In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Protect Yourselves, Ladies

Jill

By finding a good man (read the comments, not the post itself). Or,

Could it be that feminism has contributed to violence against women?

Could it be that some unbalanced men, having been disrespected by women are going to get some respect at the point of a gun?

Could it be that men, who as little boys who were taught in elementary schools to sit and pee like little girls have had enough, and aren’t going to take it any more?

Could it be that boys who grow up in fatherless homes, soaked with testosterone and without the training on how to channel that active aggression into good and noble activities turn it on innocent victims?

Good men have a desire deep in their hearts to protect women. To use their native aggression and greater strength to the protection of those weaker. When that is nurtured in a family environment, the most common product is good, strong and acourageous men who use their attributes for the protection of the weak and the betterment of society.

When you discard fathers as unnecessary, you teach a whole generation of boys that they don’t need to take their family responsibilities seriously. When women render their reproductive organs sterile so that men can use their bodies, without consequences, for their personal pleasure, it teaches them that women are to be used for their sexual gratification.

Men want one woman who will respect and support him and to be all of the man that she believes he can become.

A good man will die for a woman like that.

That’s right, ladies: When you step out of line and demand your “rights,” you bring violence upon yourself. When you challenge a traditionally male role, you disrespect men, and you should expect to get smacked down.

No, it [pre-marital sex] existed, but it never had the cooperation of the woman (at least a self respecting woman). Sure, there were always women that would allow men to use their bodies for the sexual satisfaction. They were called “whores”.

For eons, men have had piggish attributes. It comes part and parcel with the way they’re designed. What feminism has done is co-opted men’s worst attributes and “mainstreamed” them for women.

Women used to have a civilizing effect on men. Now feminists wallow in the pig sty right along with the men.

And they call this “liberation”.

Who exactly hates men here? The feminists, who expect men to behave like the human beings they are, or the men’s rights activists, who assert that men are pigs who need women to civilize them?

Women, as a rule, are weaker and smaller. Many of them also want to “do it on their own and not be protected by some patriarchial man”. That’s well and good, but bad men exist. Bad men prey on unprotected women. Women have a couple of choices to live with this reality.

1. Get a gun, a permit to carry concealed, learn how to use it. I like to see all women armed like this.

2. Stop disuading good men from giving into their protective instincts and allow them to help you.

This male chauvanist pig will jump to the defense of any woman who is in trouble. If I come across someone attempting to rape a woman, I will immediately try and help her, putting my safety and possibly my life on the line.

However, if a woman wants to act like a man, I will treat her like a man. Basically meaning that I will not insult her by getting involved in something she can handle herself without being asked.

Feminist seems to want to act like men, while taking advantage of the protections afforded women by virtue of being weaker and more vunlerable.

…and so they hate women, too. Although I would give an Option 3: Quit living in fear. For all their supposed lack of vulnerability, men are far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are. They’re also far more likely to commit violent crimes.

Given that, whose behaviors should adjust? Who should be afraid? Who’s actually vulnerable?

71 thoughts on Protect Yourselves, Ladies

  1. On the front page,

    ” Thursday, October 05, 2006
    Quote of the Day

    “Feminism is only for old, useless hags and silly little girls.”

    — Jill Filipovic”

    …oh, she’s just purely trolling now, isn’t she.

  2. and: um. Little boys are taught to “sit and pee” in elementary schools? Which elementary schools are these, exactly? Or did I miss the metaphorical part again?

    and uh remind me why exactly “sitting to pee” is supposed to justify the grown-up little boys going all Falling Down on our collective ass? dude, i know it’s annoying and kind of gross that no one provides toilet seat covers in public places anymore, but that’s hardly -feminism’s- fault if you picked up something icky…

  4. Sure, there were always women that would allow men to use their bodies for the sexual satisfaction.

    Of course, we’ll quietly ignore all of those over-anxious brides that miraculously produced babies in less than the 9 months normally expected…

    (not to mention the oh-so-honorable practice of “shotgun weddings”)

    …and I suppose the thugs that engage in rape are just availing themselves of “whores”, hmmm?

    The intellectual dishonesty of these people is astonishing – but overshadowed by their stupidity.

  5. I also “like” how they talk about men using women’s bodies before marriage. And how respectable women wouldn’t allow their bodies to be used. Did it ever occur to them, that maybe the woman wanted to have sex too and wasn’t just allowing a man to use her? I “like” how they just assume that no women have any sexual desires of their own and any sex that they have is just to please men.

  6. Here’s the thing – the whole first post sounds part and parcel of what the Republicans call “traitorous liberal garbage” if applied to the war on terror. Okay, take out the “sit down to pee” remark, but take this:

    Could it be that feminism has contributed to violence against women?

    Could it be that some unbalanced men, having been disrespected by women are going to get some respect at the point of a gun?

