2010 at 12:11 AM #

      I ain’t published shit. I’m too lazy/busy with things I get no credit for.

  154. Imaginary March 5, 2010 at 11:16 PM #

    If a man is taking up that much space, I find that shooing him away and telling him to move works. No one’s ever refused to get the fuck out of my seat (unless I happen to know the dickwad). Just don’t sound angry, just treat them like they are nothings, undeserving of your attentions.

    If a man is interrupting another womyn, don’t even look at him. Just pretend he’s not there and keep talking to the womyn and waiting for her to continue. I’ve actually made men cry by ignoring them to death. It’s fucking funny.

    I know that anger is a very potent weapon against the patriarchy, but in everyday situations when you don’t have the desire to deal with them, I find that thinking of the men as worthless really helps. The man might touch you though (what’s new?) in which case you might have to find your own approach.

    Hope someone finds this useful. Just want to make things a little easier for the badass double XXs.

  155. wiggles March 6, 2010 at 12:25 AM #

    Just the other day I was in the grocery store, comparing vitamins. This guy walks up on me and gets like a half inch away from me – WAY the fuck inside my personal space zone – with the obvious expectation that I would move out of his way. I didn’t. And when he didn’t move either, I said, “what’s the magic word?” like he was 5 years old. I should have yelled for security and accused him of fraterism.

  156. Butterflywings March 6, 2010 at 8:46 PM #

    Yeah, men and taking up space. GAH. I too often get the bus, and it is all too common. Look, men. I am tired of being physically uncomfortable because you force me into three-quarters of a seat. They always shove their elbows across me so I can’t read my book, and/ or squish my legs. I am 5’0, even if I spread out I won’t take up more than the seat, widthways, and my legs are very short. Especially the boy (who was no more than 13, oh they socialise them early) who was sitting opposite me today and stretched his legs out in front of him, blocking mine, resulting in actual pain should note that. (I ‘accidentally’ stood on his foot with my heel on exiting the bus. I don’t even care, he needs to learn. Yes, I am angry today.)

    And yes, the bag on seat thing. If I have shopping, a gym bag, library books, my laptop etc., if the bus is not full, I am going to put it on the seat next to me, it is a. cleaner than the floor, b. less likely to get stolen, c. I am less likely to forget it (oh yes, I have done that…often). It is just common sense. Now being considerate, if I realise the bus is getting full I don’t mind moving it, and if I haven’t noticed, I don’t mind people politely asking me to move it. What I do mind is people who get aggressive and demand I move it, or worse, just pick it up and shove it at me (yes, people have done that and it is unbelievably rude). There is no need for rudeness. Rants on women putting bags on seats are common – now, actually, men sometimes do this too if they have a gym bag etc., but it is seen as a women thing. I think it is an overreaction to the actual inconvenience. 90% of the time women move the bag if they see someone needs the seat, before even being asked. I have yet to see a man, ever, exhibit such basic consideration for others. Because women are socially not allowed to take up space, of course, pjutting a bag on a seat is a violation and punished with disproportionate anger; whereas men taking up space is rarely even discussed.

  157. kristyn March 7, 2010 at 1:10 PM #

    ”90% of the time women move the bag if they see someone needs the seat, before even being asked. I have yet to see a man, ever, exhibit such basic consideration for others.”
    Yep.

    ”Because women are socially not allowed to take up space, of course, putting a bag on a seat is a violation and punished with disproportionate anger; whereas men taking up space is rarely even discussed.”
    Double yep, especially the disproportionate anger part.

    We have the right to be angry back.

  158. Nagatier March 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM #

    Michelle, you’re really spot on about hardcore shows. The whole sXe/hc scene is dude central and I can’t tell you how much the g-string merch pisses me off. I barely go to them anymore these days as I am generally the oldest person in attendance.
    Hardcore dancing’s sole purpose is to demonstrate how cool and “tough” you are. I once saw a guy fall flat on his face while two-stepping; now, that was funny. Anyway, the last show I went to, there was a teenage boy with a t-shirt that read, “You’re gonna get hurt” on the back. Lame. He seemed to be actually seeking out innocent bystanders(mostly girls) and kicking/throwing bows at them. When I go to a show, I want to be at the front/bottom of the stage so I can sing along. I have to constantly watch my back or someone will kick or punch me in the head; it really sucks all the fun out of it. I love it when a band points out a jock in the pit and calls them on the carpet in front of everyone for being a douche. Sweet justice for you and me.
    Recently, I’ve gone to some non-hardcore shows where there is no pit but I’m so paranoid that it’s still hard to relax and have fun. Though, even at these types of shows, men are still trying to push me out of the way to get in front of me at the bottom of the stage. I just dig my heels in and stand my ground, no matter how much they push.

  159. bluecat March 8, 2010 at 5:57 PM #

    In short, Bluecat, I don’t believe that risk-taking and courage are gender neutral traits of character that are narcissistically elevated to create privilege and oppression.

    So your argument is essentially that you don’t have an argument…? Pay attention, this is how logical arguments are made: If the traits I’ve mentioned are not unique to one sex (women can also be courageous and take risks), and can be utilized in positive, society-building ways (they can, and do, numerous times every single day, from the police officer who courageously confronts an armed assailant to the office worker who courageously files a sexual harassment claim against her supervisor, to the young man who risks rejection by asking out the young woman he has a crush on to the woman who risks everything to pursue her dream job), then they are gender neutral, value neutral traits. They exist in a moral vacuum until paired with either positive or negative influences.

    Reiterating your opinion ad nauseaum is not an argument. Defend or GTFO.

  160. Lillie March 9, 2010 at 12:04 PM #

    Rachael –

    “Come to think of it, there’s a sort of patriarchy-ordained “fear of taking up space” that even affects my behavior on feminist blogs.”

    While I’m sorry this affects you too, I’m also glad to know I’m alone with this.

    There seems to be an interesting internal conflict going on (at least in my own case, I hasten to add). I’ve got an irrational fear of talking too much about myself, to the point that my friends sometimes complain “why are you being so mysterious” when I feel like I’ve been constantly going on about me, me, me. But at the same time, I find myself qualifying everything with “I think…”, “I find that…”, or “Of course, I can only speak for myself, so…” In other words, I’m mortally afraid of being all “me, me, me”, but at the same time I rarely feel qualified to speak about anything unless it can be backed up by my own experience, so I end up being (or feeling like I’m being) all “me, me, me” anyway.

    I mean – fuck it. I’ve never met a man who was afraid of generalising from their own experience OR of “mansplaining” even my own field of expertise to me. I’ve never seen a man qualifying his statements with “I think…” and “in my opinion…” as much as most women feel compelled to do. So I think (heh) that online debates boil down to pretty much something like this:

    Men win arguments by not being particularly rational, by not addressing points in any logical order, and in fact by not addressing most points at all. Instead, they apply a blanket statement of Truth and Common Sense that will settle everything once and for all. The Truth and Common Sense can be the most feeble kind of truism – “all violence is bad” – but if you say something with enough authority and arrogance in your tone, you officially Win The Argument. And if someone disagrees with that conclusion, they’re just being silly and bitter because you Won The Argument, and what about teh menz anyway?

    Women lose arguments by trying to prove that we are – at all times – being rational, logical, fair, unemotional, and so well informed on the subject at hand that we have considered every possible side of the question. Our opinions are only taken seriously if we can demonstrate we have considered the possibility of a relationship between string theory and gender-based violence, and if we can point to at least two dozen empirical studies proving that most acts of violence against women are not, in fact, committed by time-travelling marauders from the sixteenth century. For the most part we’re so busy having to prove we’re capable of well-reasoned debate that we barely notice the rug is being pulled from under feet by someone with a blanket statement of Truth and Common Sense that has fuck-all to do with the subject of the debate. And, even when we do notice (after it has happened, oh, a few hundred times before), the discussion has usually been effectively derailed anyway.

    Ass-kissy though this may sound, this is why I respect Nine Deuce and other radfem bloggers so much. They rarely fall into this trap. They unapologetically say what they think is true, and they don’t put up with the “if you write three peer-reviewed essays on the matter of time-travelling marauders, I might deign to consider your point of view” crap.

    (To be honest, I’ve “won” more debates in my life by pretending to be a bit stupid, wriggling my way out of situation, and then just doing whatever I originally meant to do without telling anyone, only proving them wrong after the fact. And obviously this is a successful strategy only with a certain kind of debate… it’s not like I’m going to bring down the patriarchy by slipping out of the house at night in a superwoman cape and not telling anyone about my secret heroic deeds.

    It’s only when I get called a bitch that I know I’m really doing something right.)

  161. syndicalist702 March 9, 2010 at 11:18 PM #

    “It’s only when I get called a bitch that I know I’m really doing something right.”

    Hear, hear. It’s only when I’m called emasculated, stupid, or otherwise for agreeing with radfems and not acting like a hypermasculine idiot that I know I’m on the right track. So I’m abandoning the habit of imposing myself on others, sue me. :-)

  162. bluecat March 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM #

    It’s only when I get called a bitch that I know I’m really doing something right.

    I totes want that on a t-shirt. :-)

  163. Timothy March 12, 2010 at 4:59 AM #

    First I will point out that I am very likely biased and defensive about this subject due to being a guy (How could I not be?).

    From my admittedly limited experience, I would say that this article paints an inaccurate picture of the male demographic. I don’t consider myself to have the mentioned traits, and find them obnoxious myself. Neither would I consider my male friends to have those traits, though it is possible that this is the case for the very reason that these traits are obnoxious; maybe I simply made friends with the few guys who don’t fit that stereotype. Of course I have seen guys who do fit it, but I would hardly describe them as a majority, as appears to be the belief here.

    I’d like to end with this (likely naive) statement, which is bound to get me some criticism (I think any post by a guy gets criticism here, but maybe that’s just me being defensive and touchy): It is extremely easy to be biased, especially if you are searching for evidence about an argument that you have already decided on (some of the posts here seem to be stubborn and blind to any counter-arguments).

    I hope I’m not missing the point of this article, but, to stave off some of the criticism I will get, I will mention that I’m only 18, and still optimistic about the world, and people in general, so cut me some slack.

  164. Timothy March 12, 2010 at 6:01 AM #

    I take back the bit about all posts by a guy being criticized, because that’s not true, but some posts have been rebuked rather strongly without really asking for it, in my opinion.

  165. Bean March 12, 2010 at 8:01 AM #

    @Timothy:

    I’m not going to bother arguing one way or the other whether “most guys” carry out these behaviours. I mean, I could ask you to keep in mind that these are examples, and that there are many other, subtler ways in which men take up space in society that haven’t been mentioned. You’re probably not aware of most of them simply because males are indoctrinated to believe that sexism is normal and natural; and there is undoubtedly sexism in your behaviour which you have never questioned. (Because you’ve been conditioned to believe that your behaviour is desirable, and you’ve never seen it from a perspective of being harmed by it – which might lead you to question it at all.)

    But unless you see more of the forest this is coming from, we could be nitpicking over the trees forever, e.g. do you carry out X action, and how many times, and on what days of the week. That’s not a useful discussion. The “most guys are nice [most of the time - I don't think you could realistically argue 'always']” argument is fairly meaningless in the first place, even if you let that statement be a given truth.

    So let it be a given (for the sake of argument) that most guys are “nice” the majority of the time, and don’t regularly try to take up more space than they need. That wouldn’t change the fact that when men do take up more space than they need, they more often do so at the expense of women. (I’m ignoring intersecting oppressions for a moment…) And because half the population is men (all of whom will exhibit this sort of behaviour at least some of the time), women therefore run into this behaviour all the time.

    The fact is that this sort of thing is systematic. If you’re analyzing it initially from an individualistic point of view, you’re missing the point. Posters here aren’t necessarily saying that every guy they meet does X, Y and Z. They’re saying that they run into the behaviours X, Y and Z on a regular basis.

  166. bluecat March 12, 2010 at 10:45 PM #

    @ Timothy:

    You know what I used to not get? I used to feel utterly baffled whenever I would hear people of color complaining about the pervasive racism in society. Their anger shocked me. I move through the world and I don’t see POC being mistreated, I know I don’t treat anyone differently based on superficial traits like skin color, I know that my friends aren’t racists. And yet, if I really think about it, if I examine the messages in the media concerning race, if I pay attention to the things co-workers sometimes say, if I read blogs devoted to the examination of issues like racism, if I listen to POC describing their experiences with racism, it becomes abundantly clear that my white privilege acts as blinders that prevent me from seeing and coming into contact with racism in my daily life. It’s all around me, I sometimes inadvertently help perpetuate it. If I didn’t pay attention, if I didn’t shut the fuck up and attempt to actually learn something from the people who do experience it every day of their lives and who don’t have the privilege of being able to ignore it, then I would still be sitting here wondering Where’s this racism people are going on about?

    That I sometimes unwittingly help keep racism alive and well, either through my silence or support of racist people or organizations, that I sometimes still have moments when white privilege distorts my view of the world, none of these things make me a bad person. They make me an ignorant one. The only thing that could make me a bad person in regards to racism is if I refused to shut the fuck up and listen. If I refused to assume responsibility for my role in perpetuating racism, if I refused to learn better and do better, then someone may very well call me a racist and you know what? I’d deserve it.

    So the first thing you do as a good person who doesn’t want to contribute to society’s ills is this: Shut the fuck up and listen to those who get it. I guarantee you’ll learn a thing or two, and I also guarantee that your role in perpetuating sexism will cause you to feel uncomfortable. It’s okay. Sit with that discomfort a while. Own it. Refuse to take it and twist it and throw it back into the faces of those who have been victimized by it, as natural and righteous as it feels. No one wants to think of themselves as a “bad person” and your psyche will try to protect you by reflexively rejecting those things you don’t want to hear that make you squirm internally. Resist that instinct. Listen. Learn. Do better. Be better. It’s your choice.

  167. bluecat March 12, 2010 at 11:03 PM #

    @ Timothy:

    By the by, posting to a feminist blog to criticize things you’re admittedly “naive” about is not only worthy of criticism, it’s worthy of contempt. Just think for a moment about how incredibly arrogant it is to post to a blog devoted to the issues of an oppressed group and insist they must be imagining things because you, with your very limited life experience and 18 years of social conditioning within a patriarchal framework, don’t get what all the fuss is about. Arrogance is one of those very contemptible masculine traits we’ve been discussing. Dressing it up in polite language does nothing to disguise it.

  168. joy March 13, 2010 at 8:13 AM #

    Lillie, I too identify with everything you wrote. AND you wrote it very concisely and very amusingly.

    Seconding the ”bitch” tee-shirt idea. That quote is so rich with wry dark humor that it goes right out the other side of irony and comes back to straightforward truth.

    No ”my opinion” about it, either! This is just the facts, friend.*

    (*Probably as compensation for the tendency you described above, and as part of my own wry dark humor, I have labeled and disclaim myself as ”the one arbiter of truth and beauty in the world”, so not only am I golden, you’re golden too.
    Feel free to appropriate that concept, even just for the self-aware giggles.)

  169. The Horse I Rode In On March 18, 2010 at 4:14 AM #

    I already commented on this post, but I have to say, I think I love you. Consider me your fawning groupie.

  170. EmilyBites March 21, 2010 at 1:36 AM #

    Argh, men who sprawl over you on the bus!!!
    I thought I was alone in resenting this, and it feels so, so, SO good to know I’m not imagining it!

    My problem is, I’m not keen on physical contact with strangers in general (and esp. men, as like many women in the UK and elsewhere I am casually sexually assaulted on a fairly regular basis). I don’t mind firming up my elbows and pushing the guy back with my shoulder, but the leg thing bugs me. If I want leg space, I have to use *my* legs as a tool to push his legs away. So I end up in a leg-rubbing struggle with a strange man which sometimes ends up with him exhibiting overt and unwanted sexual interest in me, slutty leg-rubber that I am.

    So my alternative is to say ‘excuse me’, which I am not keen on because disproportionate aggression is usually the response. Aggression comes after what I think of as ‘Balaam’s assface’ (when the guy gets that utterly shocked look on his face (‘Egad! It spoke to me!’).

  171. cub March 21, 2010 at 10:08 AM #

    re. music: mace him if he seems like he’s on pcp, but yes, naturally-pointy elbows are an asset; bonus points for standing your ground in a horse stance (thanks, kung-fu!).

    seriously, dude, at a breeders show, which had by that time attracted a shameful amount of frat-douches, i merely maintained an upright position while alternating fist to palm outward elbows behind an orchestra railing, when said douches decided to mosh in non-pit space. their sweaty beer bellies slid right off my personal-space-located elbows as i heard one exclaim (manclaim?) to another, “she’s mean!”

    re. groping: yell at he top of your lungs, “WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!!” as you beat him soundly about the face and neck with whatever’s handy.

    my advice may get you killed or maimed, so caveat emptrix, but i gotta say, being raised as the ‘bad child’ (with a little brother as the ‘golden child’) by a borderline mom turned me into five feet of fury. i squat, i spit, i take up space, i even play supermarket chicken– even against women– tall women expect me to yield– ha! no dice, stretch. god, i’m a dick.

  172. nayo March 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM #

    Speaking of men taking up too much space in the world…The other day I was in the bike lane in a popular west coast city and wham! a man opens his car door. In fourteen years of biking in this city, this is the second time this happened. If he would have looked in his mirror before he opened the door, I wouldn’t have a sprained ankle. Being without health insurance or income makes it challenging for me to consider going to a doctor. Bet his Toyota Prius cost a pretty penny. He probably has insurance in case someone else hits him. I yelled at him after I hit the door because I was mad that he caused me a lot of pain. He didn’t care at all, in fact he called me a bitch because I was yelling. Politeness doesn’t factor into a situation where someone has caused an accident because of basic ignorance. He also drove down the street yelling at me on a sunny Sunday afternoon. I’m female, about 5’4 , small framed. I am pretty physically intimidated by a guy that is taller and bulkier than me and yelling at me that I’m a bitch. What kind of a DICK chases a woman on a bike down the street in a Prius? A F’ing coward and a bully. The patriarchal construct is always at play.

  173. Roxie March 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM #

    ND: This is something I’ve thought about for a long time. I haven’t been a driver for most of my life and spent nearly all of my college-hood using public transportation. The way men sit would be considered grossly inappropriate for a woman. And then there are those who KNOW they’re sitting thigh to thigh or knee to knee with you and just don’t seem to notice or care. And you feel like you just cannot say anything to them about moving b/c then you’re a demanding bitch for wanting to sit in comfort on a bus.

    @buttersisonlymyname
    Absolutely. I thought the same thing. It wouldn’t take much of a touch to turn this into a white privilege post…

  174. James April 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM #

    Some sophomoric declarations:

    1) Taking up space really isn’t a problem on the internet. You could have ten times the amount of comment traffic you do & I imagine WordPress wouldn’t mind.

    It’s time that matters. As for “intellectual space”…Hm…That’s the kind of idealism I struggle to wrap my head around. Idk if this is really a zero sum scenario. (Am I being overly literal, here?)

    2) If I eliminate watching lady porn completely & just view gay, does that make me a misandrist instead of a misogynist? Inquiring minds, et al…

  175. double April 18, 2010 at 1:15 AM #

    This is the best blog ever.

  176. MK April 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM #

    Thank you for your article. You made me laugh and smile, when I really wanted to cry! I will be checking in now and again to see what else you write.

    Thanks again for the smile:) It helps to know, I am not the only woman who has made these observations.

  177. Miss Andrist April 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM #

    @James:

    1) Taking up space really isn’t a problem on the internet. You could have ten times the amount of comment traffic you do & I imagine WordPress wouldn’t mind.

    It’s time that matters. As for “intellectual space”…Hm…That’s the kind of idealism I struggle to wrap my head around. Idk if this is really a zero sum scenario. (Am I being overly literal, here?)

    I am a web developer by trade. Unfortunately thanks to a shared remote hosting environment with poor security protocols in regards to an individual who knows where the shebang goes, I have a very clear exactly how much fucking space men take up on the internet. And they take up WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH SPACE.

    Think about it in terms of proportion: how much of the Internet serves androcentric concerns? Do your own research: start by Googling “misogyny,” and branch out with creative inquiry of your own.

    2) If I eliminate watching lady porn completely & just view gay, does that make me a misandrist instead of a misogynist? Inquiring minds, et al…

    Oh god, you’re serious? How embarrassing. Okay, since you’re either too lazy or too willfully obtuse to have found this factoid for yourself, here you will find no apologist bullshit. PORN IS DEGRADING. The whole point of porn is power regardless of the sex of the participants. So the first thing that your enjoyment of porn says about you is you are a narcissistic / psychopathic sadist and a danger to society. Get it? Porn is RAPE. You get off to porn, you get off to rape, that makes you a rapist.

    Gay porn is, I’m told, as brutal and hateful as any het porn. That’s why it’s called heterosexism: gay porn womanizes and feminizes participants, then punishes them for it. Because in porn, being non-male is bad, and taking it from a man makes you a woman whether you have a peen or not.

    If you are not completely full of shit, you’ll listen to these (obviously, you have never heard them before.)

    [audio src="http://www.andreadworkin.com/audio/TraffickingConference1989_P1_M.mp3" /]

    and then

    [audio src="http://www.andreadworkin.com/audio/duke01.85_M.mp3" /]

    -Miss Andrist

  178. Kara June 22, 2010 at 4:42 PM #

    (I’m always late to the party.)

    Great post.

    I’m a 5’1″ woman who weighs something like 300lbs and I take up physical space. Men hate fat women for this. Well, it’s not the only reason, but it’s a big one. Har. Most often the men who whine about “fatties taking up seats” on transport or wherever are the ones who have no idea that their Phantom Schlong Syndrome is severe, or that their shoulders are wider than my size 24 ass. Before I realized being fat did not have to mean a life of shame, I used to feel embarrassed about asking for room to get past a tight squeeze somewhere, say like a crowded bar. I’d only ever have to ask men to move in the first place, even women for whom Angry Fat Women barely register still move out of the way. Now, I ask once politely but firmly and making confident eye contact. Many move and look pissed about it. Others move slightly and look condescending, or continue to ignore: I have no reservations about using my physical weight and presence to barge through if they’re going to be like that.

  179. joy August 4, 2010 at 7:52 PM #

    Another way dudes take up space: dishes!

    I feel like ‘refusal to do household chores’ is another subject matter entirely, and has been covered to death on every feminist blog ever — but even when it’s not your Nigel, and you’re not explicitly expected to be the one doing the dishes, dudes still impact women (all women in their space) with their utter uncompliance with basic household chores.

    I’m sure every woman who has ever lived in a house where men ever came over, be it her father or brother, or sister’s Nigel, or her own Nigel, or someone else’s brother/Nigel/whatever, has encountered this.
    Going to the kitchen to make breakfast, get some water, whatever, and encountering Dish Mountain in the sink and on the counters. Which makes said breakfastmaking or water-getting impossible without either washing or moving the goddamned dishes first.
    Maybe they’ve even been considerate enough to let all the dishes get dirty! So even if you want to put them all in the fucking trash, or in his room/on his bed/in a box, there is nothing left for -you- to use. Unless you wash them yourself, because he’s sure as fuck NEVER going to do it.

    If called upon it, he either gives you a dull expression, as if to say, ‘Then why aren’t you washing the dishes?’ or he makes excuses for why he hasn’t and won’t wash the dishes, or he gets mad and pouts. If he is very generous, he may say, ‘Oh, you don’t HAVE to wash the dishes!’ but you know damn well what he really means.

    “You don’t HAVE to wash the dishes! Unless you want them to ever get washed. See? Aren’t I feminist? I’m not MAKING you do anything!”

    Whether it’s a standard old square Nigel, a musician/artist, a manarchist, or a self-proclaimed enlightened male feminist (the latter three categories of which often overlap but are by no means always the same), it’s always there. I could name drop for other people in the radical and indie circles, but I guarantee you won’t be terribly surprised.

    If you find one who will deem to clean up after himself, he’ll probably make sure to ask for his cookie, either subtly or not so subtly.

    Men intrude upon women’s spaces, even in seemingly tiny ways, and take up women’s time. I don’t mind doing dishes for other women, but I will be fucked if I want to clean up for men.

  180. dharmabum59 August 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM #

    I have the same problem with my girlfriends, except THEY whined about helping me do the dishes and cleaning. Ever had a mentally ill girlfriend, or a junkie girlfriend? They suck as much as a male junkie. They are exactly like many men. I would love to be with a fairly sane woman who pitches in half the cleaning!
    When i was rooming with other men, a lot of my male roommates were more lazy about dishes and cleaning than most of the women I’ve known.
    As a man, I also have had to live with the enraged men around here. They usually are larger, or were/are school athletes. But, most of the behavior that is described herein, is also displayed by many women. But i really loathe the enraged men. I’ve met plenty of women that are just as bigoted as some men by the way. Some of you have a biased viewpoint towards men only. Think about some women you’ve known, who do some of the same behavior.

  181. Miss Andrist August 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM #

    @dharmabum59

    Thank you. This dialogue about shitty ways men’s sense of entitlemtn creates imposition on women’s space, time, energy, lives, and existences was woefully incomplete until you came along and reminded everyone – before all of society forgot! – that women aren’t completely perfect all the time. That’s right, women do shitty things, and it’s also magically relevent to this discussion about the insiduous ways men rob us of our power by some distorted inversion of abstract suppositional connectivity or whatever mumbo-jumbo I feel like cooking up to wrap around it.

    Men are raised from the cradle to internalize a sense of entitlement; women are, conversely, discouraged from the cradle from being too “selfish.” That’s why men don’t see a problem imposing on women, and why people try to equate sloppy women with men who sprawl so far they block the aisle on a bus, or who hog machines at gyms, or who barge you off the sidewalk, or expect you to wash their filthy underwear and fish their hairwads out of the drain simply because you occupy the same dwelling.

    That’s the fucking difference, and that’s what we’re discussing; make note of it.

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

  182. joy August 6, 2010 at 10:32 AM #

    dharmabum, missing the point. Unsurprisingly.

    Jack Kerouac, incidentally, was a misogynist and an asshole. His daughter Jan, who was unfortunately misogynist in a typical self-hating way, makes for a much better read nonetheless.

  183. dharmabum August 7, 2010 at 9:57 PM #

    @misandrist

    I equate behavior in one gender with the same behavior in the other gender. The truth is that most men aren’t these evil criminal people, that you love to hate. And that women do and say most of the same things that most men do. Except for rape, obviously. (Duh)! (Rape should be a capital crime). And domestic abuse. But it seems that people here think of men in the same way that skinheads think of jewish people, or gay women, etc.! To hate/despise half the human race ( 3.5 billion people), is irrational. And, it’s completely incorrect to believe that most/all men have a sense of entitlement, that all men treat women as slaves, that most men are as selfish as addicts, and that most women are victims. I do understand the rage against those violent/enraged abusive men; i have to deal with those monstrous men myself. And no one ever helped me either. It’s difficult to not hate that character … But, would some of you please look for the men that help and love their beloved women and children? There are at least 1 billion of those. They exist. Just test the extreme beliefs written here. And, it’s not that women aren’t perfect sometimes; it’s that the two genders do the same things, good and bad through most behaviors. How long are you going to hang on to your lifelong professional career victimhood? How long are you going to let the injuries that some men have committed against you, to poison your mental health. They win if you continue to hang onto hatred/contempt/cold heartedness for men.
    I and a some of the other men try to help women through our lives, in various ways, but, it’s hard to rescue women all by yourself. From my first hand experience, the alcoholic/addicted/mentally ill/abused women are usually abusive in some way to others.
    By the way, i suspect that this website has been infiltrated by nazi vegan leftists, that pose as good enlightened buddhists.

  184. AileenWuornosistoolazytologin August 8, 2010 at 6:44 PM #

    Wow, way to totally miss the point, have no idea what radical feminism is, or how it works.I think it’s really funny how you think not all men have entitlement issues and then as a male, you come onto again, a radical feminist site, expect us to canoodle up to your perspective and take on every point when what you’re doing is, in fact, proving the idea that men DO act like entitled,selfish arseholes correct. Haha jokes on you. No one here has internalized misogyny enough to buy into that crap.

    If there are at least one billion caring men, fucking proove it. Cos all I see is violence and hatred committed against women every fucking day, by men. If there really were one billion caring men, why the fuck aren’t they stopping other men from raping, torturing and murdering women, huh?

    Re: victimhood, you see, here’s your male entitlement bullshit complex shining through again. Oh damn us uppity bitches, actually having feelings and shit that aren’t confined to your predetermined emotional limits for women. Also, womyn don’t need rescuing, you neanderthal ass, especially not by sexist mirons lie you. Especially seeing as you seem to think victim blaming/perp mentality is acceptable.

    By the way, that whole feminist = Nazi thing is kind of getting old and boring now, also you know, my grandfather is a holocaust survivor so it makes that joke funnier every time i hear it.

    Dharmabum, please do the world a favour and go back to ask men.com or whatever mansplaining corner of the web you crawled out of, don’t worry about coming back either, I doubt we’ll miss you.

    Hawhaw.

  185. Bean August 8, 2010 at 6:58 PM #

    @dharmabum

    And, it’s completely incorrect to believe that most/all men have a sense of entitlement

    No dharmabum, it’s not.

    Would you like an example? Your behaviour right now. This has already been pointed out to you, but I guess you didn’t get it the first time.

    You’ve commented on this thread despite being completely unprepared. It’s clear by your comment that you’ve done no reading on feminist ideas, no homework. Worse than that though, you also clearly didn’t even read the thread before you commented, or pay any serious consideration to what women have said here if you did. The women who have commented here have LIVED what they’re talking about. Did you spend any serious time reflecting on the things said in this thread before you commented?

    And yet, you just as clearly expect your comments to be taken with as much weight as any of the comments left by the feminists on this thread, despite not knowing the first thing about what you’re talking about, AND you’ve gone far enough as to give a, “how you should feel about men,” lecture to Miss Andrist. Why should she or any other woman listen to you?

    The discussion here is about the innumerable ways men take up women’s space, time and energy…and now you’re nattering defensively about how you’re not a wife beater? You’ve insulted the intelligence of every woman here with an argument that specious. And if the best you can come up with to defend men from any hatred (imagined or otherwise) is, “But only about two-thirds of us are rapists,” that’s pretty fucking pathetic.

    You’ve also managed to spin the focus from what men do to women into how unfair and hurtful women are for calling men out on it. You’ve done a poor job trying to disguise that one by claiming a) entitled behaviour is solely an individual thing (despite the fact that you’ve had to compare healthy men to women with serious problems to get a fair comparison!), and b) you’re just concerned that Miss Andrist (or anyone else here) is “mentally poisoned”! Like you really give a shit.

    Your comments here are taking up space and mental energy of the women reading them. Either they have to try to ignore you, or they have to waste their time replying to you. If you really care? Step up and stop commenting.

    If you still need to bluster, email me instead. I promise you a civil conversation if you’re willing to leave this thread to be a supportive space for the women posting here.

    dsewesolo (at) gmail (dot) com

  186. berryblade August 8, 2010 at 11:20 PM #

    By the way, that should probably read
    a) internalised (silly American spellcheck being on Australian computers)
    b) morons
    c) like

    memo to self, don’t roll out of bed and onto computer.

  187. dharmabum August 9, 2010 at 6:38 AM #

    Nice arguments. Thank you for the dialogue.
    I do apologize for the vegan nazi comment. I won’t make that sophomoric joke again.
    To bean: “you’re nattering defensively about how you’re not a wife beater ” Didn’t write that… and, no one can prove they’re innocent of this suspicion anyway. About my “Sense Of Entightlement” … “Would you like an example? Your behaviour right now.” How is engaging in a healthy open debate an example of a sense of entitlement? Ridiculous! You’re assuming that i’m communicating out of a sense of entitlement. If you have the right to free speech here, then so does every other human being, even though they are men. You’re offended because i’m a man, and i’m attempting to point out the unquestioned, obvious irrational generalisms. “And if the best you can come up with to defend men from any hatred is, “But only about two-thirds of us are rapists,” that’s pretty fucking pathetic.” I never wrote that. Look again. Why did you “see” that? You wanted to “see” that.
    “It’s clear by your comment that you’ve done no reading on feminist ideas,” well, maybe you’re right there … i’ll read more about feminism. But i thought that feminism at it’s purest form, is simply equal human rights for women, without any injustice towards all human beings, including men.
    Dear Aileen, thanks for the dilogue. About your thoughts: “expect us to canoodle up to your perspective”, that’s an incorrect assumption. No wonder you feel peeved. I don’t expect you to canoodle or cozy up to my opinion. Honest. So I’ve disproven your assumption that I’m a selfish ars****, (for that reason anyway). “if there are 1 billion good men, why the fuck aren’t they stopping other men from raping, torturing and murdering women, huh?” You’re right about that. I can’t and won’t defend the absence of even more aggressive prosecution of these crimes against humanity. What law enforcement/prosecution does exist is not enough. “Also, womyn don’t need rescuing, you neanderthal ass, especially not by sexist morons like you”. But just above that, you wrote “If there really were one billion caring men, why the fuck aren’t they stopping other men from raping, torturing and murdering women, huh?” So when i and other men do help women, we are accused of doing the right thing for evil reasons. Huh … I will always attempt to help women and children because it’s the humane thing to do in what ways that i can. How is that evil? “that whole feminist = Nazi thing is kind of getting old.” I didn’t write that. I wrote about poser vegan/poser buddhists who who say they’re humane enlightened beings, but are as intolerant as american right wing republicans. You saw what you wanted to see … finally, I’d like to thank the writer of this weblog for actually walking her talk. She is allowing me to speak with you, and that is done because she believes in equality and fairness. Thanks and goodbye for now.

  188. kristina August 9, 2010 at 12:52 PM #

    Is anyone else here totally in love with bean??? I’m purely smitten…LOL!

  189. joy August 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM #

    He’s kind of a dick in other places. Although nice one here, Bean.

    I’m more in love with the women who post here, like Miss Andrist. And not in a sexual way.

    kristina, I think it’s very telling that you singled out the dude commenter to be “in love with” and ignored all the women.

  190. kristina August 9, 2010 at 8:53 PM #

    dharmabum: *face-palm* if her readers didn’t agree in fairness they wouldn’t be here…if we wanted a place to bitch without question believe me, we’d find it..we appreciate debate, I think the thing in question here was your attitude when you came in…you know the saying, don’t bring a knife to a gun fight… you admitted you were unprepared…yes you may have gotten the gist of feminism, but it seems you didn’t take it to heart…

    you said: incorrect to believe that most/all men have a sense of entitlement, that all men treat women as slaves

    I believe a logical assumption is to say that you are saying you don’t treat women as slaves…or is it that you do? I mean we’re taking into account that you are a good person…are you really willing to argue that?

    you said: i have to deal with those monstrous men myself. And no one ever helped me either

    This is equality? Instead of everyone drowning in shit, how about we abolish the source of this behavior? It seems as though you’re implying we have a way to overcome these monstrous men…have a suggestion we could follow or is this just there’s a light at the end of the tunnel bullshit?

    you said: it’s that the two genders do the same things, good and bad through most behaviors. How long are you going to hang on to your lifelong professional career victimhood? How long are you going to let the injuries that some men have committed against you, to poison your mental health. They win if you continue to hang onto hatred/contempt/cold heartedness for men.

    ahhh….so I see your solution..you are implying that if you work hard enough you can overcome…so you believe we are in a victim mentality…hmmm.. ever hear that old christian saying…When you point one finger you have three pointing back at you??? Stew on that for a little bit while you’re reading about the privilege that I believe blinds you.

    you said: I and a some of the other men try to help women through our lives, in various ways, but, it’s hard to rescue women all by yourself. From my first hand experience, the alcoholic/addicted/mentally ill/abused women are usually abusive in some way to others.

    I think Aileen was responding to this in a feminist mindset… in other words, women wouldn’t need to be rescued if guys would stop what they’re doing to hurt women by trying to be what society tells them is masculine… You’re misdirecting your energy to fight the good fight..instead of solving all the little problems, attack the big one and the small ones will follow…

    feminism has a gist…but that will NOT be good enough for debate…look around you, and not just at obviously heinous crimes…that’s just scratching the surface…
    What you said here is like me saying to an african american from a poor home that if they work hard enough they can overcome all the bullshit thrown in their path…why should they have to work any harder than me (white-middle class female)???? (or worse implying that they are being lazy or acting like victims) THAT is fucking INEQUALITY!!!!

  191. kristina August 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM #

    I would also like to add that in order for their to be a victim mentality, it would have to relate on an incident by incident basis…In other words, if it’s an ongoing problem you are forced to live as a victim, and thus can’t have a victim mentality.. For instance if some man raped me and I blamed him, for my decision to commit suicide months later after the occurring incident it would indeed be a victim mentality… However, women are forced to live in a victim mentality when the abuse never stops…Let’s take another scenario: A woman is abused by her husband, (or the opposite if you prefer..it doesn’t matter the sex) she stays with him until something terrible happens to one of their children…if she leaves and she blames her husband she is in a victim mentality…she had a “choice” to leave…I can call this a choice, but honestly there are other factors that come into play here that forces the woman to weigh her options all of which may or may not be suitable… it’s hard to explain…but I guess it comes down to you have to get out of the situation that makes you a victim in order to recognize a TRUE victim mentality… Most women or men in abusive relationships blame themselves, it isn’t until they get out of the situation that they are able to see it for what it is…but if feminists aren’t blaming men, but society and the gender roles it imposes how are we ever to escape being a victim in order to tell if we have a victim mentality? If we get out of society and we still blame men for our problems…yes absolutely we have a victim mentality, recognizing what is wrong does not equate a victim mentality, it’s a precursor to change…it’s getting out of the “danger” and still being a whiny bitch that is a victim mentality. Besides that, instead of focusing on what’s wrong with the victim, why aren’t we trying to figure out what’s wrong with the perpetrators…we seem to just dismiss it as psychological issues…they can’t be blamed…victim mentality anyone???

  192. isme August 9, 2010 at 10:57 PM #

    Um…dharmabum…I’m going to assume that you’re not trying to offend anyone, you’ve just wandered into an unfamiliar part of the internet where the rules are somewhat different, so some advice.

    Firstly. when you find yourself in a hole, it’s traditional to stop digging.

    Secondly, yes, I’m sure you don’t feel you are speaking from entitlement. Which is sorta the whole point of it.