    And change feminism to “American foreign policy” and “violence against women” to “terrorism”

    And then “unbalanced men” to “al-Qaeda” and “women” to “America” See how that works?

    The point is that any group that is accustomed to priveldge is going to be at risk for a violent counterreaction when that power is threatened. The policy solution is to treat the violent as criminals and prosecute them as such while demonstrating the alternatives to that kind of reactionary worldview. Oversimplified, I know, but there you go.

  7. These “we menfolk wanna protect the womenfolk” commentors somehow, and I cannot fully place my finger on it, really creep me out. I guess it’s because it sounds too much like a “protection racket” — let us “protect” you, and you won’t get hurt — and as much about subjugation and power/control as it would be if they wanted to be violent toward women rather than “protecting” toward women.

    Anyway, I’d wager my gf could beat any of these creeps up …

  8. About this:

    This male chauvanist pig will jump to the defense of any woman who is in trouble. If I come across someone attempting to rape a woman, I will immediately try and help her, putting my safety and possibly my life on the line.

    However, if a woman wants to act like a man, I will treat her like a man

    So, if he comes across a man being assaulted, he’s going to ignore it? That’s what treating someone like a man means?

  9. This male chauvanist pig will jump to the defense of any woman who is in trouble. If I come across someone attempting to rape a woman, I will immediately try and help her, putting my safety and possibly my life on the line.

    However, if a woman wants to act like a man, I will treat her like a man. Basically meaning that I will not insult her by getting involved in something she can handle herself without being asked.

    Classic! Count me as someone who would appreciate some assistance if I am being assaulted. But not if it means that I have to act helpless in every area of my life in order to “earn” the right to such assistance.

    I “love” the false either/or choice. This is also known as a threat.

  10. as much about subjugation and power/control as it would be if they wanted to be violent toward women rather than “protecting” toward women.

    I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head, DAS.

    Either way, it’s about getting women to be submissive, whether through direct violence or the ever-present threat of violence.

  11. And change feminism to “American foreign policy” and “violence against women” to “terrorism”

    And then “unbalanced men” to “al-Qaeda” and “women” to “America” See how that works?

    The point is that any group that is accustomed to priveldge is going to be at risk for a violent counterreaction when that power is threatened. The policy solution is to treat the violent as criminals and prosecute them as such while demonstrating the alternatives to that kind of reactionary worldview. Oversimplified, I know, but there you go.

    Well, Mikey, for that analogy to work at all, we’d have to suspend our disbelief on a lot of things. Such as, according women superpower status and men the status of a formerly colonized society remembering past glory. And, well, just like America, men run the world.

    In fact, I think you’ve got your analogy backward. Men are more analogous to America, and women to the colonized. America likes to think of itself as benevolent and beyond question, and is shocked, shocked to learn that the folks in the rest of the world who have to deal with the deleterious demands of America’s foreign policy aren’t on board with it.

    Don’t buy into their framing of the issue. They’re conveniently disregarding the power and privilege that being male has, and whining about having to give up some of that power and privilege. Look at the whole “War on Christmas” jazz for other examples of the dominant culture casting itself as a victim of hugely powerful powerless groups.

  12. However, if a woman wants to act like a man, I will treat her like a man. Basically meaning that I will not insult her by getting involved in something she can handle herself without being asked.

    Oh, but let a woman handle something herself, and watch them all get the vapors.

  13. Could it be that men, who as little boys who were taught in elementary schools to sit and pee like little girls have had enough, and aren’t going to take it any more?

    Weeelllll sheeeit, I certainly harbor untold anger and malice for every time I had to sit to pee. And now that you mention it, I wasn’t housebroken by the time I had to go to elementary school and those damn elementary school teachers did have to teach me to pee. Who can I sue. (rolls eyes)

  14. but, see, it’s this sort of remark,

    Women used to have a civilizing effect on men. Now feminists wallow in the pig sty right along with the men.

    And they call this “liberation”.

    …that makes me eyeball feminists who talk about “Raunch Culture” (for example) with the same sort of disapproving tones rather cynically: where have we heard this one, again?

    Because y’know, that whole “women must civilize men” does creep into certain strains of feminism as well, most notably what’s been called “cultural feminism.” This is from whence the notion that women are inherently more moral/peaceful/less aggressive/less likely to be “perverted” than men; or at least so well socially trained as to make no effective difference, and, the implication is, in some ways this is a good thing. (hence things like the womens’ anti-nuke camp in Greenham in the early 80’s; goodly chunks of the anti-porn/prostitution movement; and a few other things). Here in reactionary right-wing land you hear the “this is a good thing” more overtly; it gets more muddled on the left, because most of us understand that no, actually, this isn’t terrifically helpful, ultimately; and yet, bunch of mixed messages that haven’t really been quite sorted out.