    But, putting aside the specifics of what you did or did not say (which I’m sure you believe and won’t be shaken from), you’ll agree that this thread was about people fed up with men (amongst other things) taking up intellectual space by demanding to be taken seriously about things they don’t know about, and taking up discursive space by claiming persecution of men to be as bad as that of women.

    And, you’d probably also agree that you did flat out state you don’t know much about feminism, whilst enlightening others (not all of whom aren’t female) what it is. And thankfully reminding us that there are bad women out there as well as bad men.

    Now, you don’t see any teensy potential problems arising from that?

    Thirdly, there are certain things repeated ad nauseam instead of actual arguments, which you really want to avoid. That “men are also affected by ___” is a classic, used to invalidate whatever effect that thing has on women. Because of this “what about the menz” comments should be used with care. And of course, only when relevant…which is a blog purely about discussion how things affect women isn’t actually going to happen.

    Also, there’s a distinction between being a nice guy and a NICE GUY. Only one of them feels the need to parade his virtues (or more commonly, lack of certain vices), and the other one is nice. A facade of tolerance and enlightment tends to be popular throughout much of the internet, but it appears that the substance behind it is assumed as default for anyone not a troll on this site. You’ll also note ND’s usual disclaimer, which features an “if” and a “then” with “it’s not about you” stuck in there twice.

  193. berryblade August 10, 2010 at 12:50 AM #

    It never ceases to make me laugh when men tell me that my ideas are as bad/as dangerous as/as damaging to womyn to as oppressive group XYZ. Especially when it’s “right wing Republicans” cos you know, not everyone on the internet is an American. Also, making those kind of comparisons, shows you for the tedious ass that you are ;)

  194. dharmabum59 August 10, 2010 at 3:54 PM #

    Hi all people!

    Thanks for the discussion! I love this passionate/enraged argument. To Kridtina … Kristina … (sorry, big banana fingers), those are all good points, and i promise to think about your words. Well argued, thanks! Already, i’ve been reading more on radical feminism.
    To isme: very good arguments, too. thanks for your time and civil remarks. I agrre … agree … with much of what you both have written.
    To berryblade: It’s true to a point that i am a boring ass at times, BUT, that’s not so bad a fault, is it? Thanks for not saying worse things! I guess the point was that at times there is no difference between, what biased ultra conservatives believe and what some biased misanthropes (misandrists) believe. Thanks. Any new comments on something else, anyone? Capital punishment for crimes against women and children?

  195. kristina August 10, 2010 at 4:13 PM #

    joy, I didn’t mean to offend…I just find it pleasing when there is a guy that sees things for what they are…the women here are amazing and are spot on…I just feel a little twinge of hope when a guy is able to actually hear what is being said. Sometimes I just feel like it is utterly hopeless and that guys will never get it, nor do they care to get it…so when I do see one that seems to at least try to get it…it’s thrilling…

  196. joy August 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM #

    You didn’t offend me, kristina, just kind of depressed me.

    I don’t give a shit about men. I really don’t. Don’t have a Nigel, don’t want a Nigel, don’t even talk to my own father. The ignorance and hatred that comes forth from men is just too staggering and I can’t handle it.

    Sure, it’s great when one comes in here and demonstrates that he ‘gets it.’ There are a few, such as Syndicalist/James/Jimmy, who do so with regularity.
    However, I worry that going out of our way to praise these fellows (as opposed to simply integrating them into the dialogue as we do to other women) is what other internet feminists would call “giving them a cookie.”

    Oh, you don’t rape? What a sweetheart! We love you!
    Don’t beat women? Oh my god! Let me pat your head.
    Think women are HUMAN? Get the fainting couch! What a prized specimen.

    No. There is plenty of information out there. Men CAN and SHOULD educate themselves and there’s no reason to pat them on the back for doing so. It just makes us look desperate to be liked, and we don’t need men to “like” the radical feminist movement.

    It would be nice if they all stopped raping us, yes. But giving them cookies for being HUMAN fucking BEINGS is not going to eliminate rape.

    It’s apparently proven that one actually catches more flies with vinegar than one does with honey. News I can use, for sure.

  197. joy August 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM #

    Also, I’m honestly not mentioning this to start a commenter war, but something Bean said on another thread made me lock myself in my house for a few days and not want to come out.

    It was a wake up call of many men out there fantasize about raping and torturing women. (Apparently Bean is one of them.)

    Try having been raped and getting to THINK about that when you’re on the subway or walking to the bus at night (with Mace in your pocket).

    Having to weather the fact that not only is at least one man going to make the old up-and-down of my body, and perhaps one might even make a comment, but that said men/man (and perhaps others that are outside of my radar) may ALSO be fantasizing about tying me up, torturing, raping, and sodomizing me.

    Which also goes to show that men even take up too much space INSIDE MY OWN HEAD.

    Every time I go outside. Every fucking time, I wonder, “Is this the time? Is this the time one of the fuckers is going to succeed at overtaking me AGAIN? At the very least, is someone going to be wanking to a daydream of my suffering tonight, just because I went outside?”
    I’m sure other women can identify with this.

    And here men go, taking up too much space on this goddamned thread again too.

  198. kristina August 13, 2010 at 6:31 AM #

    Well, joy you’re certainly right… I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you..I had an attempt on rape but nothing that succeeded I was VERY lucky, I don’t know how I healed or if I ever really did. I do have a nigel, so I guess it’s easy for me to get caught up in praise because if I don’t live like that my life would be miserable. I had an outburst last night as a matter of fact because my nigel had blamed me for overdrawing our account and his mom apparently lectured me about how I should be the one in charge. He goes to work and I take care of the house, when he gets home he plays video games (he works at gamestop) or sleeps. I got angry because I do everything around the house, and while I pay the bills he does the budgeting because I don’t spend the money…at all… not even grocery shopping and its because I don’t drive…I’m deathly afraid of it…he asks me to pay the bills while he’s at work so I do, well this time I paid too much, and I’m willing to accept the responsibility that I screwed up, but when I don’t spend the money how the fuck am I going to keep track of it? I exploded because his mom thinks I should do everything…my husband should be able to work and go to sleep…she is a classic enabler and I just went off…my husband still has no idea why I’m upset… or rather should I say is playing dumb and innocent and I’m the crazy woman. I told him fine if you want to be treated like a child I can do that, you can’t do anything for yourself and want me to police your actions I can do that, but don’t complain when I become a super bitch. This is just an example of how men don’t communicate well…if they are told they need to do anything outside of the work force their head explodes…and if their mom gets into it, chances are she’s a classic enabler too…cause otherwise it would be a guy with enough common sense to know that life doesn’t stop at your job, it carries on at home and the responsibilities exist in that realm too…so to all the guys who bitch about their nagging wives….wake the fuck up and stop being a selfish dickhead, stop patting yourself on the back for what you do at your job, cause guess what it doesn’t stop there…

  199. lizor August 13, 2010 at 6:40 AM #

    @joy, August 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM

    I relate very strongly to this. Thank you for posting.

    Also, thanks for the 4:00 PM post. I second that.

  200. concetta August 13, 2010 at 7:30 AM #

    this is the most honest dialogue i have heard in years. your so right, praising men for not being violent or destructive is not what we should be doing. They don’t need our praise; it is the right thing to do…period. When will we wake up?

  201. Bean August 13, 2010 at 10:39 AM #

    I do not wish the feeling of being triggered on anyone joy, and I hope you are taking care of yourself in that respect.

    Also, I’m not sure how much it ultimately matters to correct this, but I do not personally have fantasies about raping women (or men, who I am usually more interested in anyway). I assume that at some point when I was talking about extreme fantasies that people can have, I accidentally gave the impression that I do.

  202. joy August 13, 2010 at 12:33 PM #

    That makes more sense, Bean.

    I still wouldn’t want to be on a subway with anyone who’s into “rape” “play” or torture “games”. Like Miss Andrist has said, we all have to make constant mathematical equations regarding our own safety, and any time pain and suffering comes into that equation, I personally get a big fat ‘0’. Or even a negative sum.
    Nope. Ain’t gonna happen to me again, if I can help it.

    Although we can’t always help it. Rape can happen to us no matter how many safety precautions we take. Any of us. At any time.

    My sense of self used to be built on the idea of inviolability. That if I just played the game right — worked out, was strong, didn’t drink, didn’t go to strange places alone or unarmed, didn’t wear ‘sexy’ clothes, didn’t go home with anybody I didn’t know — that it wouldn’t happen (again).
    But rape changed that, as it changes that for everyone. For my first (adult) rape, I was sober and it was someone I knew. Sense of self, gone.

    That was when I realized what another blogger has written about recently — the thing I’d taken for granted as a solid thing, an INTERNAL ORGAN, was in other people’s eyes a gaping hole that -they personally- had the right to fill up, with their dicks, whenever they wanted. Because it was a hole, right? And it needed to be filled. That’s what (to them, in their eyes) it’s FOR.

    What people like dharmabum (Jack Kerouac still sucks, dude) call ‘victim mentality’, I call ‘finally acknowledging the shock from and righteous anger at having my sense of self destroyed, and having to rebuild it from scratch knowing how pathetic and flimsy my options are.’

    It’s not a “game” for me. It’s never a “fantasy.” I don’t exist to be raped. I don’t exist to get some guy off. None of us do.

  203. joy August 13, 2010 at 12:41 PM #

    Also:

    lizor, thanks. I always appreciate your comments too. I liked watching you point out to the dude on another thread that rapists and pedophiles don’t come with a stamp on their foreheads — lots of people (clueless people) still think they do.

    Me, I pick out the rapists and pedophiles by just seeing which ones (looks like they most likely) have dicks!
    Just kidding.

    concetta — thanks. I’ve been hearing in (antiwar) activist circles lately that “men need positive reinforcement from women (to stop sexist behaviors)”, and I don’t know how I feel about that.

    Well, I know how I FEEL. I feel like “So now not only do I have to GIVE him a cookie, but I AM a cookie?!”
    I might still need to work on that.

    kristina — go on over to I Blame The Patriarchy (I still think Jill’s pretty cool) and search for “the post on marriage.” The comments will probably ring ever so true to you.

  204. Hecate August 13, 2010 at 4:40 PM #

    I love your comments Joy! We need more women like you, who don’t cringe every time macho culture is criticized, and you refuse to make excuses for men, as I do. To say that men are overly pampered and mollycoddled by society is a huge understatement. They need to be made accountable for what they do, and yes, without the smiles and ‘cookies.’ Lol. They sure as hell aren’t getting my ‘cookie’ unless and until they can behave like human beings, which is a mission most of them have clearly not yet accomplished. And I’m certainly not the type of woman to lose sleep over not having a male around, you know?

    • Nine Deuce August 13, 2010 at 8:24 PM #

      One of the foremost privileges that comes with a wang: when you say, “That’s ridiculous” to a woman, SHE has to prove that it’s not rather than you having to prove that it is.

  205. Lioness70 August 16, 2010 at 3:53 PM #

    Joy,
    I was a Lioness in the army, and some of us have to deal with the after effects of war. I still talk to some of the combet veterans in my old unit, (women and men), and we get some relief from different types of therapy and different medications. Look around in your area for no cost or sliding scale providers. Don’t know what country you’re in, so I don’t know if you have national health care. Dialectical Behavioral Training helps some trauma survivors as well as Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy. It’s not likely that mental illness will improve unless there’s therapy and meds. — Lioness70 —

    • Nine Deuce August 16, 2010 at 9:06 PM #

      Lioness70 – I will allow this and allow Joy to respond as I refuse to speak for her, but are you responding to Joy by telling her that her justifiable reaction to misogyny equates to a mental illness? I hope not.

  206. kristina August 16, 2010 at 9:46 PM #

    Joy, I struggle in this respect because I am naturally a caring person (not that feminists aren’t), and I’m also a passive person, I feel happy to make someone else happy (probably my societal brainwashing and the number my family did on me when I was younger…they meant well..)
    I think of it this way.. men are taught on positive reinforcement the way the current social structures are set up…mother is most of the time nurturing, or they lacked a nurturing mother and display their contempt about it through women in the future..but really it’s a catch 22. If you nurture when they are good you are perpetuating the stereotype of the female gender role, but if you don’t, they feel they have a reason to hold you in contempt…it’s a passive aggressive situation when you condemn,(They purposely illicit a negative response so they can feel relieved when you retaliate in a “mean” manor, and thus justify their misconceptions of women to themselves) and I believe most men are passive aggressive towards women. I guess when men view you as an enabler (which is the normal role society presents for women) the only way they can stop the behavior is to see it themselves and change it. Looking at mra arguments and feminist arguments from a feminist viewpoint allowed me to see the passive aggressive behaviors men display and were raised to display through the nurture/nature dichotomy of society.
    I’m not particularly talking to anybody here…just musing… it was joy though that brought these thoughts to mind… I don’t know what the answer could possibly be in these situations except to point out passive aggressive behavior to the “aggressor”, leading to argument de-railing and playing arm chair psychologist…ugh…guys are sooooo tiring…

  207. joy August 17, 2010 at 12:58 AM #

    Thanks, ND.

    Wow, Lioness. That was deeply misogynist.

    However, I suppose this proves a point that I’ve made elsewhere: that living as a woman in society is quite like living in an active war zone.

    Get that, folks? Being a woman is like living in an active state of war.
    And it works on your mind in much the same way.

    Thank you for proving that point.

  208. joy August 17, 2010 at 1:13 AM #

    As a clarification/addendum:

    Not trusting men/being angry with men = mental illness.

    That’s pretty much a standard response in society. There is currently a very popular (although I think deeply misogynist, or at the very least exceptionally trite) book and film trilogy about this very idea, which means it’s so deeply ingrained in the mainstream that it goes unquestioned.

    Man (or men) hurts girl -> girl gets mad -> girl fights back (or just talks about it) -> girl is deemed a psychopathic nutso. Pretty much a given.

    Why should we trust men? Because they say we should?
    Turn that around, if you’re so invested in believing the men. Why should you trust ME? Because I say you should?

    It’s the same principle. Except men have a multiple-millennial history of beating, raping, killing, and destroying. I don’t.

    If you wouldn’t think yourself insane for failing to trust any old joe or jane on the street or internet, then please grant me the same courtesy when I say I don’t trust men.

    I’m just looking out for my own safety. You wouldn’t trust that dude in a mask who’s holding a grenade launcher, would you, Lioness? Even if he claims he wouldn’t hurt -you-.

    So are you crazy? Have you taken your meds today? Because that won’t get better if you leave it untreated.

  209. sneeky bunny August 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM #

    Setting aside Joy’s justifiable response to misogyny, which of course it totally is, I have to say that some of her posts give the impression that she may be struggling with PTSD to some degree. Perhaps as a fellow victim of trauma (in her case stemming from her military service) it is to that which Lioness70 is responding?

    • Nine Deuce August 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM #

      I don’t really think internet commentators ought to be pronouncing diagnoses of other internet commentators. First, it’s a silencing tactic. Second, it’s insanely patronizing. Third, it places the burden of societal misogyny on those who can’t or won’t “just deal with it,” when in fact they might be dealing with it completely appropriately. That’ll be enough Freud impersonations, everyone.

  210. kristina August 17, 2010 at 7:47 PM #

    I hope I’m not being freudian… I’ve seen a few feminist articles that point out how psychologists are working from a framework of men=normal women=unpredictable/crazy(even when it is the same behavior traits being exhibited), it would explain a bit…I mean really we are all willing to admit that there is so much we don’t know about the human mind…is it really such a stretch to say we are viewing it from a completely wrong angle?

  211. joy August 17, 2010 at 10:24 PM #

    @ kristina first:

    “If you nurture when they are good you are perpetuating the stereotype of the female gender role, but if you don’t, they feel they have a reason to hold you in contempt.”

    Exactly what I was thinking. You hit the nail, right there. So it does become one big catch 22 and that’s what I’m working on figuring out.

    If I come up with anything, I’ll let you know.

  212. joy August 17, 2010 at 10:43 PM #

    @ sneeky:

    Actually, I do have PTSD. However, I don’t bring it up when people accuse me of mental illness, because it opens a can of worms I don’t want to spew all over people’s blogs.

    Let me tell you what PTSD means to me. (This is what I did not want to do, because people who force my hand are not people who fucking -care-.)
    I live pretty normally. In other words, I eat, sleep, bathe, function, think like anybody else (who has done feminist, anticapitalist, ‘punk rock’ consciousness raising, let’s say).
    However, when I am very stressed out (being harassed on the street, getting hit on by someone I don’t want to hit on me, listening to mansplaination or general pornspeak, having sex with a man, etc) I dissociate: blank out, go on autopilot, and just try to survive.

    That’s all it is. A survival mechanism, to keep my brain from imploding so my body can stay alive.

    I’m not a paranoid schizophrenic: I don’t see or hear things that aren’t there. I don’t think people are out to get me. I’m not delusional (diagnoses care of certified mental health professionals).

    I just blank the fuck out sometimes when I want to live. That’s what PTSD means for me. And I’m actually quite all right with it, thank you. There is at least one rape that I don’t remember because of it, and for the better.

    Okay, so: my mind chooses to shield me from shitty things, in the hopes that I can live through them. Does any of this discredit me?

    Does any of this mean that the shitty things aren’t happening?
    Does any of this mean I’m not justified in wanting the shitty things to stop happening?
    Does any of this mean I can’t get pissed off when the shitty things keep happening?
    Does this mean I shouldn’t take every step necessary, up to and including separatism, if it means I can at least keep the shitty things from happening -to me-?

    Can I not call out the shitty things?
    Can I not call out the people who do the shitty things?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought. Please biff off and stop patronizing me. Because that’s what it is.

    Like Nine said:

    “First, it’s a silencing tactic. Second, it’s insanely patronizing. Third, it places the burden of societal misogyny on those who can’t or won’t “just deal with it,” when in fact they might be dealing with it completely appropriately.”

    Being a woman is like being in war. That’s the fault of those who are dropping the bombs. Not the fault of the people who are going about their business below — regardless if they’re living their lives as usual, taking AK-47s into the street guerilla style, or cowering in their basements.

  213. kristina August 18, 2010 at 11:39 AM #

    The outlook on my observations is not good… it seems both parties men and women hold resentment, it is a never ending cycle of passive aggressive behaviors…if either party can not express their desires and have the other party take them into consideration and do some serious introspective analyzing (each inspect their own desires and WHY they have them) nothing will ever get better. I think women are more forced into a position to be introspective than men, especially feminists…but it’s the lack of the other party’s introspective analyzing that kills the relationship.
    For example: Woman stays at home takes care of the kids and cleans the house, husband comes home expects everything done and have the luxury to not do any of the work. Woman voices complaints of how he does nothing to help, man responds by not listening or yelling that he had a hard day at work.

    Now I’m going to analyze the behaviors here and the lack of communication: Let’s not take into account the roles in this relationship (who does what) let’s just focus on the poor communication. When the woman is complaining she is in essence saying you make me feel like less of a human being because I’m tired too, and I don’t get to rest after my work is done, as a matter of fact my work is never done, but I feel that you don’t realize all that I do because you don’t feel I have a right to rest too.
    Remember simply saying you don’t help me around the house is not effective in communicating your REAL desires, nor is demanding your husband to do chores an effective means of communication. It’s not the chores that you have to do that are bothering you…it’s how you feel when you are the ONLY one doing them.
    The man ignores the wife because she has brought up a good point..he doesn’t do the chores, but he thinks why should I, I make the money. Perhaps if the woman had communicated how she feels having to do all the chores he would consider her feelings..perhaps not. If he considers her feelings this is a relationship worth salvaging and on the way to a healthier form of communication.. if he does not, it is a matter of power dynamics that demonstrates the man’s inability to connect emotionally which is usually characteristic of narcissists and passive aggressive behavior…if it is not pointed out that he is being these things the relationship will stay unhealthy…

    Wow…I think I basically said that men are raised to be narcissistic, passive aggressive assholes… Not that women are completely innocent, there CAN be a lack of communication, but if the husband isn’t willing to accept that the woman is entitled to her feelings and that a real loving partner would try their best to please her (not by giving in to demands or demanding she just do what she’s doing and shut up..or pointing out how the current dynamics are “working” because it’s equally split..its obviously not…it’s not the chores, it’s the lack of emotional connection)then it is most definitely the husband’s fault that everything is going wrong…if he can’t admit that the partnership requires equal levels of “happiness” (happiness in emotional connection, not happiness garnered out of physical labor)it is not a healthy relationship, but one of control in which both parties struggle, not just the man, not just the woman(they both struggle because the man sees nothing wrong with his behavior (narcissistic), and the woman doubts herself which is typical of passive aggressive dynamics) The woman is only at fault for as long as she continues her poor communication…the man in this situation fails and will continue to fail as long as he remains narcissistic and passive aggressive behavior due to not really “knowing” what he wants emotionally…simply doing the actions the other desires does NOT meet the emotional needs, this is why both men and women see the other party as never being happy… we need to focus less on the actions, and more on the emotional needs that need to be met…unfortunately, it’s men who often refuse to be emotionally connected, something they are taught at birth… sad, sad, sad…
    That being said… I think it may be in our best interest to give a man a cookie in certain situations…if he’s doing the action with no thought behind it, just because women said so…then no because you would be commending men for fulfilling a desire in the physical sense…what we as feminists are looking for is men to understand why they are doing what they are doing…because it hurts women EMOTIONALLY, not because they aren’t following our “demands”. I feel that we should be commending a man for realizing we are seeking emotional approval (which some of us communicate poorly due to society), which in turn would make the man more apt to consider WHY we feel the way we do about xyz. yeesh…sorry if what I wrote doesn’t make sense… I had to go outside myself and follow my logic, so it may be a little jumbled…

  214. sneeky bunny August 19, 2010 at 9:59 AM #

    Joy.
    I said that “some of (your) posts give the impression that (you) may be struggling with PTSD to some degree”, and that some one else, who indicated that they had past experiences that might also lead them to be affected by PTSD, might be reaching out to you (however admittedly clumsily) for that reason. That was the crux of my post. Joy seems to be in pain. Lioness may also feel the same pain. Lioness may be reaching out to some one she may perceive to be a fellow sufferer with a description of what worked for her. Clumsily.
    That’s what I saw, and I posted my interpretation.
    I do care that you are a trauma victim. And how you navigate the world and cope with its ugliness is your own journey. Some coping mechanisms are going to work better for you short term, some are going to work better for you long term, and in the end my hope for you is peace in yourself on your *own* terms. That’s all.
    How you get there is up to you, and I for one have not, and will not, tell you how to do so.
    I never said you were mentally ill.
    I never indicated that your trauma discredited you.
    I never said that shitty things aren’t happening.
    I never said that you, or anyone, is not justified in wanting shitty things to stop happening.
    I support any one getting pissed off at injustice, and I support you doing what you feel you need to protect yourself.
    I think it is our duty as human beings to call out the shitty behavior of others, and bear witness to, and actively work to change what is shitty in the world.

    So at whom exactly was that impassioned defense of your position directed? Because whom ever you think is discrediting or patronizing or silencing you, it ain’t me. I have no interest in silencing a strong, articulate, feminist voice, even if our paths and opinions may occasionally diverge. I want to hear you roar, and I want you to be happy, and I want to continue to enjoy discussing a whole range of topics with you, from fashion, to music, to how to make separatism work. Because, Surprise! I do fucking care.

  215. concetta Falcone-Codding August 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM #

    this is the most honest site for women i have ever seen. If women would only really STOP and really listen, look and see what an unequal world this is– I think they would drop away and faint. If there were a truth serum labeled “now you will see all truth about men/women” and they took it, they would scream in horror at really what is happening in this country and around the world. over 3oo,000 children are prostitued right here in America. 1 rape or 2 rapes occur every minute, murders by husband/boyfriend etc, etc, not to mention the little ways our society undermines women’s power, nude women versus dressed men in movies, video games, TV …women wake up .. your not really in Oz…I don’t know where we are…but most of us are blindfolded.

  216. joy August 19, 2010 at 5:45 PM #

    @ sneeky:

    The message drifted. The impassionment was directed at anyone who hadn’t answered the clue phone, and was on behalf of anyone else who might happen to be both a feminist and a trauma survivor.

    Our society holds a huge stigma against mental illness. Not a lot of people actually understand it, and thus lump all kinds of things under the ‘crazy’ umbrella.

    PTSD, you can imagine, is one of those things. Many people don’t know what it means. There is an enduring mental image of the half-crazed vet pushing a shopping cart through a minefield of a parking lot, or shaking in bed with a revolver clutched in (usually his) hand.

    Feminists are so easily discredited as the angry, the damaged, the ugly, the defective. Anybody familiar with, “You wouldn’t be so (feminist) if you could just get a good man”?

    Again, an example of men taking up too much space.

  217. sneeky bunny August 19, 2010 at 6:58 PM #

    Ahh I see. You will, I hope, forgive mistaking myself as your intended target since you did address the post to me. 
    I think that Lioness might, as a female combat veteran, be very familiar with both the pain and stigma associated with PTSD, and as a woman in the military would have many examples to share of men taking up too much space. I think that’s why she posted. And I think, since we have seen neither hide nor hair of her since you and 92 responded so vehemently to her awkward attempt to connect with you, that it is she that has been silenced. And I think that is a shame.

  218. joy August 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM #

    I understand and appreciate her sentiment, if that is what it was, but please consider that maybe she biffed off because she’s a right-winger who thinks feminists are insane.

    My family was military. “Suck it up and suck a cock” might as well have been their motto, for males and females. More literally for one gender, more metaphorically for the other. Obedient adherence to social norms and general towing of the party line are hugely popular among U.S. military types, as it is trained into them from Day One.
    Can’t have folks going around shooting their superior officers, acting gay or nothin’.

    Feminism isn’t a mental illness that can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy and medication. That was what I, and perhaps ND although I cannot speak for her, was offended by.

    And yes, I was greatly offended. Even though I did see the parallel between being female and being in war.

    Perhaps aggressive masculinity can be treated, though — now there’s a theory. Let’s send all the fellas to resensitivity training. ND has talked about it before, and I wholeheartedly agree with the idea.

    How about we abandon the idea that all us “bad”, “wayward” women must be sent off to a counselor who can persuade us to just suck dick again and everything will be fine — and if we won’t, here’s a nice shiny little pill to make us compliant again. That shit gives me little shivers of nausea.

    How about we instead send away all the assholes who rape, everyone who makes a sexist comment, all the dickheads who refuse to do household chores, everyone who’s ever felt they were entitled to sex, all the guys who hang out at bars trying to pick up women, and anybody who’s deeply invested in sports.
    They can learn how to quilt in group therapy, spend some time talking about their confusion over women’s rights/humanity, take some meds to cool their overactive hormones, become fully functioning members of society. Those who cannot, well, there are outpatient procedures that can be performed under anesthesia, or confinement can be recommended in extreme cases.

    That’s not quite as popular an idea. You’ll never see a male vet going onto an MRA board and suggesting that everybody just get some treatment for their raging erection-heads, will you? Even though you know that shit interferes with quality of life, and it won’t go away without some kind of treatment.

    Pause to think about why you’ll never see that, and then get back to me. Or don’t.

    And if Lioness wants to speak for herself, she certainly may. She might not have known how she came across. I have nothing against her as a person, at all.

  219. sneeky bunny August 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM #

    @ Joy
    Military family huh? Me too! I would have gone the ROTC route to pay for school, but I had braces and you can’t go through basic with braces. My experience growing up seems to be vastly at odds with yours though. I was raised to respect protocol of course, but also to be strong and an independent thinker. The women with in my father’s command were great role models. So I guess I got the “suck it up” part but *definitely* not the “suck cock” part.
    I went back up thread to see what the conversation was when Lioness posted and to re read her entry as well. Honestly, I think you and 92 misunderstood her completely. No where in her post does she mention feminism and the posts preceding hers were mainly dealing with rape trauma, and it was that to which she was responding. She never said feminism is a mental illness, and the therapies she mentioned are used to treat PTSD. And to be clear, in addition to being a woman and all that entails upon our gender culturally, (such as rape, which was what you were talking about, and is a HUGE problem for military women, particularly those stationed overseas) she has actually *been* at war, not metaphorically, but *literally*. So I would venture to say that she knows what she’s talking about when it comes to post traumatic stress even if she may phrase it badly.
    It is unfortunate that she used the phrase “mental illness” in closing her post which is what I think every one found offensive, but again, read what she wrote. She never said anything about feminism. She was talking about trauma survivors.

    I was a Lioness in the army, and some of us have to deal with the after effects of war. I still talk to some of the combet veterans in my old unit, (women and men), and we get some relief from different types of therapy and different medications. Look around in your area for no cost or sliding scale providers. Don’t know what country you’re in, so I don’t know if you have national health care. Dialectical Behavioral Training helps some trauma survivors as well as Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy. It’s not likely that mental illness will improve unless there’s therapy and meds. — Lioness70 —

  220. joy August 20, 2010 at 6:39 PM #

    I think you are misunderstanding me completely.

    I have seen a counselor for some of the profound reactions to trauma (shaking, crying, flashbacks, etc), resolved them, and am pretty confident (as I have always been, other than when a man was beating me) in my knowledge of my own mind.
    (I was a hippie and a punk, and have done a whole lot of consciousness-raising and thought experimentation. I could talk you in a circle about philosophical shit. Psychology used to be my thing, except it’s patriarchal as fuck.)

    I am in a fine place. Feminism has helped me to understand my body, ie, that it is not just a bunch of flesh surrounding a gaping hole and an unused baby incubator, that it is mine and I do not need to do anything to it (breast implants, breast reduction, starvation, corsets, girdling, shaving, plucking, tweezing, waxing, makeupping, perfuming, painting …) to make it more appealing to anybody. Patriarchal counseling could never do that for me and it never did.

    Dissociation is a pretty dandy reaction to stress. It has a number of upsides, one of which is that stressors (ie, men) seem to notice when they are speaking to essentially a warm robot and they leave me the fuck alone. Thereby saving me from further traumatizing interactions.

    All in all, I’m very happy with my quality of life, in ways I was not when I was sucking dick (ie, sleeping with men, engaging in PIV sex), shaving my legs, and doing “anarchist vegan burlesque.”

    I do not feel that I need something else to “make me better.” To what end?

    I’m asking this again, Sneeky, and anyone else who’s advising therapy/medication/etc.

    What do you think trauma survivors should be doing that we aren’t?

    Suck some more dick? Shave our legs? “Reimbrace our feminine sides”? Shut up and stop being so angry?

    Maybe I’m just distrustful of authority (did I mention? I’m an anarcho-utopian, Firestone/LeGuin/Dworkin style), but I don’t really see the point of all this.

    Also, ND asked us to stop the whole “Joy, are you crazy?”/”No, I’m not crazy” back-and-forth, so how about we stop it pretty quicklike here? I’m personally pretty sick of having to be The Other, and having my credentials called into question.

  221. concetta Falcone-Codding August 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM #

    hi I love Joy’s comments. I too am much happier than my old behaviors. But i never see my comments, are they getting thru? i absolutely love this site, FINALLY we have a site that addresses our pain and suffering, and rising above it.

  222. concetta Falcone-Codding August 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM #

    great job ladies. We need you!!

  223. sneeky bunny August 22, 2010 at 9:51 PM #

    Sigh.
    Joy, I don’t think you are crazy. I believe you when you say you are in a good place. I am not suggesting, and have not suggested, you need therapy or meds. If you will recall, I have said that how you navigate life and its ugliness is entirely up to you.

    I made an observation that your posts seem to indicate that you have struggled with trauma, and suggested that it was that to which Lioness responded. Your shared experience with trauma. That’s it.

    I will break it down bluntly since my attempts to do so diplomatically have been met with a stunning lack of success.

    Remember how we agree that it is right to call people out on their shitty behavior? Well, this is me calling you out.

    I think that you misunderstood Lioness and were incredibly rude, elitist, dismissive of her life experience, presumptive and silencing. And I think that stinks.

    So again. I don’t think you are crazy. I think you are defensive, and I think that is the case because you know in your heart that you fucked up and were crappy to some one.

    So, please stop acting like I am suggesting that you toe the patriarchy line, through grooming, sex acts, meds, therapy, fancy underwear, or not eating meat.

    I do not question your feminism or sanity.

    I think you owe Lioness an apology.

    That is what I am saying and nothing more.

  224. Yahhh August 24, 2010 at 11:12 PM #

    When MRAs whine and make generalizations about women, I simply send them to a post like this.

    What MRAs do, when they whine about women is say stuff like “women always x”… I then ask them “do you mean all (50% +) people who have an f in their driver’s licence, or just the ones that fit your definition of a woman”.

    Its odd. These men always complain about women being ****es… But they go out of their way to ignore the 95% of women who are submissive, shy, nice girls.

    In a room full of shy, nice girls, he will notice the one girl with attitude, and put all his attention on her, and the say “women are xyz”. Not noticing that his own misogynist definition of a “woman” is what’s causing his pain. He only defines as a woman, a person who goes out of her way to be a plastic dool (and she’s ussually angry and of low-self-esteem). So he pursues this woman, and then generalizes her traits onto all of “womanhood”.

    Its kind of insulting to women isn’t it? It basically says that unless you’re a doll, you’re not really a woman. Because these guys, when they whine about “women”, their definition of woman is “a plastic doll”.

    Well, some women do the same. She will walk into a room full of shy, meek guys, and there will be one group of loudmouths, making stupid jokes and harassing everyone… And then declare that “men are loudmouthed sexists”… That means those guys who aren’t… are not really “men”?

  225. kristina August 25, 2010 at 1:11 PM #

    Yes, yahhh those instances do happen, but this is exactly why we ALL (men and women) must throw off all the notions of our gender roles, just because one is a feminist does not mean we aren’t susceptible at all to sexist behavior, it just means we are more aware of it.
    The task for women telling the difference however, is harder considering all the “nice guys” out there, you know the guys who may or may not be a feminist supporter depending on what their REAL motivations are, and whether or not they are trying to play the hero role in order to garner pats on the back from women, or because they are genuinely concerned about the limitations gender roles put on society as a whole (men and women).
    To me, it is just proof that men have the power and ability to define what is and isn’t limiting.
    If a woman were to agree with a man that feminists are sexist she would not be questioned by the group she is defending (men), she would be exploited as proof that feminists are sexist because it fits their agenda… yet men claim that feminists are not capable of introspective criticism…seems quite the opposite when viewed in this light doesn’t it?

  226. joy August 27, 2010 at 5:32 PM #

    Sneeky, I disagree. I do not feel as though I owe an apology.

    I also do not think I misunderstood. I recognized a fellow trauma victim talking to a trauma victim, and that’s very nice and everything, but that was not the point of what offended me.

    I would not go over to a veteran’s support board and tell them all to go get some meds. That is not appropriate.

    I understand that Lioness’s intent was to support, but as ND said, it came across as shitty and inappropriate.

    Also, as I said, male vets never go over on MRA boards and tell them all to get meds for the trauma they claim to suffer from women. Have you ever figured out why yet?

  227. joy August 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM #

    Also, I honestly don’t care if an individual does think I’m crazy. Some people are going to regardless, I can’t stop them, and as long as they are not challenging me in face-to-face life, it doesn’t bother me.

    The issue at hand is: when will it stop mattering?

    When can a rape victim get pissed without having people just tell her she’s insane and thus not qualified to speak about rape?

    If not in radical feminist spaces, then WHERE?

    It doesn’t even matter if people -are- crazy. Valerie Solanas was quite possibly paranoid schizophrenic (understandably, actually), but the S.C.U.M. Manifesto has a point and is a wonderfully articulated work.
    Andrea Dworkin never “got over” her rape trauma, but her body of work is staggering in its beauty and eloquence.

    Crazy doesn’t mean shit.

  228. lizor August 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM #

    Joy – what great comments. I especially appreciate your observations re: “crazy”. I have been silenced for years, called crazy, admonished to “get over it” and been accused of “playing the victim”. All of this is to prevent me from expressing or communicating the knowledge that I carry as a result of being raped.

    It’s been a long time since the incident and in the intervening years I have gained a great deal more understanding of the conditions that led up to and enabled it happening and I also have gleaned quite a bit of understanding of how this has affected my psyche. Dark wisdom, perhaps, but wisdom all the same.

    Rape survivors should be honoured as the keepers of wisdom, not silenced and erased as “broken” or “crazy”.

    • Just gotta get this off my chest April 9, 2014 at 1:16 PM #

      I really agree with this even though it is an old post. There are even many “feminists” on the internet today who have NO experience with rape but blog about it because it’s a popular “Google trends” topic. When an actual survivor disagrees with them about something, they get all ruffled because in their minds “being a feminist” entitles them to be an expert on rape even though they may have NEVER experienced it firsthand.
      Also, many feminists spend a lot of time hating on conservatives, but guess what? Conservatives get raped too. I’m not conservative, but I do hate that many feminists spend so much time hating on the right wing because I know some conservative rape victims and they don’t deserve to be shit on just because they don’t tow the lefty lucy party line.
      This experience has made me hate some kinds of internet feminism because people who haven’t been raped (and still blog for major media outlets about rape) should really STFU about how rape victims should feel. Just having been street harassed is NOT THE SAME as actually being raped. It’s like someone who plays paintball crusading on behalf of war veterans because they think they know what living with ptsd is like. I don’t have to kiss someones ass because they talk about something related to me. Rape ruined my life and I am permanently angry because of it. I hate when people expect me to suck up to them or be thankful them just because they blog about rape or “rape culture”.
      Besides real rapists don’t give a fuck, and no amount of blogging is going to make a rapist less likely to rape (bloggers hate it when I say this because of course what they are doing is SO IMPORTANT) but really, rape isn’t something men do on accident. They don’t need to be informed on what consent is. It’s obvious, and men who rape know what they are doing. A man who is self regulating and introspective isn’t going to rape someone and a rapist will never be empathetic and self-regulating.
      Shit, the guy that raped me was a total stranger who got up from having lunch with his girlfriend, dragged me in a public bathroom and raped me then calmly went back to having lunch with his girlfriend like nothing had ever happened. He told her he had “helped” a girl who “was sick to her stomach”. Also, when he finished raping me he said, “Are you ok? and tried to play the good samaritan. I was too traumatized to respond and could not even pick him out of a lineup and the police station bc i guess I blocked out the image of his face. At any rate, rapists are self centered assholes who will do anything to not take responsibility whether it is date, marital or stranger rape. All are equally valid, but it does make me mad that a lot of feminists talk about the “myth” of stranger rape. I know they are just trying to raise awareness about other kinds of rape but stranger rape does happen.
      I despise Molly Do Gooders who blog about rape because it is trendy. They are just patting themselves on the back for being “progressive” and it’s fucking insulting. If you haven’t had your body violated against your will, you don’t know shit about rape or survivors ptsd. It’s just something like from a movie for these people. Then they will say shit like “Many women have rape fantasies” which is impossible because the very definition of rape is that it is unwanted.
      Don’t get me wrong, I like ND and she isn’t the kind of “feminist” I am talking about. Many feminists get defensive and bitchy when I criticize “feminists” but I am specifically referring to feminists who blog about “rape culture” for clicks and attention. There are too many people talking about rape under the banner of feminism who don’t know what they are talking about. Rant over.