    It all stems from Victorianism: (white, middle-class and up) woman as “angel in the house.” It’s related to the Industrial Revolution, the uneasy admixture of the then-new concepts of evolution with the Calvinist Christianity we’d/they’d already been steeped in, and a kind of “undoing” of the earlier form of misogyny: “women are MORE likely to be aggressive, MORE savage, man’s undoing; and thus need to be controlled.”

    As we see, one theme doesn’t cancel out the other; what happens is, now more than ever, perhaps, the “bad woman” (dirty, beastlike), drags men down instead of elevating them) is still there; she just gets “split” and personified in certain demographics. Lower-class women. Black women. “Fallen” women (i.e. whores and sluts). And so on.

    And of course first-wave feminism is very much connected to this notion that women are the civilizing, moral, even -Christian- influence; you get Temperance connected to both suffrage and the early abolitionists (after a certain point there is a split between black civil rights advocates and the white feminists/suffragists, which regrettable echoes down even to today).

    Somewhere between then and the second wave you get all kinds of other shit thrown in the cultural mix as well: now you have a post-War world which looks very VERY different from the one that came before; you also have the models of communist/socialist activism (workers of the world, unite! is a bit far afield from Carrie Nation). You have of course the Sexual Revolution and the hippies. Gay Lib. The resurrection of the civil rights movement. And so on, and so on, and so on.

    But, and this is where the whole “examination of roots” thing comes in, those earlier influences never quite completely go away, either. They just comingle, sometimes merging relatively easily, sometimes sitting, again, rather uneasily with each other.

    Anyway, this is a good part of -why- i am (yes, here is the Eternal Subject) a “sex-positive” feminist, with all the various connotations that that has for at least some people. Among other things. Well, why I won’t decry “raunch culture” and so forth, or at least not for i think the same reasons a lot of people do (and the reasons i do are the same problems i have with advanced corporate capitalism in general; thus, don’t really care to single out “raunch” or anything of the sort). It’s not just about “choice;” we ALL have ideological roots in that Enlightenment notion of individuality; there IS no feminism -or- leftieism as we know it, pretty much, without the Enlightenment, and yup, “individual choice, freedom, yadda” is a big part of it. Inevitably. It’s in the template. For better and for worse, and yes, there are good arguments to be made about the Enlightenment’s limitations.

    But the trouble is there are only (thus far) so many other models and influences to draw upon besides the Enlightenment; and, further, most of us don’t do it at all consciously. Well, on the left, one way out of it is to base it on one of the collectivist socioeconomic models we’re familiar with this past century or so.

    But the other, especially wrt feminism, especially wrt American feminism, it’s back to that whole “woman as civilizing influence” business.

    And the dirty little secret about -that- one is, there are BENEFITS to buying into this mindset as well as drawbacks. For some people, anyway. Yeah, virgin/angel in the house versus whore/slut, again, no one wins, sure…but in fact the “angel” is -not- on equal footing with the “slut;” there is a one-up power dynamic there as well. White/black. Lady/slattern. Classy/trashy. Good girl/-whore.- Old as the hills, that one, of course, even before the most familiar Victorian incarnation that I’m talking about.

    But, and my point is: actually, there is a reason that people say things like, f’r example to i dunno someone who’s ranting about “sexbots” and how women really need to pull it together and stop tottering around on those high heels, they’re “making the rest of us look bad,” to folks like Dawn Eden here. It’s not that they are the SAME, obviously; there are different other influences and philosophies going on as well.

    But, but. But there are also common roots here. And when you call your own movement “radical,” you’d better be looking at -all- your roots. I’m saying: here’s one that’s been a big old blind spot.

    The -other- part is, again: the secret benefits of being the “moral” sex.

    And here’s the thing: the rightwingers like the ones on Dawn Eden are much MUCH clearer about this than some of us are. That’s WHY they’re drawn to Dawn Eden’s take instead of I don’t know Sheila Jeffreys’. They make no bones about it at all: yes! we LIKE being the “angel in the house!” I mean! It’s being an angel! Who wouldn’t rather be an angel than a slattern?”

    My argument is, that sentiment may be a lot more incoherent and murked up with other stuff ’round these parts, but it’s often still there, in fact.

    So I’m not gonna trash my “trashy” sisters. At all. Not for being sluts, not for being “sexbots,” not for “gee, if only we could all stop wearing these degrading heels/whatever at once, then by Goddess, the world might finally split open and then we could get on with bringing about a Better World.”

    Because it isn’t gonna work that way.

    “radical,” as such, isn’t.

    Keep looking.

  15. Sure, there were always women that would allow men to use their bodies for the [sic] sexual satisfaction. They were called “whores”. For eons, men have had piggish attributes.

    You mean, like calling women “whores”? That kind of piggish attribute? I’m so glad we’re past all that.

  16. This male chauvanist pig will jump to the defense of any woman who is in trouble. If I come across someone attempting to rape a woman, I will immediately try and help her, putting my safety and possibly my life on the line.

    However, if a woman wants to act like a man, I will treat her like a man

    So, if he comes across a man being assaulted, he’s going to ignore it? That’s what treating someone like a man means?

    Well, yah, exactly. Sort of doesn’t make being a man sound too terribly attractive, does it?

    I wonder how many of these macho macho men are the same ones that secretly dream of being “taken in hand” themselves. Panties, submission, cruel wonderfully cruel women and themselves eventually made to be on the other end of the “real men’s” ambiguously “chivalric” behavior. Watch “the Bodyguard” over and over, you know, try convince themselves that no they really only want to BE Kevin Costner, really.

    and then of course in the harsh light of day go (at least verbally) beat the crap out of a “faggot” or “girlie man” or “emasculating woman.”

    I mean: women don’t have to worry about anything, right? Just sit back and look pretty and let the man do it all, right? Don’t worry your pretty little head, lie back and enjoy it.

    Yah, it’s fucking enraging to be forced into that role, you betcha, when it’s not what YOU want.

    But consider: the proponents of this scenario? Especially the male ones? Especially the ones who whine a whole bunch about how tough they have it and women are really in control and especially talk a bunch of strange longing-laced contempt about “princesses” and so on?

    Maybe it’s just me, cause admittedly i am totally bent, but i do wonder what goes on deep down in there really, sometimes…

  17. From what, asshole?

    “Of course we enjoy your inventions and we do appreciate your evolutionary role. But you must see there’s a problem. As I understand it, what you protected people from was largely other males, wasn’t it?”

    See, they just want to protect women from the men who’ll treat them like crap if they don’t behave in a way they think is proper for a woman – oh. Well.

  18. Men don’t challange other men who hold trational views about male roles becuase we know that directly challanging such men is asking for trouble. If their “manhood” is important to them it is a good bet they’ll react violently to attacks on that manhood. It’s not hard to recognize that kind of guy and most men avoid pushing them too far.

    Why do you think women don’t need to be aware of the risk of pushing that kind of man too far?

  19. Mikey S in comment #6 is not entirely off

    compare feminism and zionism

    unborn humans just happen to appear exclusively in female humans but that’s not why people are against abortion, it’s because they are “pro-life”- they don’t hate women, they hate feminism and feminazis

    Israel just happens to be the only Jewish nation in the world but that’s not why people are against it, it’s because they are “pro- peace”- they don’t hate Jews, they hate zionism and zionazi’s

    “peace” people blame terrorism on (Amerikkka and) Israel

    “life” people blame terrorism on abortion (and homosexuality)

    flip a coin- different side same coin

  20. Why do you think women don’t need to be aware of the risk of pushing that kind of man too far?

    “You see what you made me do, baby?”

  21. Why do you think women don’t need to be aware of the risk of pushing that kind of man too far?

    How about instead, we focus on actual solutions – like getting to the root of why some men feel that way in the first place, and making the necessary changes in socialization to avoid breeding so many contemptuous assholes?

  22. Men don’t challange other men who hold trational views about male roles becuase we know that directly challanging such men is asking for trouble. If their “manhood” is important to them it is a good bet they’ll react violently to attacks on that manhood. It’s not hard to recognize that kind of guy and most men avoid pushing them too far.

    Who’s worse, I wonder – the blatant sexist fool, or the subtle sexist fool who won’t challenge him out of fear? (I’m not speaking specifically of you, Gary). The kind of man being described in that quote is nothing more than the adult version of a playground bully.

  23. Why do you think women don’t need to be aware of the risk of pushing that kind of man too far?

    Does any thinking person seriously think that the problem is that women aren’t afraid enough? As if we aren’t told repeatedly our whole lives that we’d better be nice, better be quiet, better stay inside and don’t take risk or we’ll be raped, beaten or killed and it will be our own fault?

  24. I followed the link, and the guy who made those awful comments is, God help us avoid him, a Catholic priest. He’s going to be giving premarital counseling classes, pastoral advice to couples in troubled marriages, and listening to the cursed souls who go to him for confession. I cannot imagine a less qualified person for the job than that creep.

  25. Those comments are atrocious.

    Does the shaming of the slut make more sense when viewed from the perspective of no reliable birth control being available and a short time between puberty and marriage? I think that when it is assumed that no woman would want sex on her own, we are seeing a carry over from a far different time. Back in then, women were more at risk from having sex because birth control was less available and reliable than it is today. Additionally, there was less of a lag time between puberty and marriage, so the wait until marriage idea was more feasible. The old methods of controlling women’s fertility are no longer as applicable to the situation in today’s developed society. They are anachronisms that should be dropped.

  26. It’s not hard to recognize that kind of guy and most men avoid pushing them too far.

    I think what’s missing from this incisive analysis is an awareness of the differing costs of “avoiding pushing them too far” for men and women.