      • Just gotta get this off my chest April 9, 2014 at 2:03 PM #

        PS: Once I stumbled on a thread where female breast cancer survivors were talking about how they hated October because suddenly breast cancer stuff is everywhere. A bunch of non-cancer survivors came and bitched them out saying they were ” “horrible” and “ungrateful” and that they should be thankful that people were “raising awareness” on their behalf. Many of the survivors came back and said they felt angry that they were supposed to be grateful for large corporations smacking a pink ribbon on a yogurt box and making money off their tragedy. Also, many expressed that the sight of all this cancer stuff was triggering, and that after going through chemo and coming out the other side they did not want to be reminded of it every October.
        This is how I feel about the current internet dialog about rape. It’s not a political platform, or a way to get “outrage clicks” or something feminists can fight with mras about on the internet. It’s a personal tragedy for many people, and I wish that people who blog about rape and the media would stop standing on the backs of rape survivors for awareness cookies and flame war ammo.
        Sorry, I know I’m off topic, but it’s a real problem among feminist bloggers in the media these days and this seems as a good a place as any to speak out about it.Thanks for listening.

  229. kristina August 28, 2010 at 5:09 PM #

    As a pessimist, I realized a long time ago…this world sucks.. maybe that’s why it’s so easy for me to believe that bad shit happens, and it doesn’t shock me to hear it so much, that I would try to silence a victim… YAY for pessimism!

  230. joy August 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM #

    Thanks, lizor. Agreed.

    And I forgot to point out, the defensiveness I’ve shown wasn’t because “I know I did something wrong.” It’s because I too have been called crazy since I was a child and I am so used to it.
    I was molested, and although I repressed the memory until I was a teenager, it made me act in often insane fashions (even for a child).
    I’m also a synesthete (I “see” music, for example) and between that and the trauma behaviors I can understand why someone would want to bring out the ‘crazy’ label for me. However, for one thing it isn’t true, and for another it doesn’t really matter.

    This is from a comment on an old post at another blog, but it struck me as a very eloquent statement and I am rewording it [changed words in squared parentheses] to make sense in this context:

    “If a [person] (or the patriarchy as a whole) can personalize (opposite of politicize?) the issue, it instantly trivializes it.
    Your real issues become just another neurosis when your feminism [and reaction to bad male behavior] is reduced to [insanity, or trauma behaviors, or something that can, and should, even MUST, be treated with drugs].
    It’s equivalent to confronting sexist behavior and being asked, “What? You on the rag or something?””

    We must avoid doing this to one another, even out of kindness. It’s hard to do sometimes — as human beings with senses of empathy, we often want to reach out to those who are (or who we perceive as) suffering.

    However, when this ‘reaching out’ falls in line with the age-age-age-old tradition of relegating female behavior to the realms of hysteria and regarding radical feminism (even that which was borne of pain and trauma) as a disease that should be treated — then it becomes inappropriate (to say the least).

  231. kristina August 29, 2010 at 11:44 AM #

    I totally agree Joy…sometimes though the sexism is cloaked in feminist rhetoric, for instance saying without a doubt that “if you do x, then you are not a feminist.” I think you can speak about how x has personally affected you, how x could affect someone else, point out the possibilities that x HAS affected the individual, and let them stew on x and make their own decisions…to limit decisions by silencing what someone has genuine reasons (actually examined their position and experiences honestly) to believe to be their choice by calling them a troll is anti-feminist in itself.
    I’m not talking about anything you have done by the way…this blog is always open to discussion even if opinions vary by each feminist, and I truly appreciate this blog for that…I just think we need to be sure we examine our enthusiasm and make sure it’s not violating someone else’s freedom of choice however limited it may be at the time. It will be a long hard road to liberation, but women silencing each other will not get us anywhere, (again, I’m not talking about you…if anything you pointed it out yourself when it was happening, though that may not have been lioness’s intention)

  232. GraceMargaret August 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM #

    I remember hearing a speech once by MLK about being maladjusted, that it was the sane response to a world where injustice and violence are the norm. “Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted”

    We all try to survive in our own way in a world that despises us, there is no sanity in a world where the simple right to bodily integrity and privacy and freedom of movement is up for ‘debate’. Rape is such a personal crime, and yet there is no other crime out there where people rub salt in the wounds of victims and make it almost impossible to heal.

    ‘Maladjustment’ is a sign of great health and intelligence in women.
    Be proud to be maladjusted.

  233. kristina August 29, 2010 at 6:07 PM #

    Beautiful Grace Margaret…Thank you for sharing, I never knew that about MLK…history where I grew up was…racially limited.

  234. Muhammad November 20, 2010 at 12:36 AM #

    Jeez lol, that was kinda harsh. You sound super pissed off (no offence). These comments are quite brutal too.
    I already kinda hate myself for being a guy and I wish I wasn’t a dude and this just bummed me out even more lol. I ain’t gonna defend men or anything though, I get what you’re saying, I know men do stupid shit and all…sorry about that :/

    I’m pretty sure I’m not one of those guys though, I think so, I try to live a pure life and stuff. I’ve never had any alcohol or nothing and I don’t look at pornos or go to strip clubs or any of that stuff, I try to always say please and thank you and I give up my seat up for old people on the bus when the chance arises…I never hurt no one and I always thought I was being a good person but now I’m worried to go out of my front door haha….I usually just keep to myself but I’m probably pissing women off all the time. lol sorry :/

    Me and my best friend always complain about how rude and inconsiderate people are, especially drunk people, they’re the worst. Lots of people here are saying that we’re all arrogant and in-your-face but some of us guys just want to get on with our lives too. I’m not defending these chauvinistic dingle-berries or anything but I’m just saying that we’re not all bad, but I dunno, I think I’m digging myself into a hole here and pissing loads of women off. Sorry if I am lol. I’m only 19 so I’m sorry if I sound retarded :P

    Personally I don’t hate anyone but if you want to hate men, then I guess that’s your right and I’m not gonna stop you.
    Salaam :)

  235. isme November 20, 2010 at 2:53 AM #

    “I always thought I was being a good person”

    Unfortunately, people generally do, whether they are or not.

    On the other hand, if you stop to seriously question whether or not that’s true, it becomes much more likely.

  236. Yahhh November 20, 2010 at 12:21 PM #

    “If a woman were to agree with a man that feminists are sexist she would not be questioned by the group she is defending (men), she would be exploited as proof that feminists are sexist because it fits their agenda…”

    As someone who’s neither MRA and Feminist I think I’m objective in saying it seems to be the same to me. But even if I were biased, I wouldn’t know it consciously.

    I’ve been hanging out at MRA circles as much as I have been around feminist circles… to watch and observe what they do, and in MRA circles… when women try to stand on their (mra) side, a huge percentage of MRAs get paranoid and keep finding faults with the woman until she either leaves or becomes as extreme as they are. Very few women remain in those circles, as the men there have this mechanism of “You either agree with our most extreme interpretations a 1000% or you’re a feminist in disguise and we’ll insult you and shame you away”.

    Both MRA and feminists are going to hate me for saying this, but the two groups are so much alike, its funny. Both have developed mechanisms to uphold extreme unbalanced views (in opposite directions).

    MRAs have: “What about the women” “white knight” shaming, which involves shaming any guy who dares point out that women do genuinely have some problems and you can’t solve male-gender-role issues without also tackling female-gender-role issues. So if a man shows even 0.001% caring about women, he is chased away with “what about the women” shaming… and told he’s really pandering to women (white-knighting), or really submissive to women.

    Feminists have “what about the menz” shaming, which is identical. If anyone points out that you can’t solve female issues without to at least an extent looking at male ones… they are chased away with a similar shaming method.

    MRAs have a paranoid mechanism by which, if any woman agrees with them even a bit, she will be bullied into agreeing with them a 100000%, and even with the most outlandish extreme theories. If she doesn’t, she’ll be convicted of not caring for male issues out of the real reasons.

    Feminists have a mechanism also, where if a man agrees with even most things, unless he unquestionably accept every single theory/interpretation… He will be chased away with shaming and accusations that he isn’t genuinely in it out of genuine reasons.

    • Nine Deuce November 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM #

      MRAs, despite their absurd paranoia, are not oppressed. There’s the key difference, though there are plenty of others I don’t have time to explain.

  237. kristina November 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM #

    YAY…Yahhh… you have the correct analysis…now see nine deuce’s point and you are officially a feminist…

  238. Bluecat November 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM #

    @Yahhh:

    It’s true that MRAs and rad fems could be considered “extremist” groups. That’s because they’re on opposite ends of the oppression spectrum: MRAs are fighting for the right to continue oppressing women, and rad fems are fighting for freedom from oppression. It’s like saying that both the axis nations and the allied nations of WWII shared the commonality of going to “extremes” to defend their views. Both sides engaged in merciless, barbarous warfare, but for very different reasons. (Radical feminists are the analogue of the Allies, if that wasn’t evident.)

    I’ve been hanging out at MRA circles as much as I have been around feminist circles…

    You must be very new to this, then, because anyone familiar with the feminist movement is aware that you’ll find a shit ton of gender essentialism/male privilege apologia in some well-established feminist circles.

  239. Bluecat November 20, 2010 at 5:27 PM #

    MRAs have: “What about the women” “white knight” shaming, which involves shaming any guy who dares point out that women do genuinely have some problems and you can’t solve male-gender-role issues without also tackling female-gender-role issues.

    Feminists have “what about the menz” shaming, which is identical. If anyone points out that you can’t solve female issues without to at least an extent looking at male ones…

    MRAs are ardently pro-patriarchy, which feminists have long pointed out is directly responsible for every single gripe MRAs have about social issues that directly impact the welfare of men, but they refuse to listen because they’re not about to abdicate their position of superiority in the gender hierarchy. In a nutshell, feminism would make everyone’s lives easier/better, even the lives of MRAs, but MRAs prefer to cling to male privilege while griping about the societal ills they’ve brought upon themselves.

  240. isme November 20, 2010 at 8:41 PM #

    “Feminists have “what about the menz” shaming, which is identical. If anyone points out that you can’t solve female issues without to at least an extent looking at male ones… they are chased away with a similar shaming method.”

    “what about the menz” isn’t about looking at male issues for the purpose of dealing with female issues.

    It’s about trivialising and trying to silence discussion of female issues, by constantly reminding people that men are affected to some lesser extent, which somehow stops the issue from being a problem.

    That is, if it’s a legitimate point, it’s not a “what about the menz” argument.

    “Feminists have a mechanism also, where if a man agrees with even most things, unless he unquestionably accept every single theory/interpretation… He will be chased away with shaming and accusations that he isn’t genuinely in it out of genuine reasons.”

    You refer to the One True Gospel of Feminism, from which all feminists base their beliefs? Yeah, it can be surprisingly hard to track that one down.

    Less flippantly, one of the noticeable differences between MRAs and feminists is that the MRAs often seem to be working from the same manual (no pun intended), whereas feminists are much more fractured.

  241. Yahhh November 20, 2010 at 11:55 PM #

    Most MRAs are not opressed, sure… Neither are most feminists who are rich white women. Truth is, both groups are super-selfish groups composed of individuals who are in the top 1% of the world population when it comes to privilege… And both spent an insane amount of time arguing about problems 99% of the world-population wish they had.

    I honestly can’t envision someone who’s working on research curing AIDS, fighting world poverty or doing something that tackles the 99% of the worst things on planet earth, actually having time to either be an mra or an online feminist.

  242. Yahhh November 21, 2010 at 12:00 AM #

    Or put another way. Its like a fight between two spoiled children of billionaires, fighting who has it easier, and who has access to Lamborghini more often. Spending ridiculous amounts of time analyzing and fithing each other over who has it easier, and who gets more goodies from mom and dad.

    MRA: I’m oppressed, coz you get to use the butler all the time
    Feminist: WHAT?!? I wasn’t even allowed to drive the lamborghini, mom gave it to you for 20 years! I only got the right to drive the lambo last week
    MRA: Well, well well, but… You get to take 5 bodyguards with you, whereas they only let me take one :( So obviously YOU have all the privileges…

    etc… etc…

  243. GraceMargaret November 21, 2010 at 1:35 AM #

    I once had a chat with an MRA, he said he wanted to reinstate Patriarchy and that women’s rights have gotten ‘out of hand’. I don’t desire to create a matriarchy and I don’t believe that men should be stripped of their human rights. It’s a key difference.

  244. isme November 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM #

    “Neither of you wants to accept that society is screwing us both equally”

    So…one third of men will be raped during their lifetimes, the same for women?

    Rape being one of the those things feminists are strongly concerned about, but I’m not sure that 99% of women in the world wishes they had to worry about that (which would also imply that they currently didn’t).

  245. kristina November 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM #

    Yahhh…what feminists do YOU talk to??? I am not poverty level, but just above it..I mean BARELY above it, I can’t get the help I need, and I’m not really doing well either…I can barely buy one pair of jeans without screwing up my grocery bill…

  246. Yahhh November 21, 2010 at 7:42 PM #

    @Kristina. That still makes you more privileged than 99% of people on this planet. The average person in poverty in the USA or UK lives better than most intellectuals/laywers or doctors in most of the rest of the world. You just take it for granted by comparing yourself to even more privileged people.

    @Isme “It’s about trivialising and trying to silence discussion of female issues, by constantly reminding people that men are affected to some lesser extent, which somehow stops the issue from being a problem.”

    You just proved my point. Whenever MRA write these long whiney posts about how society/court/media is hurting men… If I point out that its also hurting women, what response do I get from the MRA? They say

    “YAH, will you stop reminding us about the women!!! You are trying to silence the discussion of male issues by reminding us that women are affected to smaller extent”.

    So yes, you are identical in that regard. MRA=feminists=mra… You use the exact same shaming to promote unbalanced views (to the exact phrasing and wording!). Neither of you wants to accept that society is screwing us both equally… And how does it screw us both? It creates a divide&conquer strategy where it pits women against men… And it uses mra to rile men up in an a paranoid unbalanced view… Feminists to rile women up.

    It makes us fight over who is getting screwed more. Arguing like little children… No no, I am screwed more… No no, its me! No no, its really me!

    • Nine Deuce November 21, 2010 at 7:58 PM #

      You’re missing something, dude. Women are kept in cages and sexually tortured to death in this world in large numbers. Women are bought and sold like chattel in American cities as well as all over the entire Earth. Women’s freedom to live without the fear of being raped, beaten, or killed simply for being female is trampled upon in every direction. Do you think feminism doesn’t seek to address those issues? Get this: women’s oppression is systemically interconnected on a global scale. The dehumanization/objectification that characterizes fascistic beauty standards and the porn industry in the West (in addition to the rapes and violence that occur here) also fuels the brutalization of women worldwide. No one is claiming that we have it harder than men everywhere, what we’re claiming (because it’s true) is that women’s status is tied to men’s status in a hierarchical fashion wherever one goes, with men on top. Western women are subordinated to western men because we live in close proximity to them. Indian women are subordinated to Indian men because they live in close proximity. I may have a higher standard of living than most Indonesians, but Indonesian women have it worse than Indonesian men. No one is claiming that there aren’t intersections and overlaps in oppression (I’m opposed to the capitalist global distribution of labor and resources that allows that differential in living standards to occur), but everywhere you go, if you take an ethnoracial group or an economic class, you’ll find that the women within it reside on a lower rung of the ladder than men do.

      What do MRAs really have to worry about? That they won’t be given unfair advantages in schools/court cases? That they won’t be the boss in their households? Give me a fucking break. Let’s at least take the arguments of both sides seriously and have a look at their merits before making the claim that they’re the exact same deal. MRAs cannot provide you with many legitimate facts to back up their claims of oppression. Feminists can. When a woman hates men, it’s because she’s noticed that most of them are misogynistic assholes and wants to protect her safety and emotional health. When MRAs hate women, it’s because they think their privileges are in danger and they want to preserve them. They’re both right, but only one of them deserves what they’re after, and it isn’t the MRA. The end.

      And if you keep insulting my readers, you’re banned. I’ve already had to trash several of your pissy, presumptuous, laughably reasoned posts.

  247. Bluecat November 22, 2010 at 1:02 AM #

    MRAs cannot provide you with many legitimate facts to back up their claims of oppression. Feminists can. When a woman hates men, it’s because she’s noticed that most of them are misogynistic assholes and wants to protect her safety and emotional health. When MRAs hate women, it’s because they think their privileges are in danger and they want to preserve them. They’re both right, but only one of them deserves what they’re after, and it isn’t the MRA. The end.

    Perfectly said, except I would go even farther to say MRAs can’t provide any valid arguments at all to support their bizarro male persecution fantasies. Every time one of them cites some study or other, their “facts” are either fabricated, exaggerated or wildly misconstrued data (or evo psych nonsense); it’s all patriarchal propaganda. Not a single one of them has ever advanced a logical argument here, that’s for sure.

  248. Bluecat November 22, 2010 at 1:09 AM #

    Yahh, so far this is the extent of what you’ve said: Blah blah blah male privilege denial blah blah ignorance of rudimentary feminist principles blah blah blah I’m here to make shit up and provoke an argument for the hell of it blah.

    *Yawn*

  249. kristina November 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM #

    “That still makes you more privileged than 99% of people on this planet. The average person in poverty in the USA or UK lives better than most intellectuals/laywers or doctors in most of the rest of the world. You just take it for granted by comparing yourself to even more privileged people.”

    Are you retarded??? I never said I didn’t have it better than people who have less money than me..I do… wtf is wrong with you? I’m saying it’s easy to see REAL oppression when you’re in the fucking middle…moron..poor people are so busy trying to feed themselves that they don’t have TIME to think how it could be better (I speak for them)the poor prostitute that knows its unfair that she has to earn money that way, but has no choice can’t really see WHY she can’t reach her goal of being able to provide for herself without being a prostitute…all she knows is how to survive and that this method of survival sucks…rich people are so self obsessed that they don’t care…

    Seriously…just fuck off… I don’t have time for your bullshit.

  250. Yahhh November 24, 2010 at 6:13 PM #

    The fact that both MRAs and Feminists are equally annoyed by me is something that makes me proud. Especially since I say the exact same thing to both groups. I don’t say one thing to MRAs to rile them up, and another to feminists.

    Truth: Both men and women are oppressed in equal but different ways. Gender roles restrict and shackle both

    MRA: That’s a lie!! Women all have just a bunch of privileges!! Their oppressions are made up and blown out of proportion! Our opressions are real! Feminists can’t prove s*it!

    Feminists: That’s a lie!! Men all have just a bunch of privileges!! Their oppressions are made up and blown out of proportion! Our opressions are real! Mra can’t prove s*it!

    Both feminists and MRA actually serve the system that they think they’re fighting. The system wants the genders fighting each other (divide&conquer). The system wants a man to only see his own disadvantages and ignore and downplay all of a woman’s disadvantages. Vice versa for women.