  27. #20 How about instead, we focus on actual solutions – like getting to the root of why some men feel that way in the first place, and making the necessary changes in socialization to avoid breeding so many contemptuous assholes?

    I couldn’t agree more.

  28. don’t know if this is OT but -… most beer-guzzling, bug-eating, fist-fighting guys i know would weep like frightened children if they had to WATCH a baby being born, much less give birth to one.

    the toughest, strongest, malest guy i know – a well armed police detective – confessed to wishing he could be far away having a good stiff drink while it happened. that he went out of his comfort zone and let himself be present to cry at the birth of his son – now THAT is strength.

    grown up men who are not scared little boys treat women as comrades. grown up men love strong women and honor them. “men” who need women to be weak and subservient are boys who never grew up. it’s sad.

  29. Men don’t challange other men who hold trational views about male roles becuase we know that directly challanging such men is asking for trouble. If their “manhood” is important to them it is a good bet they’ll react violently to attacks on that manhood. It’s not hard to recognize that kind of guy and most men avoid pushing them too far.

    when i meet guys like that, i push them as hard as i can. but then, i’m nuts.

  31. I guess my parents failed to make me a ‘real man’ because I always considered women as equals, and always looked for someone who I can talk with rather than just bed them down. I’m glad I found one. And by no means can she be considered a ‘loose woman.’ Now she makes more money than I do, but I don’t consider that a threat in anyway, I just consider that I’m in a crappy business. 🙂 But I will defend someone, too, if necessary. Once I was speaking with a female friend in the parking lot of a local restaurant, when two drunk dudes starting tossing a football. One came to my friend and tried to grab her, and I said, “Sir, I DON’T think you should do that (I’m an imposing 5-7 1/2).” The guy put up his hands and walked away. I don’t know what I would’ve done if he had swung at me, but luckily that didn’t happen!

  32. My thoughts also, Neil. I never understand these people. Why are being a man and treating everyone with respect considered mutually exclusive? When I was taught about being a man (by my minister grandfather and my single mom), I was told to be honest, respectful, have a fighting spirit and stand up for what is right, help defend and support those less fortunate than you, be loyal and have integrity. They told me that two wrongs never made a right, and that the worst thing you could do to someone who thought less of you was to treat them respectfully. They taught me self-control and to be aware of my worst impulses. And, perhaps most important, they taught me to be humble, so that I could take responsibility for my actions; because I was never going to act perfectly all the time, but I’d live in constant fear of myself if I didn’t acknowledge my more unfortunate behaviors and impulses to myself. To me, that was what being a man was all about. I watched my grandfather live that way, and I remember the one word everyone used to describe him when he died: “strong.”

    So when I see these men whining about feminism, I’m always struck by how weak and victimized they behave. I’m further struck by how they internalize the problems feminists have identified in our society, how much they engage in blaming and namecalling, and how little responsibility they take for themselves.

  33. The list by the jerk is stupid because he does not present his case clearly and muddles his emotions and insecurities with his so called arguments.

    The answer is to treat all of life as economic. What are you offering and what are you getting. If you want protection what are you offering. If you don’t want to pay the price make very clear that you are not asking overtly or by implication. Pay your way and pay it up front. I know I may take some heat for this viewpoint but this is my philosophy with most things. I can be charitable but that is a very clear line of seperation from normal behaviour. Charity is temporary. Paying as you go is normal life. And paying cash is getting off easy, blood, tears, and heartache are closer to the real price.

  34. …I’m sorry, I just don’t see a believable ‘verse in which little boys are taught to sit to pee like little girls, especially by elementary schools. There’d be cries of harassment and paedophilia left and right if they actually sent adults in to “teach” kids how to potty.

  35. I am a woman. I live in the U.S. and lead a fairly conventional life. I am a wife, a mother, a student. I have family that I love, some more than others, and friends that mean a great deal to me.

    What I am not is caretaker of the male gender. I was not created to be the “better angel of men’s nature,” or a “whore in their bedroom.” Contrary to some beliefs, I do not accept responsibility for the good that men do because of my civilizing influence, or the evil that they do because I provoke them with my feminism. I am not a target with which men can take out their aggression or a damsel that needs to be saved. I do not exist solely for the procreation of the human race or to give men many male heirs with which to establish permanent dynasties. I am not a help mate, subordinate, or obedient.

    I do claim the human dignity of individuality. I have wants and needs, plans and hopes, fears and uncertainties. I think, feel, love, hate (in moderation, of course), and have all the intellectual and emotional minutia that is endowed to the whole of humanity. I am a person.

    Why is this simple concept so difficult to grasp? As a demographic, don’t think for a single moment that if a majority of women in America stood together and with one voice stated, “We will not be manipulated any longer,” that there would be any force strong enough to hold back the great sweeping tide of female freedom.

    Once we own our individuality, our personhood, and refuse to be an appendage to the male gender, I believe this will be the case.

    Shawn

  36. Sorry to get so offtopic but I’m compelled to respond to belledame at 14:
    I’m nonwhite and lower middle class (of extremely modest means but live in the suburbs, attend college, family does low-level white collar etc), but I frankly hate raunch culture. It prescribes a very monolithic way for women to be sexy (not to mention that sexy doesn’t always equal sexual). And I’m extremely sick of being bombarded with the idea that spinning around a pole, wearing a thong, making out with other women for the purposes of male titillation and getting breast implants = the extent of female sexual expression. If some women like doing that, fine, I’m not going to pass a law against it. I don’t think that women who do the aforementioned are dirty, evil, worthless human beings who deserve to be burned at the stake. I live in a part of the country where the religious right isn’t very powerful – so there’s no pressure to be the purity ball type. However, I do resent the pressure on girls/women to prune themselves into the raunch culture vision of female sexuality, or be labeled ugly, a prude, frigid, goodytwoshoes, whatever.
    I really liked this post by tekanji on the topic.

    That being said …
    I honestly don’t recall any instance of feminist making men behave like pigs. For example, *feminists* have been at the forefront of the campaign against street harrassment. And don’t these people realize that domestic abuse is extremely common in parts of the world not exactly saturated by feminism. Domestic abuse was very common in prefeminist eras, and the fact that it’s recognized and punishable by law is thanks to (gasp!) *feminists*.

  37. Oh yeah, and I can’t believe men don’t get insulted when it’s implied that they’re “piggish”.

  38. Oh yeah, and I can’t believe men don’t get insulted when it’s implied that they’re “piggish”.

    Well, I’m insulted (mildly). On the other hand, such rampant misandry and “masculinity is extended adolescence” a la Man Show and most sitcoms is so prevalent that most of us are getting numb at this point.

    It seems that today men are not only considered piggish, but actually expected to be piggish to be considered Real Men™. In modern masculnity some flaws of the traditional masculinity are amended, but unfortunately the flipside is that lot of the virtues are lost in the process.

    To blame feminism for that is simplistic at best, but more likely incorrect.

    I think the commenter has some points, but he does make a lot of stupid assumptions, such as having a father around is automatically better for boys. It doesn’t take much to earn the biological moniker “father” (or mother) but the honorific is more difficult and requires effort.

    More accurately, there is a general lack of positive male role models for boys to identify with.

  43. Because before feminism, no woman was raped or harmed ever. Also, women should completely cover themselves up and not be whores, because as we’ve seen with the burqa, modesty immediately makes men respect you and never abuse you.

  44. exangelena:

    However, I do resent the pressure on girls/women to prune themselves into the raunch culture vision of female sexuality, or be labeled ugly, a prude, frigid, goodytwoshoes, whatever.

    That basically gets to my problem with raunch culture. As it exists right now, it’s a scary part of an anti-woman dynamic. Slut or virgin, no other choice. And personally, I don’t like a lot of raunch culture because it’s harmful to women. If we could have dancer-operated strip clubs where the girls were safe and unmolested, porn that was free of abusive influences and equal-opportunity nudie mags? That would be awesome. But as it is today – and I think this ties into the monster thread over at Pandagon from last week – the raunch culture mindset is a horrific thing. I don’t think you have to identify as a feminist to understand that glorifying rape as sexy is anti-woman.

  45. Men want one woman who will respect and support him and to be all of the man that she believes he can become.

    That’s what my SO wants in a partner. I know, becaue he’s told me that.

    Y’know what’s funny? That’s what I, as a female, want too. A partner who will respect me, support me, and help me be the best me possible. It’s crazy, the way this whole “egalitarian” business works, innit?

  46. There’d be cries of harassment and paedophilia left and right if they actually sent adults in to “teach” kids how to potty.

    hee hee hee, someone I know used to work in a daycare, and she had to take the younger kids to the potty, but she was not allowed to touch them. as anyone with young kids knows, they don’t always have the motorskills to wipe themselves down properly, so the caretaker had to stand there and watch and give helpful advice until everything was clean.

    Basically meaning that I will not insult her by getting involved in something she can handle herself without being asked.

    wow, so like, you won’t try to help me unplug cables from my computer despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of unscrewing the connector thingy myself, and you won’t come over when the hood of my car is up despite the fact that you’ve never touched an engine before in your life, and you won’t give me instructions on how to handle the liquid nitrogen that I work with every damn day? sign me right up.

    re: raunch culture:

    I just finished Kamy Wickoff’s book, and she quotes something her mom says which I am going to get wrong b/c I don’t have the book with me, but it’s something along the lines of “imitating everything men do, regardless of how bereft of dignity it may be, is not progress.” yeah, I’m with that. being free to express one’s sexuality and one’s enjoyment of that sexuality = good. I don’t think raunch culture is about that, though. I think it’s about being piggish.