    Its how the system keeps things going. Its ingenious really. It keeps men misogynistic, by making them blame everything on women. It keeps women misandric, by making them blame everything on men.

    Divide & Conquer at its most perfect implementation.

  251. Yahhh November 24, 2010 at 6:22 PM #

    Truth is its obvious as a day that most MRAs are losers who think its their god-given right to get laid.

    And because they got rejected a few times, they started generalizing that all women are evil and mean… And then they started finding “proof” of it in the real world, by reading about all the anti-male laws, bla bla bla. Only noticing the worst-women, and ignoring the 99% of women who are good people…

    They start only finding “proof” that fits their world-view, and ignoring all the evidence that doesn’t. Which can be said for feminists as well. You both do it. You only accept the pieces that fit your own world-view, and refuse to look at contradictory evidence. You’re both disbalanced and just as far from truth, except in opposite directions.

    “””MRAs cannot provide you with many legitimate facts to back up their claims of oppression. Feminists can. When a woman hates men, it’s because she’s noticed that most of them are misogynistic assholes and wants to protect her safety and emotional health.”””

    They claim the same about you. In fact, the paragraph above, if I replaced “MRAs” and “feminists” and “misogyny” with “misandary”. the paragraph might just as well come from a popular MRA site. You even use the exact same languaging and wording that MRAs use.

    They say that feminism is based on entirely faulty studies, and that all their claims are real and objective, and yours are distorted.

    Truth is, you both do it. Both of you have a lot of legit claims, and a lot of lies, exaggerations, distorted studies etc.

    You both exaggerate your own points like heck, and downplay the others’.

    Truth: The system is screwing us both in equal, but different ways. And the ingenious part? It brainwashes us to blame the opposite gender instead of the system itself… while they’re taking the money to the bank. Oldest strategy on planet earth.

  252. Yahhh November 24, 2010 at 8:10 PM #

    “You’re missing something” -> I’m not missing them. Every single form of opression of women that you mentioned, I am well aware of. I am well-researched on every form of opression of women and every single theory put out.

    All of those are legit and do exist. The thing you’re missing is that its not an either or proposition. Its not that either women or opressed or men or opressed.

    Its not men vs. women. Its elite men vs men and women. I accept every opression you list. That doesn’t mean I have to accept your intepretation, because that’s what the elites want.

    The elites love mra/feminism. The idea is to have men blaming women and women blaming men.

    Its not either I am opressed or you are. We both are.

    • Nine Deuce November 24, 2010 at 10:44 PM #

      Still missing the point. Feminists are anti-hierarchy. MRAs are pro-hierarchy as long as they get to sit atop it.

  253. skeptifem November 25, 2010 at 12:21 PM #

    Yahhh-I don’t know what kind of feminism you’ve been reading about, but the point of feminism is not to rule over men or the world or any shit like that. Radical feminist especially seem to not want authoritarian style anything. MRAs want women under their boot, and say so. Its a big difference.

  254. kristina November 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM #

    Oh Christ Yahhh…you think I don’t see how men are “oppressed”??? They too are oppressed by strict gender roles…Feminism wants to get rid of gender roles all together…not JUST women’s gender role… You miss the point entirely…I agree it’s not a zero-sum game…get rid of rigid gender roles everyone will be happy…You assume that feminists think it’s a zero sum game…what a bullshit assumption… get over yourself already!

    Yes…life sucks for everyone… why does it suck for everyone??? You know so much, yet so little…

  255. Fede November 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM #

    Yahhh,

    In reply to your flappergasting “Truth: The system is screwing us both in equal, but different ways”, here is the World Economic Forum’s gender gap report on the ways in which the system screws women over. Do me the favour of actually clicking on the link before you dismiss it, please. And after that, you can provide me with the evidence of how men are equally screwed.

  256. NotSo November 25, 2010 at 12:22 PM #

    @ Yahh

    “Truth: The system is screwing us both in equal, but different ways. And the ingenious part? It brainwashes us to blame the opposite gender instead of the system itself… while they’re taking the money to the bank. Oldest strategy on planet earth.”

    ‘The system’? What is this system? And how is it brainwashing us? Who is in charge of this system? If it’s not MRAs and it’s not Radfems then clearly it’s someone else. Or is it an alien robot race from space?

    Please clarify.

  257. isme November 25, 2010 at 12:23 PM #

    “Truth: Both men and women are oppressed in equal but different ways.”

    I know you’re new here, but as a rule, you’re only supposed to apply the “truth” label to things that are, you know, actually true. Simply because both sides claim to be unfairly persecuted by the other doesn’t mean that one of them isn’t right.

    It is an established fact that the overwhelming majority of people who are raped are women, and that the overwhelming majority of rapists are men. Likewise, abuse and/or murder by a partner is much more likely to be perpetrated by a man upon a woman than the other way around. This is generally accepted as fitting the definition of “unequal”.

    So, won’t you enlighten us, what are women doing to men in order to oppress them equally?

    “Its not men vs. women. Its elite men vs men and women.”

    So, therefore, rapes are committed only (ok, for sake of argument, predominately) by elite men? Women aren’t in danger of being murdered by their husbands unless the husband happens to be running the government?

  258. GraceMargaret November 25, 2010 at 12:23 PM #

    Yahhh, you said, “Gender roles restrict and shackle both.”

    You think feminist don’t agree with that statement?

    You obviously haven’t read much feminist writing or talked to very many feminists.

    You came here with your mind made up on what feminists think and it doesn’t seem like anything anyone says will sway you because you’re caught up in some romantic notion that you are some rebel who just stirs shit up: “The fact that both MRAs and Feminists are equally annoyed by me is something that makes me proud.” Yeah, whatever.

    Do you think the KKK and the NAACP are the same? White power movements try to use the same language that black civil rights activists use. The fact that they use the same language doesn’t lend any credence to your “Gotcha! You are all the same!” philosophy, and it doesn’t mean both equally oppressed. Your argument is silly.

    Are most men and women oppressed by a system where 1% of the population Own 90% of the wealth? Of course. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a caste system where whites have privileges over non-whites, and men have power and privileges over women. Pointing this out doesn’t make one a hater of men or white folks.

    I would LOVE to work with men to fight for things like the obscene distribution of wealth on this planet and environmental issues and peace and justice. That would be awesome. Where do I sign up?
    Unfortunately Yahhh I have been involved in groups like that and was idealistic and naive thinking they saw me as human being equal in worth and importance. How many women have been involved in these movements only to find that the majority of the men see you as just a sex object or the clean up crew?
    Divide and conquer does work, amazingly. But women are still seen as second-class citizens or subhumans by the majority of men regardles of their socio-economic position.

  259. scarebear January 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM #

    Men are the cause of everything that’s wrong in this world. Aids and all other std’s are spread mainly by men, women and children are beaten, raped and molested by men. Prostitution, pornography and child pornography only exist because of men. So much war and violence in this world because of ? You guessed it men! They have even killed mother earth. Children grow up in broken homes because of men. Shall I go on?

  260. Christina May 7, 2011 at 10:47 AM #

    Men taking up space and treating women the way they please is unfortunately considered perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. Now more than ever this sexist concept should be aggressively challenged.

  261. Jaelenn Hayes August 20, 2011 at 2:24 AM #

    I wish you could hear me clapping becuase this article as well as the privious one is so true. I hate being forced into my masculinity, having to show no saddess cause it was a form of “weakness”. Also having he the thoughts put into your mind that problems for a guy can only be solved by sensless violence. You’re right, if we could get rid of the typhical gender roles then mabye less boys/guys, would grow up to be asshole men, that we have to deal with everyday.

  262. Sugarpuss August 22, 2011 at 4:41 AM #

    Oh god, I’m about to explode. I don’t know how much more man-crap I can tolerate before I lose my marbles. This is a bit off-topic, but I really need to rant.

    Some sick fuck on a sports blog was comparing women to pro-wrestling championship titles. One>/b> person (out of 109 comments!) called him on it. His response?

    “I apologize if I offended you with the prostituting the belt remark. I didn’t think it would come off sexist, as I’m not referring to women in general. In that remark, I’m speaking on loose women who go from man to man. Think about it, if a woman cheapens herself by letting every dude who propositions her take her to bed, isn’t she a whore? If, as a man, you then take up this whore who’s slept with half the people you know, won’t you be made fun of?

    On the other hand, if you find a woman who doesn’t give it up to just anyone, a woman with class, prestige and beauty, doesn’t being with someone like that, as opposed to a whore make a man better? Behind every great man is a great woman, sort of thing. The man is enhanced in the eyes of others if he’s dating a queen as opposed to a harlot.”

    Notice how this piece of shit appears to view women as nothing more than male status enhancers? That’s the part that really fucking pissed me off. It’s all about the men, always. They thrive off of depriving women of all of life’s pleasures; sex (if the woman is initiating it on her own terms), food, personal comfort, etc. Everything we do or say must lead to the ultimate goal of elevating men and making their lives better. This is just one of many reasons why I HATE men. They continue to labor under the highly erroneous belief that they are planets, and women are merely satellites that revolve around them. Men are despicable, selfish, dishonest, hypocritical creatures, yet they have placed themselves on a pedestal of moral authority & righteousness. HAHAHAHA! Despite all of the heinous crimes & other atrocities they have committed, they still feel perfectly justified in the act of policing women’s sex lives. Wooooow.

    I rarely engage in any type of social functions, and I actually look forward to dying.

    This fucked-up human experience was made possible by…
    MEN: crushing women’s dreams and dictating every aspect of our lives since forever.

  263. Sugarpuss August 22, 2011 at 4:43 AM #

    Oops. I messed up the code on that. Can somebody fix it?

  264. gracemargaret August 22, 2011 at 6:42 PM #

    Interesting how sex only makes a woman dirty. Not only dirty but also capable of abandoning her children. Susan Cox Powell, a woman who has been missing since 2009 and whose husband is the prime suspect in her disappearance, is being dragged through the mud by her father-in-law, who is publishing her personal diaries online. She wrote these diaries as a teenager. He says it shows that she ‘had an appetite for sex’ which proves she is capable of abandoning her 2 and 4-year-old children for another man (which her husband claims) at age 28 and letting her family and friends be sick with worry, not knowing whether she’s living or dead. She must totally be a ‘whore’ who would wantonly abandon her kids because in her teens she wrote about liking boys and sex.

    • Gowan October 12, 2014 at 10:34 AM #

      “Interesting how sex only makes a woman dirty.”

      The implication being, that men are already dirty, and the more sex they have, the more of the dirt rubs off on women, so if they had sex with a hundred virgins, they are finally clean enough to be considered worthy of respect, while the women are dirty and therefore no longer worthy of respect.

      Though why men like to perceive themselves as dirty assholes is beyond me.

  265. Hecate August 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM #

    Well Sugarpuss, I suppose at least this loser wears his beliefs on his sleeve, despicable as they are. Many men I’ve known secretly harbor these thoughts, and though I am rarely surprised when they do show their true colors, it’s still depressing. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the biblical Whore of Babylon were to fall out of the sky and kill him? I love reading that passage in Revelations actually, whenever I need a good laugh :D

    That’s a horrible story too, gracemargaret. If I’m just a whore to men, I guess I should go the whole hog and become a bloody, raging, screaming one, vagina dentata style. I’ll become Kali incarnate, devour them, then spit them back out. Might as well give them something to really be scared of/ have complexes over!

  266. isme August 23, 2011 at 6:33 AM #

    “Everything we do or say must lead to the ultimate goal of elevating men and making their lives better.”

    Argh, yes. The endless cries of sexism prompted by any mention of services for women aimed at removing equality. Ongoing societal problems are to be quietly ignored, but any talk of something to help women overcome them, and it’s a fucking outrage, and every male present has a moral obligation to say so the same way at least once.

  267. skeptifem August 23, 2011 at 11:53 PM #

    Whenever I see a dude saying something along the lines of “women can be used up by sex” (like the dude in the bolded post) I merely point out that objects become devalued with use, people get experienced when they do things. It is a very important difference between people and things. The man thinks women are objects. It is impossible to devalue women for being sexually experienced without buying into the idea that women are things that get dirty because of overuse. I can’t think of another activity where the initiator discredits experienced people (for being experienced). The only thing I can come up with is fraudsters who want someone too naive to know that something really fucked up is going on, and even then they don’t get the privilege of outright deriding someone for knowing better.

  268. lizor August 27, 2011 at 5:45 AM #

    “objects become devalued with use, people get experienced when they do things. It is a very important difference between people and things. ”

    Awesome post, skeptifem.

  269. joy September 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM #

    WHAT ABOUT TEH MENS!!!!

  270. gracemargaret September 7, 2011 at 7:22 PM #

    I know Greta means well, but seriously am I supposed to considered it “sexism” against men when they’re asked to consider women human and then pressured by men to see us as objects?? Yeah, men use intimidation tactics to keep other men in line for the patriarchy. In other news, the sky is blue.

  271. skeptifem September 8, 2011 at 9:29 AM #

    I blogged about greta’s regrettable response to the elevatorgate fiasco in our atheist-skeptic community. It was ridiculous. It said something like “instead of getting all mad you dudes need to understand that we are trying to help you get laid by giving you a clue about when you are creepy”. Yeah, I am so not trying to do any of that. The entire leadership of atheist-skeptic groups is dudes so you kind of have to kiss ass to get anywhere, unfortunately. It’s called “how not to attract feminist allies” in case anyone is interested. Christina had a post about how women have more “freedom” in fashion recently too, which blew my mind. We are free to wear more types of things but not free to be perceived as serious or respectable, so wtf kind of freedom is that? The feminism lite going around in our groups is annoying.

  272. Crucial D November 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM #

    Argh, this guy in my Women & Violence class takes up space like he owns it. He takes his shoes off in class, walks around the room and sometimes sits on the table at the front of the class. He acts as if it is his classroom and that we’re all there to learn from his infinite wisdom. gag.

  273. Jacque December 4, 2011 at 5:24 AM #

    I have longed to read something as to the point of this for awhile.
    Iam absolutely sick, sickended, and in persistent throwing up mode in relation to the men I have had to ‘experience’ in my life.
    Like you, I am not am idiot that dropped out of the sky, and was moulded from a bone. I am a human being and have experienced pretty much every sort of shit a man could throw. I have a couple of MA’s, solicitors qualifications, but, in a ‘Christian hell hole, (and I wont say it’s name as I could be done for slander). I applied for a small lecturing post,not getting it I throught it had to be to do woith the factl, that the young man who interviewed must have beena genius..no such luck… Just, a fucking bastard, fucking up another womans life in the name of the hierachical God which states women like YOU are’nt holy..I hapeen to be gay, politicially, socially, emotionally..I couldn’t care less…I love women because, no bloddy else will in terms of men.

    As it happens, when I put in a complaint, all 1700 of them, they couldn’t be even arsed to answer let alone apologise. In the end I thought they could stick their God where the sun doesn’t shine. I will say this, having done the rounds in terms of leagl research. The rape law a great hand me down from the times of Henry the V111 (and I wont go into his lovely statutes on how and why men must be on TOP…in every ‘fucking’ way…and excuse the language, but, Henry the V111 did provide a statute on that too.. (no wonder I suffer from tourettes syndrome…). To suffice, the rape law, not that long conjugated from the removal of rape law in marriage, says it all to me..as to just how our wonderful education system reinforces what law should be there for the protection of men’s wondering dicks..just so of course they don’t really wander..I’m sure any decent politician would argue…
    That law if flipped is a very pecyliar definition of what sex is, why they don’t add if you reverse the definition back from sex to rape, that rape, could also constitute penile penetration ijn your ear, up your nose, why not even try your eyeball…

    I hate men, and I hate them with a vengenece, because, no man, should go around thinking they have a GOD given right that they have the right to stick their dick whereever they want. And, when they think they are bveing sweet and don’t, you know that it is only a matter of time, before they begin to assert their ‘legal/education’.

    There is however, something else that makes me really want to puke. If one were to ever find someone that was the mirage of marriageable material..then you can bet your bottom dollar that as well as being left with the baby’s shit to clean..and thank God for disposable nappies, they are generally left with the toilet brush as well.

    I gage a man, as to how willing he is to clean his own shit, let alone somebody elses, and generally speaking they aren’t, because they are as you quite rightly note, pontificating on the merits of themselves or pontifiacting full stop, whether that be through evangelical crap..which I have had…”oh let me pray over you and you will soon be better’, or legally trying to manipulate the generoisty of women, into dropping the rape punishment down a couple of thirds..as a recent politician quoted for honesty. What the fuck does a politician think he is doing calling a rapist honest…in my books he’s giving licence almost to genocide..which is preety much why the abortion law came into place,,,for those poor *****who couldn’t affird for their rapings.

    Here’s a piece of history..Hale a wonderful Christian he was quoted as..he had a couple of women hung for their unnatural relationships..indeed, he was you could say, one of those chaps who was into female genital muitilation. Unlike Freud I don’t have penile envy, I like my penies just as it is. But, historically thatks to Hales hand me down philosophy based on the Kings…women were hung drawn and quartered if they wanted to express their love of women,,,because it ‘pissed them off they couldn’t get what they wanted.

    Not alot of women accept their gayness because, many are cultured into believing that its wrong..but it’s a load of if you’ll excuse the expression balls. No man seeks to mutilate women with female genital mutilation if they are not more than a little concerned about the fact that it takes control from their ‘conjugal’ rights away. As for being a chattel..in Britain, I’m changing my name. I think it stinks to have a name that isn’t your own..I call it identity theft, as for being given away down an aisle in a white dress, I’d rather cut my throat or hang myself.

  274. Stoney December 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM #

    I approached this website, as a man, with the express intent of being offended, the express intent of not heeding the views of the authors and allies here. However, having read through this, and many other, comment strings, posts, and articles posted or linked to on this site, I find very little I can feel unfairly put upon by. Your arguments are effective, your reasoning sound and airtight, and your languge, as caustic as I find it as a man, both insightful and witty. Until…

    You knew that was coming, right? A man certainly couldn’t be entirely accepting of a community devoted to a feminist ideal or collection of ideals, right? And there were certainly some parts I did find issue with. However, I’m wondering if I’m misunderstanding, or if these statements did indeed mean what I believe they mean.

    Earlier in the page, joy mentioned Valerie Solanas’ S.C.U.M Manifesto “has a point and is a wonderfully articulated work”. FemmeForever also made this statement: “This is especially true for men. They hate the fact that they can never be as worthwhile and truly valuable as women are and therefore they have to punish us for showing them up as the puffed-up, insubstantial, false images that they are.”, something that seems to echo Valerie’s statements about men quite handily. As some questions to both joy and FemmeForever: do you believe that this masculine uselessness is genetic? Do you advocate a post-genetically male society? If this is the case, do men deserve to have any rights, or do they deserve nothing better than a bullet to the brain to remove a danger to society? And if the answer to these propositions is yes, is Solanas’ model morally or scientifically defensible?

  275. No Sugarcoating December 26, 2011 at 7:06 PM #

    I know I’m not Joy or FemmeForever, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that as much as some of us do hate/”hate” men, no one here would advocate killing a few billion people. Having not read the S.C.U.M. manifesto, I can’t really correct you, but…have you read the S.C.U.M. manifesto?

  276. Stoney December 27, 2011 at 10:11 AM #

    I have indeed read it, and it does advocate the complete and violent emasculation, disenfranchisement, and destruction of the male gender, in order to secure the dominance of the emotionally, mentally, and morally superior female gender.

    “Prior to the institution of automation, to the replacement of males by machines, the male should be of use to the female, wait on her, cater to her slightest whim, obey her every command, be totally subservient to her, exist in perfect obedience to her will, as opposed to the completely warped, degenerate situation we have now of men, not only not only not existing at all, cluttering up the world with their ignominious presence, but being pandered to and groveled before by the mass of females, millions of women piously worshiping the Golden Calf, the dog leading the master on a leash, when in fact the male, short of being a drag queen, is least miserable when his dogginess is recognized — no unrealistic emotional demands are made of him and the completely together female is calling the shots. Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.”

    Fascinating reading, actually, even though I find the very idea of typecasting or elevating one gender above another repugnant. I got the same feelings reading the Little Red Book, or Mein Kampf.

    Now, I have, I suppose invoked Godwins Law, which means I lose automatically. XD However, I do so not in an attempt to offend, but hoping to clarify what the Manifesto means to you, and how or if it can be reconciled with the rest of what’s been written here.

  277. Sugarpuss December 27, 2011 at 9:15 PM #

    @Stoney: Why is it okay for men to claim universal superiority (a belief so pervasive, that it literally permeates every aspect of our lives), but when one woman dares to make such a proclamation regarding the female sex, men get their panties in a bunch?

    PS Mein Kampf was written by a MAN who had the POWER to deliver on his threats. Hitler was not a minority. You’re confusing the have-nots with the powers-that-be. Men are Hitler…Feminists are angry Jews. That’s the proper context, dolt.

  278. Sugarpuss December 27, 2011 at 9:29 PM #

    Aint it funny how dudes always claim to “find the very idea of typecasting or elevating one gender above another repugnant” on a Feminist blog…but you never see these guys calling out other men on their typecasting & elevating themselves over women.

    Coincidence? Nah.

  279. Sugarpuss December 27, 2011 at 10:12 PM #

    117 Likes. 33 dislikes.

    http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/eLxWN0_OlbU

    209 Likes. 150 Dislikes. First comment reads: “Dude i understand i hate women to they deserve to be beaten and raped”.

    http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MMb8Csll9Ws?rel=0

    886 Likes. 102 Dislikes. Everyone thinks it’s “hilarious”.

    http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/113mRmchumY?rel=0

    219 Likes. 38 Dislikes. Another oldie that some scumbag uploaded because he’s pining away for the good ‘ol days. One of the top-rated comments reads: “I showed my wife this, and then told her to get me a pepsi… She didn’t
    21st century housewife, stays home, spends the money i make and dosn’t make me sandwhiches let alone dinner. she is actually watching me write this BITCH”
    .

    These are just little samples of how much men despise women. So, Stoney, I think you need to STFU about the SCUM Manifesto. Women have every right to not only hate men, but fantasize about killing them. Living in peace is only a dream for us. But you want to steal that too, I suppose.

  280. gracemargaret December 28, 2011 at 12:08 AM #

    @Stoney

    Imagine what you felt when reading a book by Valerie and think of how it feels to be a woman reading the “elevating one gender above another” and naked hatred for women by Great and Respected Men like Aristotle, The Buddha, Socrates, Freud, Nietzsche, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Plato, Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, the writers of The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, Otto Weininger, William Burroughs (he shot his wife and got away with it), Henry Miller, Carl Jung, Norman Mailer (tried to stab his wife to death but didn’t succeed, got away with it), Philip Roth…to name a small few.

    These men are not some random street people or jerks on the internet with too much time on their hands. They are respected and celebrated men in History. Their hatred of women and murder attempts don’t seem to hurt their reputations in the least. Valerie Solanas was an aspiring playwright who lived on the streets and was ripped off by Andy Warhol (along with many other people) and shot him after asking him to return for one of her plays back which Andy said he “lost.” She wasn’t the first person who tried to kill Andy, he seemed to piss off many people by not paying them for their work or stealing their ideas. Not that that excuses it, but her motive wasn’t hatred for men. She didn’t go on some killing spree of men like misogynist heroes George Sodini and Marc Lepine (do an internet search of these men and see how their actions are celebrated or excused or blamed on women).

  281. Hecate December 28, 2011 at 2:20 PM #

    That’s a great point regarding Valerie, gracemargaret. It’s precisely the one I always bring up when I hear men being very generous with insults like ‘feminazi’ against radfems. There truly are no examples to be found now or in history of radfems committing actual violence acts against men collectively.

    Apparently Valerie passed away in a hotel in my neighborhood. May her spirit live on! I certainly continue to be inspired by her courage and daring.

  282. Stoney December 28, 2011 at 11:13 PM #

    Sugarpuss, you are putting words in my mouth, massively. Have I ever said it was okay? Do you even know what positions I espouse? Setting me up as a strawman misogynist to knock me down is rather impolite. Hatred or not, civil discourse would be nice. And I’ve been banned from a lot of the MRA forums or blogs. One big point in this communities favor: the discussion of dissenting ideas is at least allowed. Most of the MRA blogs either delete comments that don’t agree or offend their members. The videos, unfortunately, I cannot watch due to bandwidth restrictions in my current location. I can imagine the content, however.

    We’re not discussing the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, or otherwise(all of whom could be talked about and analyzed for pages upon pages for the other pervasive prejudices which make them reprehensible in a hundred other ways. Common threads of sexism, racism, classism, religious intolerance, and other forms of prejudice run through these works, poisoning their sometimes cogent points. Jefferson was remarkably racist, along with having a marked disregard for those who were not farmers or otherwise working the land, etc)

    the Manifesto has little cogent meaning other than blatant prejudice. Again, much like Mein Kampf, or the teachings of the Nation of Islam. Hatred is hatred, whether by the oppressed, as in the case of the disadvantaged black men of the NOI, or in the case of the oppressor, as in Hitler. I understand the question of difference of origin. However, give hatred the reigns, and the result would be terrible in any case. Some ethnic Germans, who felt, and were correct in some ways, that their country was being oppressed by the demands of the world on them, handed Hitler and others command of their hatred. I will always have a reminder of that consequence, in the tattoos on my grandmothers arm, and the fact that she’s the only family member on her side who left the war alive.

    However, does this give me the right, as a Jew, to blame the German people, to fantasize about wiping them off the face of the earth as they attempted to do to my people? Shall I blame the Catholic Church for thousands of Jews burned during the Inquisition, torched during the Middle Ages? I think not. Despite their sins, they are human beings, and have the rights of such. Hate speech, against oppressors or not, is still hate speech. Hate the deeds, not the person, etc., etc.

  283. Stoney December 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM #

    As an addendum, I object to Solanas not as a man, but as a person standing up to hatred.

    • Nine Deuce December 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM #

      Before this can continue, you’re going to need to demonstrate that you understand the difference between hate wielded by those with power (oppression) and hate as a reaction to oppression.

  284. gracemargaret December 29, 2011 at 12:48 AM #

    “I object to Solanas not as a man, but as a person standing up to hatred.”

    How brave of you. Just ignore all the hatred I mentioned that actually had an effect on people, on our institutions and shaped our society. Let’s focus on the S.C.U.M. manifesto, as if most people have even heard of, let alone read the thing. Comparable to Hitler, right.

  285. Sugarpuss December 29, 2011 at 3:27 AM #

    @ Stoney: If you’re so passionate about opposing hatred, why not attack it at it’s source? Why exactly do you stand to gain by judging a group of powerless women who have EVERY FUCKING RIGHT to be angry?

    Your male (and white) privilege is rather stinky. I especially recoiled when I read the first few sentences of your initial comment. It was as if you were informing 92 that you, the big awesome manly-man, approve of her post(s). As if you were giving it your much-needed seal of validation. Well, you’re [i]not[/i] needed and you’re [i]not[/i] important…understand?

    PS How convenient that you found some bullshit excuse to avoid watching the videos I linked to. If only those phantom “bandwidth restrictions” would prevent you from ever coming back to this site. What a blessing that would be!

  286. Sugarpuss December 29, 2011 at 3:42 AM #

    Stoney said:

    As an addendum, I object to Solanas not as a man, but as a person standing up to hatred.

    Solania is dead. You’re standing up to a corpse. How brave.

  287. Sugarpuss December 29, 2011 at 3:44 AM #

    Oh hell… I’m making all sorts of typos tonight. Been a long day….

  288. tate December 29, 2011 at 5:38 AM #

    Shall I blame the Catholic Church for thousands of Jews burned during the Inquisition, torched during the Middle Ages?

    Yes. That’s a very strange question to ask. If I punched you in the face you would blame me, but you wouldn’t if I killed thousands instead?

    We’re not discussing the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, or otherwise.

    Neither is the discussion about Hitler and the Holocaust.

    Hatred is hatred

    Yes, but one kind is more pervasive and does more damage than the other :)

  289. tate December 29, 2011 at 5:44 AM #

    Messed up the html tag. Sorry :(

    • Nine Deuce December 29, 2011 at 10:32 AM #

      I did what I assumed you meant to do with the tags. Let me know if I messed it up.

  290. lizor December 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM #

    “We’re not discussing the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, or otherwise(all of whom could be talked about and analyzed for pages upon pages for the other pervasive prejudices which make them reprehensible in a hundred other ways. Common threads of sexism, racism, classism, religious intolerance, and other forms of prejudice run through these works, poisoning their sometimes cogent points. ”

    Oh, well, that’s OK then.

    Honestly, how can you bury the repeated narratives of loathing the female in legacy of these men who drew up the template(s) for western thought and belief and at the same time ignore the continuum of abuse and violence that surounds the S.C.U.M Manifesto? Because your superior dudley privilege allows you to, thanks to all those aforementioned haters that you brush aside.

    Why can’t these finger wagging mansplainers wrap their manly brains around the difference between being mistrusted, feared and loathed FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY DONE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR and being hated for what you are, as per the preachings and practices of those “intellectual leaders”?

    But of course making that distinction would demand some self-reflection on your own responsibilities in excusing and perpetrating hatred.

    If you are serious about hating hate (which you don’t actually seem to be, Stoney) you could at least have a fundamental understanding of the concept with which you insist on taking up space here. I suppose you’d blame a beaten dog for its fear of the belt. But then of course, dogs are not so fundamentally deserving of abuse as us females, correct?

  291. isme December 29, 2011 at 11:20 AM #

    “However, does this give me the right, as a Jew, to blame the German people, to fantasize about wiping them off the face of the earth as they attempted to do to my people? Shall I blame the Catholic Church for thousands of Jews burned during the Inquisition, torched during the Middle Ages? I think not.”

    You are, intentionally or not, speaking of current reactions to things long past and comparing them to current reactions of current things, which is commonly used to dismiss legitimate current grievances.

    Sexism isn’t exclusively lurking in dry and dusty history, it is happening now. People are angry, and have learnt to be hateful because of the way things are now.

    Yes, you have no reason to hate the Catholic Church for what they did centuries ago. If they were to start doing again tomorrow, I’d certainly expect you to hate them for it.

  292. gracemargaret December 29, 2011 at 6:05 PM #

    @ Stoney

    If one if four Jews were sexually assaulted by Germans every year, with the majority of police officers, judges, prosecuters, juries, family and friends saying if a Jew went around flaunting their Jewish culture or features they were just “asking for” sexual assault/abuse,
    if people excused it by saying, “Germans will be Germans!” (wink-wink, nudge),
    if most Germans generally thought what makes them a REAL German is abusing/demeaning Jews,
    if the number one reason for emergency room visits for Jews every year was German fists,
    if people were treating this epidemic of violence against Jews as a trivial issue
    and accused you of hating Germans when just trying bring attention to it or try to change things,
    if there was Holocaust porn,
    then YES, you would be justified in being angry and feeling bitterness and hatred at the system that allows this, at German culture and individual Germans who participate in it (or cheer from the sidelines).

    • Gowan October 12, 2014 at 11:39 AM #

      Not ALL Germans!

      You know what, Stoney? I am German. And if a Jewish grandmother wants to fantasize about wiping Germany off the face of the earth, I won’t blame her. Guess why? Because she won’t do it. If she had the power to do it, she wouldn’t have that number tattooed on her arm in the first place!

      Also, I doubt that your Jewish grandmother ever gets mail from the German government in which she is asked to return to Germany and pay taxes here in order to prove that she “doesn’t hate Germans”.

      Now, if men, ALL men, would just leave the women who fled from their violence the fuck alone, the world would already be a better place.

  293. Stoney December 29, 2011 at 8:17 PM #

    YIkes… I think I’ll move through piece by piece.

    @isme- You’re definitely right, the choice of events and dates I made were rather distant, something that I only really realized after I’d submitted my post. My mind turned to them as the most overt, widespread, and violent anti-Semitism and Judaism In my experience, as well as events that are widespread in their impact and notoriety. However, I could also point to the intense anti-Semitism on display today in Egypt, the Middle East, in Russia, and in the U.S. I believe a study in 2009 showed that around 25% of Americans hold significant anti-Semitic views, hold individual Jews responsible for the death of Christ on the cross, and are, to some degree, Holocaust deniers. Russian skinheads went on a 27-Jew murder spree in 2009. Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Iran all call for the violent extermination of Jews as subhuman and offensive to God. I, personally, have received death threats, threats of violence against my family, and statements that I am not welcome in the communities in which I have resided. Anti-Semitism is still alive and kicking, although, unlike sexism, it receded somewhat in the 1970’s/80’s. it is again on the rise, however.

    Despite this, though, I hold no hatred for Neo-Nazis, or anti-Semites of any breed. Their ideas, certainly. Their actions, definitely. Those things are repugnant to me, but they, as people, are not. They have rights, both by the laws of the United States, the U.N Declaration of Human Rights, and by the commands of YHWH, to exist, to hold their views as long as they do not harm others by them, and to be forgiven for their sins. To pursue their destruction, even as fantasy, in my opinion, would do nothing more than to legitimize their views of Jews as subhuman filthy animals, and would stain my soul with anger and hatred. In the same way, I find the idea of hating another group of people, as Solanas did, strange and rather immoral.

    @lizor-I do nothing to minimize the impact the pervasive hatred of women in Western thought had on Valerie Solanas. She grew up in a period in which most, if not all, of the men around here loathed her, consciously or unconsciously, and she was consistently mistreated and abused by the majority of the male figures in her life, including her father, grandfather, and the father of her child.

    These abuses were, indeed, the product of the application of the viewpoints of everyone from Rosseau to Aristotle to Jesus Christ, through their collective influence on society. I get that. I know that, and I’m sure that almost everyone reading this site knows that. However, we don’t have the space or time to discuss the myriad of ways in which they did impact her life, and society around her, here I don’t deny them, but I also don’t consider them a justification. A “continuum of abuse” is no excuse for the hatred she espoused, in the same way that the males around her shouldn’t(despite the fact that they unfortunately often do) get a pass for their socialization and character as violent, abusive assholes due to the influence of society around them. The morality of behavior is not subjective based on position.

    To bring it back, in a very self centered way, to my personal experience so as to allow me to make another of my mansplaining metaphors, Israel has abused the Palestinian people beyond belief for the past 70 years, staging frequent offensives, condemning them to live in fear and poverty, and restricting their human rights immensely. In the same way, Hamas and other extremist groups attempt to do the same to the Israeli’s, through rocket raids, through terrorist offensives, and through ideological manipulation. Hamas may be oppressed, but not through lack of trying. I see the ideas of Solanas in much the same light: she may have been oppressed, but given the opportunity, she would have turned that anger around on her oppressors with violence. IMO, hatred matched with hatred does not produce justice; rather, it produces two angry, tarnished souls, and no solace for the abuse victims, while creating more abuse victims in turn.

    @sugarpuss-Just as a clarification, although it’s not a bad assumption, I don’t have “white privilege” in the way that I believe you mean. I’m a second generation Polish American, Slavic, not Caucasian. The point stands, however, that I certainly am not a person of color, which was what it appeared to me you were attempting to point out, I believe. That is correct.

    As for the opening point, blame a LONG time studying rhetoric. It is traditional form to open with a statement of conciliation and agreement with the person(s) you are attempting to open discourse with, before moving on to points of contention. The approach is the same, no matter who you’re attempting to speak to.

    Hatred, wherever present, needs to be addressed. I do not judge you, as a person. Rather, I judge the ideas you support. As well, anger is different than hatred. Anger against men, or another group, is rather different than hate speech, which is what the Manifesto boils down to. Before it gets said, I acknowledge the hate speech that is endemic to Western culture towards women, as well as people of color, and just about any group that isn’t Caucasian, Protestant, and perfectly heterosexual and within established gender roles. However, “eye for an eye” style justifications, or even “an eye for the millions upon millions of eyes that have been poked out by men for all of the rest of civilization” runs entirely counter to both my religious and my secular philosophy. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”(Of course, he was a rampant womanizer and deeply prejudiced man, so I suppose one must take that quote with a grain of salt).

    @All-The definition of “hatred” vs. “anger” might be one I don’t understand, I suppose. Anger is something very, very different than hate speech, and the Manifesto qualifies under U.S law and my own moral precepts(worth nothing, of course, but for those asking why I act, that would be why). In the same manner that extremist Israeli’s who attempt to demonize Palestinians as subhuman beasts and men who say that women are responsible for the ills of the worlds due to their inherent sin produce hate speech, the Manifesto paints men as deserving of nothing more than extermination.

    • Nine Deuce December 29, 2011 at 8:50 PM #

      The SCUM Manifesto does not qualify as hate speech under US law. Be serious, here. Nor does virulently misogynistic speech/writing (though it warrants being deemed hate speech by law to a far greater extent than the SCUM Manifesto does). If US law applied to hate speech on the basis of gender, the porn industry wouldn’t exist.

  294. Stoney December 29, 2011 at 8:58 PM #

    Apologies for the tl;dr. Realized when I was done I had provided a perfect example of the issue on discussion in the post. Not gonna trash it, though. Lesson to myself, if anything positive.

  295. Stoney December 29, 2011 at 9:05 PM #

    One last addendum: hate speech is not actually prohibited by law in the U.S unless inciting to immediate violence, 9-2. Thus, the Manifesto qualifies as hate speech, as does pornography, it just does not happen to be illegal, even if qualified as hate speech. Gotta love the U.S legal system!

  296. No Sugarcoating December 30, 2011 at 1:37 AM #

    Nope. You’re still operating on a false equivalency. What kind of widespread, vicious violence do women perpetrate on men, as revenge or otherwise? A group like Hamas not only advocates the killing of civilians, but DOES SO. Do women go around killing little boys because there are a lot of men out there raping and we want them to stop? No. We do not. People take their threats seriously, because they are serious. The S.C.U.M. manifesto was never put into action, not even by Solanas herself. For real, men do not hear about the S.C.U.M. manifesto and fear for their lives. We all know it has zero impact on the real world.

    Also, this is the second time the position of women has been compared to Israel/Palestine on this site by some dude and it’s odd. Women =/= a military regime. Why is it so cut and dry for progressives that Israel has been oppressing Palestinians for 70 years, but we are debating whether radical feminism amounts to genocide? I think it should be the other way around.

  297. Swanhilde December 30, 2011 at 1:39 AM #

    The other posters here have made excellent points to Stoney, but after reading his posts, I just had to comment. Sorry that some of this is redundant; I really did read the back-and-forth here.