  47. Life is definitely happier with a man who is an adult.

    Nothing is more tedious, tiresome and boring than a grown man who is still a child chasing fairy tales and expecting people to act the parts in his story.

  48. …spinning around a pole…

    Seriously? As I’ve said elsewhere, if I have to read ONE MORE TIME pole dancing being reduced to “spinning around a pole,” I’m going to shit a 10-foot pole. You think that’s all there is to it? Try it sometime. Then tell me how it’s all just “spinning.”

    Ahem. Back on topic, now, whatever that topic may be…

  49. A progressive Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was recently murdered in Moscow.

    After her death, a bunch of people, some of them my friends, issued non-sequitors such as, “Well, what do you expect, she was a woman doing man’s work!” And, “if she cared about her children, like a good woman should, she would have never gotten herself killed!”

    Yeah, some guy got into an elevator with her and shot her at point -blank range. Yeah, she really got herself killed, the actual shooter is totally blameless!

    This is why so many young girls grow up wanting to be fashion models and naked pop-stars in Eastern Europe. And it has nothing to do with feminism, but with a lack of feminism.

  50. Could it be that feminism has contributed to violence against women?

    Could it be that some men are angry that they can’t get away with hurting and oppressing women as much anymore? Sure.

    But the fact that some men don’t like women’s equal rights doesn’t mean that giving women equal rights is wrong, nor does it justify violence.

    Could it be that men, who as little boys who were taught in elementary schools to sit and pee like little girls have had enough, and aren’t going to take it any more?

    Could it be that a proposed policy at an elementary school in Norway is the last straw for men?

    LOL! No, I don’t think so.

    Could it be that boys who grow up in fatherless homes, soaked with testosterone and without the training on how to channel that active aggression into good and noble activities turn it on innocent victims?

    Could it be that boys (and girls) are usually happier and better off growing up in fatherless homes than growing up in homes where their fathers abuse their mothers, or where their parents argue and fight and cuss and scream and insult each other non-stop?

    As a child of divorce, I’d have to say: YES!

    Good men have a desire deep in their hearts to protect women. To use their native aggression and greater strength to the protection of those weaker. When that is nurtured in a family environment, the most common product is good, strong and acourageous men who use their attributes for the protection of the weak and the betterment of society.

    When you discard fathers as unnecessary, you teach a whole generation of boys that they don’t need to take their family responsibilities seriously.

    So, in the name of producing “good men,” mothers should just stay with their kids’ dad, no matter how mean or abusive he is?

    When a father is allowed to disrespect his wife and neglect his family, and he still gets to stay married and be “the man of the house,” how in the world does that teach his sons that they “need to take their family responsibilities seriously?”

    When women render their reproductive organs sterile so that men can use their bodies, without consequences, for their personal pleasure, it teaches them that women are to be used for their sexual gratification.

    No, I’m pretty sure that teaching boys that the only reason women are supposed to have sex is to produce babies would be much more likely to send the message that women are objects to be used.

    Allowing women to control their own bodies independently and make their own sexual choices teaches that women are human beings with equal rights, not things that men are allowed to define and use as they see fit.

    Men want one woman who will respect and support him and to be all of the man that she believes he can become.

    Could it be that women also want their spouses to respect and support them, and allow them to reach for their full potential, too?

    Duh.

    Feminist seems to want to act like men, while taking advantage of the protections afforded women by virtue of being weaker and more vunlerable.

    And just what is wrong with protecting those who are more vulnerable from abuse and oppression, while still giving them equal rights as human beings? Why is it OK to oppress human beings who are weaker?

    So much for “good men” who “protect the weak” for the “betterment of society.”

  51. Uh, what little boys are taught in elementary school to “sit and pee like little girls?” Not any elementary school I’ve ever heard of.

  53. I think what’s missing from this incisive analysis is an awareness of the differing costs of “avoiding pushing them too far” for men and women.

    Yeah. In this case — a confrontation with a stranger — a man is more likely to be physically assaulted than a woman. While rates of intimate partner violence are disproportionately male-on-female, violence against strangers and acquaintences are disproportionately male-on-male.

    Not that the likelyhood of assault is significant, but men are statistically more likely to get decked for saying something to an asshole, and — especially for men that experienced a lot of violence growing up — that fear of getting assaulted can, in some situations, be pretty palpable.

    — ACS

  54. Except that you’re not saying what I’m responding to: you’re saying that there’s no cost to me when I don’t confront someone, whereas a woman has a cost associated with not responding to sexism. So never mind my last post.

    — ACS

  55. Okay this is kind of off topic but re: boys being taught to pee sitting down… today I found out that boys peeing on the walls i – deliberately – in the toilets is a major problem in my middle school. I’ve taught here for years and this is the first I’ve heard of it. Cripes.