    Stoney, you jackass, don’t you have ANY historical perspective (or cultural/sociological perspective)? Your writing indicates that you have at least a little contextual knowledge, so why aren’t you capable of distinguishing which thinkers and books have been CULTURALLY INFLUENTIAL and which have been…ahh…NOT?

    You bring up the SCUM Manifesto, ALMOST equate it with Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book, and then ask the women here to clarify whether they support its tenants, as if it were the Holy Bible of Feminist Thought and as if an individual’s support, or lack therof, of the SCUM Manifesto had anything to do with the validity of that individual’s arguments or feminism in general.

    The SCUM Manifesto is a period piece of late 1960s radical (left) thinking. It is like something out of a time capsule. It was obscure when it was published, and it is even more obscure today. I’d be surprised if there were 30,000 people in the US and Canada who could converse about it intelligently. Probably more like 10,000. If that–I am skeptical.

    Point is (because you need it spelled out for you), you say the Manifesto has little point but blatant prejudice. That’s not really true, but even if it was: SO WHAT. What’s your point? A radical in 1967 wrote a hateful book towards men. SO WHAT. Tell me, do you ask black people if they “support” ‘Soul on Ice’? That’s a radical 60s book, too.

    You ask (in your long-winded and endlessly self-promotional posts) “Shall I blame the Catholic Church for thousands of Jews burned during the Inquisition, torched during the Middle Ages?”

    Of course you should, you dummy. Are you out of your mind? I blame the Church for doing that, and I was reared Catholic. The Catholic Church DID that. There is no “blame.” There is only PURVEYING THE OBVIOUS.

    “However, does this give me the right, as a Jew, to blame the German people, to fantasize about wiping them off the face of the earth as they attempted to do to my people?” YES, IT DOES GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BLAME THEM. there is no “blame.” THEY DID IT. You are entitled to a fucking GRUDGE, okay? And your fantasies, if you had them. Surely you know that most Germans today were not alive when that genocide was committed–they cannot be held responsible–but you are still entitled to be angry about what happened to your family in the past. SO WHAT.

    What are you saying? Well, wait, I know what you are saying: all hatred is wrong, even if there is justification for it! Well, to that I say: thank christ the oppressed peoples throughout history did not take your point of view, because if they did, we wouldn’t have concepts of human rights and equality under the law.

    Finally, who the fuck are you to come on this forum wearing your teacher’s hat and educating everyone about foreign affairs, the history of antisemitism, the holocaust, Gandhi, human rights legislation in the U.N., and everything else you’ve needlessly interjected into your arguments? Do you think that nobody here knows anything about the Israeli-Palestine conflict, or the Inquisition, or skinheads in Russia? Does Nine Deuce sound like she needs to, ahh, READ MORE BOOKS?

    Here’s a hint–my belated Christmas gift to you: the overwhelming majority of people on this forum (not drive-bys who come to fight, but the consistent commentors) are very well-read and intellectually curious, whatever their ideological orientation. A lot of autodidacts, a lot of academics. I’m a Ph.D. student myself. You don’t end up here unless you have a few brain cells to rub together. Unless you’re an pompous self-aggrandizing troll on a mission, that is.

    You say that you have a “long time studying rhetoric.” Perhaps, but you certainly haven’t been practicing it for long.

    If you were in one of my seminars, I’d eat you for lunch.

    Enough–it’s late. I am very tired, and you are very tiresome.

  298. gracemargaret December 30, 2011 at 2:38 AM #

    “…as does pornography, it just does not happen to be illegal, even if qualified as hate speech. Gotta love the U.S legal system!”

    Yeah, hilarious isn’t it! All that REAL violence done to women in porn, to their bodies, the sexually-transmitted diseases they have to risk (ever see a condom used in porn?) and the vilifying of women as creatures who want/like abuse, to you Stony, qualifies as speech, not violence. How interesting.

    Solanas was an abuse victim, so her rant qualifies as anger, not hate. I agree, anger isn’t anything like hate. When I first read S.C.U.M. I saw it as a sarcastic and half-serious revenge-fantasy, angrily turning respected concepts like penis envy, “natural” female cowardice and masochism (gotta love that Freud) on it’s head, giving men just a tiny taste of the violence to women’s psyches inflicted by Great Men and Great Art.

  299. Sugarpuss December 30, 2011 at 5:13 AM #

    @ Stoney: I’m an advocate for free speech, so I don’t take kindly to silencing tactics. One of my main issues with men is their hypocrisy regarding this basic human right. They can say whatever they want, whenever they want, in public or private spaces, without any fear of receiving a response of equal intensity from women. Why? Because, as you have so beautifully demonstrated, women are not allowed to practice free speech.

    Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? At this very moment, men are running around, committing all sorts of unspeakable atrocities…and you’re worried about the literary works of a woman who has been dead for over 20 years. And quoting Gandhi? LOL A pedophile and a racist. Although you are clearly aware of his ‘shortcomings’, you still felt justified in quoting him. That alone is proof that you are biased against women. Gandhi had a penis, so his bigotry can be overlooked, right? You make me sick. Really, you do.

    Also, your morals are not my morals. I’m a firm believer in justice. I’m not a fan of Passive Doormat Syndrome™. And furthermore…every time I read one of your posts, I feel like I’m watching a really bad reproduction of Jesus Christ Superstar. The whole ‘morally superior’ tone is just fucking revolting. Your high-horse could use a good pruning, if you catch my drift.

    Sooo… to sum things up:

    1. Men can dish out criticism (protected under the tent of ‘free speech’), but women cannot respond in a similar fashion because some smug asswipe like Stoney will rush in to reprimand the unruly women, and preach about how the answer to hate is not more hate. Yet, predictably, this dude is nowhere to be found in places where men are hating on women.

    2. Stoney’s feeble attempt at drawing a parallel between Hitler & Solanas is quite possibly the biggest failure since Betamax. What sort of imbecile would be convinced that a slingshot is comparable to a AK-47? Is Stoney stoned?

    3. Stoney made an even bigger fool of himself when he quoted a known bigot & pervert (Gandhi) after trashing Solanas for her questionable morals. I hereby award Stoney with the Intellectual Contortionist of The Year award. He must be so proud. :)

    4. According to Stoney’s Law, the pursuit of justice is “allowing yourself to be consumed with hate” or some such. And the victim is just as bad as the perpetrator, if said victim reacts in defense of themselves. I guess this means that Stoney could be punched in the face, and his immediate reaction would be to smile & lick his own blood off the fist of his attacker.

    5. How come people rarely ever quote women?

  300. lizor December 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM #

    Sugarpuss,

    I have pulled text from both yourself and Gracemargaret and emailed it to myself so I can quote your brilliant responses in the future.

    Thanks so much all posters who responded to Stoner’s incoherent ramblings. You all rock. Happy New Year!

  301. Hecate December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM #

    Fantastic post. Sugarpuss :) I literally don’t know any women in my life who get to the point in quite the same way, which is why this blog is so invaluable.

    I have to say, comments like Stoney’s are mostly laughable to me. With the continued abuse that women are still experiencing personally and collectively every single day, he thinks he’s really contributing something here by bashing Valerie Solanas and giving us ‘HIStory lessons’?

    Personally, I stand by my own rights and those of other women to publish endless versions of the SCUM manifesto or whatever they feel is appropriate until the world is a safe place for them to live in. I got cornered by my creepy landlord in the laundry room the other day and he was interrogating me, asking me personal questions he had no bloody right to ask. So what, according to someone like Stoney, I should just shut up about it? Valerie had no right to be angry about the abuse she endured by her father? These little incidents all add up to a tremendous expression of real, physical manifestations of collective male hatred of women. If women lose even the right to describe what is happening to them, why would they even want to live? I guess that’s what men really want then, for women to either shut up, or off themselves. It’s definitely the impression I’ve had from them throughout my life. What a pathetic state of affairs.

    Happy New Year… to womyn everywhere. They certainly far outperform men when it comes to bringing anything truly ‘new’ into the discussion at any given time. Men just seem to want to go on and on about war history or some such long-dead nonsense… Not exactly useful for social progress of any kind.

  302. Fede January 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM #

    Happy New Year, Hecate, and Sugarpuss, lizor, No Sugarcoating, isme and gracemargaret! I just wanted to say that because I remember having talked to you all in this space and I liked what you had to say.

    To the rest of you whom I haven’t met ‘personally’ yet: I hope to meet you in the new year.

    Happy New Year to you, Nine Deuce, and thank you for this blog!

    The Manisfesto is not hate speech. There is a difference between prejudice and postjudice. Raising my glass to your memory, Solanas. Thank you for leaving us with the kind of text that only the oppressed understand. And cheers!

    Here’s another thing that isn’t hate speech:
    Grow a conscience in the new year, Stoney, and a bit of courage to face things for what they really are. The oppressed are not gonna hurt you.

  303. Hecate January 2, 2012 at 11:03 PM #

    Thank you Fede and a very Happy New Year to you too!

    The difference you highlighted is so important to most or all of these discussions. Knowing some of the personal accounts of suffering I have heard (along with my own history) I greatly value the concept of ‘postjudice,’ and am immediately suspicious of anyone who doesn’t, or refuses to. There’s no good reason a woman should dull her awareness or judgment, under any circumstance.

    A big toast to all womyn who dare to speak out against continuing injustices that affect their basic freedom to live as they please. Silence really can prove deadly, especially for females.

  304. lizor January 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM #

    Happy New Year, Hecate, Sugarpuss, No Sugarcoating, isme, gracemargaret, Fede and ND!

    “Postjudice” and this quote below from Hecate are my first gifts of truth for 2012.

    “If women lose even the right to describe what is happening to them, why would they even want to live? I guess that’s what men really want then, for women to either shut up, or off themselves.”

    Thank you all so much and thanks so much for this blog ND. I am sure you have little time in you busy life for this but it really makes a difference to myself and others here. I’m eternally grateful.

  305. Hecate January 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM #

    Thank you lizor :) Best wishes for a happy, auspicious and prosperous New Year to you and all the other wonderful gals here. Here’s to keeping the truth flowin’ ;)

  306. John Michael February 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM #

    Great piece, Nine Deuce! I love your series. I fully agree with you that the behavior of the men (especially the airport character) is anti-social, disrespectfull and generally inexcusable.

    To be sure, I am a man (sorry about that, I was born this way).
    Since I see you as a compassionate human being, who wouldn’t ask me to kill myself (or rebuild myself into a woman) I humbly ask you to change the title in ‘why I hate macho-behavior”.

    Maybe the next series could be about ‘why I love men to be sensitive, intuitive and compassionate’ (or ‘why I love people to be sensitive, intuitive and compassionate’) since I get the impression that that is the real message behind your series.
    If so, I think you’re right. We need mutual respect and compassion between people of both sexes if we are to reach some kind of peace on this planet.

    Thanks for sharing.
    John

    • Sugarpuss February 22, 2013 at 3:41 PM #

      I humbly ask you to change the title in ‘why I hate macho-behavior”.

      Hey, FUCK YOU! This is HER blog, and she doesn’t have to change a GODDAMN thing! I don’t see anybody asking men to stop saying misogynistic crap on their blogs. So shut the FUCK up and get lost.

      • Sugarpuss February 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM #

        PS I “humbly” DEMAND that you go to AVoiceForMen.com and tell Paul Elam to stop advocating rape.

        PSS FUCK YOU again, you cocksucking cockface.

        • Jim March 27, 2013 at 12:05 AM #

          “FUCK YOU again, you cocksucking cockface.”

          What’s with the blatant homophobia?

          • CPB April 1, 2013 at 2:33 AM #

            “Cockface” is not a gay slur, idiot. If you have to invent ways to be offended you are not oppressed. Ten bucks says you’re straight, bruh.

            • Jim April 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM #

              Clearly I was referring to the “cocksucking” part. And to whoever moderates this site (Nine Deuce?): what exactly was wrong with my reply that you didn’t let it through? Are you giving tacit approval of bigotry against gay people? If so, then you are part of the problem.

              • CPB April 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM #

                I assumed you were referring to ‘cockface’ because cock sucking is a gender neutral activity not exclusive to homosexuality. I figured you wouldn’t be stupid enough to make such an argument. I was wrong.

                Apparently, you are so self-absorbed that you will attribute imaginary slights to yourself even when they are irrelevant since you are clearly not gay otherwise you would have identified as such. Your desire to clutter up a feminist blog with the insistence that women’s rights revolve around men, however, is patently offensive.

                PS The blogger (nine deuce) has a problem with bigots. Just fyi….

              • Nine Deuce April 5, 2013 at 4:58 PM #

                Jim, I deleted your comment because it was manipulative, dishonest, and stupid. You are either being intentionally disingenuous in the erroneous hope that you’ll win an argument by misappropriating someone else’s oppression, or you’re an illogical fool. Either way, SNORE.

                • Jim April 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM #

                  Exactly how am I “misappropriating someone else’s oppression”? Excuse me, but you don’t even fucking know who I am. And using the implication that a male sucks cock as an insult is clearly homophobic. Who’s being disingenuous now?

                  • Jim April 5, 2013 at 8:28 PM #

                    And another thing: you seem to need to believe I’m hetero. If I was gay, then you would actually have to think about the things you type and take responsibility for your actions. Can’t have that, right? So you just throw up roadblocks to dismiss any opinion that calls you out for your ignorance. Pathetic.

                    • Nine Deuce April 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM #

                      Are you gay? Are men the only performers of fellatio?

                    • Jim April 6, 2013 at 1:10 AM #

                      @Nine Deuce. Of course I am. Since when do straight men give a damn about homophobic language (that’s gay, you’re gay, you’re a faggot, etc.)? And CPB was using the phrase “cocksucking” as an insult aimed at a man (John Michael, hello?) Be honest, have you ever heard a woman called “cocksucker”? No, you haven’t. There’s a whole other set of moronic, hateful terms that are used instead. I just don’t understand why you won’t admit that this was out of line. Marginalizing homosexuality is a pillar of the Patriarchy, wouldn’t you agree?

                    • Nine Deuce April 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM #

                      Jim – I agree. But a lot of anti-feminist men come around here making all kinds of dumb arguments just to antagonize feminists and derail.

                    • CPB April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM #

                      I was defending Sugarpuss’ use of the word as an insult. Plenty of trolls get on the internet and pretend to be something they’re not. Here, as 9D said, it’s an attempt to derail. There’s no way to prove one way or the other whether or not it’s true. This is how the internet works.

                      You’re *still* coming into a place devoted to the discussion of women’s rights and feminism and making it all about yourself. No need to believe you are a hetero as any male can’t function properly without the knowledge that every issue revolves around themselves. Pathetic.

                      As Sugarpuss has stated elsewhere: quit draining feminist resources. The oppression of men by other men is between men and not of our concern. Piss off.

                    • CPB April 6, 2013 at 2:34 PM #

                      Oh, and I guess this is a good time to mention that every definition of ‘cocksucker’ labels the word as a general term of abuse (not a homophobic slur) not to mention the fact that I *have* heard the word used maliciously against women. Try “You fucking cocksucking cunt” on for size some time. Ooooh, but I almost forgot YOU have never heard “cocksucking” used that way and then proceeded to *tell* me the context in which I’ve heard it used as an insult. How very dismissive and arrogant and…male of you.

                      If you had a brain, then you would actually have to think about the things you type and take responsibility for your words. Can’t have that, right? So you just throw up roadblocks to dismiss any opinion that calls you out for your ignorance. Nice try, asshole.

                    • Jim April 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM #

                      So you equate any criticism with “making it all about myself?” Only other women are capable of recognizing bigotry? If that’s how you want to view it, fine.

                    • CPB April 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM #

                      Ranting about male rights in a feminist space IS making the discussion all about yourself and insinuating that men are the *real* victims. Ugh. On top of that, being glib just makes you look like a petulant, ignorant child: “*only* other women”, “*any* criticism”. Thanks for the crash course in black or white thinking, professor. Oh, and the extent of your “criticism” involved inventing a bigoted epithet for the express purpose of self-aggrandizement.

                      In just three sentences, you have dismissed everything I’ve said and then devised a straw man to avoid addressing what I *actually* said.Typical.

                      “If that’s the way you want to view it, fine.”

                      Project much?

    • CPB February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM #

      You did not have to identify as male. Your insistence that 9D “humbly” (gag) make changes in accordance with your delicate sensibilities belies a severe sense of entitlement. Women have been forced to comply with your worldview for centuries against our will regarding matters of much greater importance. Why does a random blog belonging to a complete stranger warrant your penile seal of approval? Do fuck off.

      • Sugarpuss February 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM #

        Oh yuck. Did you see his Facebutt profile?

        Yep, he’s one of those.

  307. Sugarpuss July 28, 2013 at 8:29 PM #

    I was re-reading this (for the 1,000th time because it’s just that damn hilarious) and laughing, and thinking about all of the little things I do, and the things I’d like to do, as a way of paying men back for all of this… charm they exude.

    Unfortunately, being an introvert makes it difficult to ‘take up space’. My modus operandi is, usually, to stay low-key. Sprawling about would only draw attention to myself, and I don’t like that. I’m tempted to hop a bus, and then drape my legs over the lap of the nearest dude, but that is another one of those things that would never work in reverse because men get off on shit like that, so the ‘victim’ would probably just jizz in his pants or something.

    • Hecate July 29, 2013 at 12:50 AM #

      I’ve often thought about that too, and come to the same exact conclusion. Hard to imagine the best way to go about truly harassing a guy. Publicly humiliating them is probably more of a challenge simply because they are more accepted in the public sphere. So even if a guy appears really slovenly and gross, it’s unlikely anyone would even wink. Maybe if you were to apply makeup as that guy is sleeping on the bus? :D

      And three cheers for introverts! We are so often ridiculed in this society, which is sad, because we often have the best ideas.

  308. Robin January 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM #

    Here’s how I understood your article:
    You’re basically saying that male = entitled to the world = bad, female = the opposite.
    I think it’s a rather “black and white” sort of opinion.
    Have you ever tried to explore the postivies in men? The negatives in women?

    Sense of entitlement is sure as hell present in womenhood too.
    Thus, it can’t be a gender-specific trait.

    Now, I don’t know where you live, but it seems very far out in comparison to where I live.
    That COULD be the reason why it sounds so alien to me.
    (Denmark by the way).

    Here are some questions that I hope you’ll answer:

    As a feminist, why do you think that feminism is the solution to gender inequality?
    After all, it’s focusing on solving the issues of only one of the genders.

    What kind of equality are you looking for?
    Legislative enforced equality like “at least 40% of leaderboards have to consist of women.”

    Lastly, this one might piss you off, so I understand if you don’t to answer that.
    Aren’t you using “male privilege” as an excuse for not getting something you want?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Labels – Sexism « Le Femme Feral - February 24, 2010

    [...] issues) The white male, when confronted with his privilege, always decide it’s better to do away with such “labels” of sex and race rather than confront his own damaging privilege in society.  Because he has been [...]

  2. Oops! You’ve just made me uncomfortable / offended! « Further Reading…. - September 23, 2010

    [...] Men Take Up Space – http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2010/02/18/why-i-hate-men-part-2-guys-take-up-space/ [...]

  3. Illustration of sexism within activism – voice pitch, authority and feminism « Fleabite - December 24, 2011

    [...] to be saying something worth listening to. Additionally females are socialised to cede whilst males are socialised to take up space, both physically and in abstract space such as in a [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 495 other followers