  56. A progressive Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was recently murdered in Moscow.

    After her death, a bunch of people, some of them my friends, issued non-sequitors such as, “Well, what do you expect, she was a woman doing man’s work!” And, “if she cared about her children, like a good woman should, she would have never gotten herself killed!”

    Yeah, some guy got into an elevator with her and shot her at point -blank range. Yeah, she really got herself killed, the actual shooter is totally blameless!

    I believe that Anna Politkovskaya was assassinated and that should be blamed on the actually assassin(s), not the victim. The murder was probably the work of Russian mobsters with ties to the authorities since they despised her research of the atrocities committed by the Russian forces in the Second Chechen War. The ones who killed her must be brought to justice somehow. I have very much respect for the progressive Russian journalist since she was risking her life, but I regret that she died and hope that her family finds justice.

  57. Amber at 47 –
    I’ve actually never been able to understand how strippers dance in five inch heels. I walked around a college campus a few times in platforms and I was almost in tears.
    Anyway, I’ll scratch “spinning around a pole” with pole dancing. And in one of the following sentences, I’ve made pretty clear that I don’t hate strippers or think they’re slutty or evil.

    Natalia at 48 –
    About the young girls in Russia who want to be models … There was a Vanity Fair cover awhile back about Russian and Eastern European models. Unfortunately (seeing as VF has become little better than a celebrity rag), they probably won’t feature Politkovskaya on their cover, who in my opinion dedicated (and sacrificed) her life for a more worthy cause. She puts the American celebrity journalists – certainly not all American journalists – who tailor their stories so they can better hobnob and party with the elite. And I think it’s sad that women get more fame, fortune and accolades for looking sexy on magazine covers than they do for speaking truth to power.

  58. Seriously? As I’ve said elsewhere, if I have to read ONE MORE TIME pole dancing being reduced to “spinning around a pole,” I’m going to shit a 10-foot pole. You think that’s all there is to it? Try it sometime. Then tell me how it’s all just “spinning.”

    *wild applause* Seriously… it takes incredible ab strength. And agility: you’re doing all of this in 6inch stilettos, possibly on a recently buffed hardwood floor or some equally slippery surface. Personally, I’m floored everytime I see someone who’s really good take the stage.

    More on topic: I’m just glad that guys like the author of the quoted piece are so easy to spot. Why doesn’t he just go marry a Realdoll already?

    I just wonder why he can’t hear how disgusting the underlying sentiments are? “Gee, you can work outside the home and be independent… but if some guy rapes you, oh well.” wtf?

  59. I know this may not go down well but here goes.

    The protection instinct in men is innate, we are born with it. Sorry girls but its true. I have an innate tendancy to protect and shelter women, and quite frankly these days I dont know what from (as pointed out by Sniper in 3). But it is innate. I was raised to respect women and honor them as an equal, a companion. I was taught to look for a woman who you can talk to and converse with as an equal. Yet after all of this I still feel the need to protect women, and often times many women feel the urge to take up this protection, be it for obvious reasons (that guy looks shady and he may rape me) or for less obvious (the tendency for some/most women to be held by a bigger stronger male). Scientists will tell you that women are attracted to tall men because of evolutionary insticts towards height and power (then again these scientists may just be tall men on an ego trip).

    Either way the patriarchy exists for a reason, as do men like the secretive knob jockey who made these comments (I will wager that he plays with little boys and secretly wants a man). Im not sure how relevant these notions are in today’s society, but I will lay it out for you. If you believe in evolution then by virtue of our size and strength, men have always dominated women. Men also developed the innate nurture and protection instinct as a way to protect their child bearing women and thereby their perpetual progeny. If you believe in creation, then read Genesis 3:16 (as quoted to me by a female friend) – “and your craving will be for your husband and he will dominate you.” Once again, these notions may now be outdated (though not for creationists I believe), but they exist and the male protection instinct still exists.

    I know you all want to be independant and all that and dont NEED protection, but I dont think this quality should be bred out of men. Its one of the few good qualities that we have left and one I hope any future sons I may have, possess. If this dissapears we will only see an increase in violence towards women as men no longer wish to protect the weak but desire to dominate them.

    (And yes I know that men abuse women all the time and that domestic violence is prevalent, but I would still like to think that some, if not most, men are are good at heart and want to protect, not hurt, people, especially those smaller than them, ie women and children.)

  60. It’s very hard to be anything else other than a model in Eastern Europe and still make money. Women are routinely discriminated against in the workplace. They are paid less. They can get fired on the spot for getting pregnant (benefits? Maternity leave? ha!). They are passed over for promotions and, in many instances, can even get fired or threatened with being fired if they put on weight/lose weight/start to displease the boss because of their looks somehow. There are laws against this sort of thing, but they are not clearly defined, and they are rarely enforced.

    The very unlucky ones are trafficked and sold into slavery.

    The editors of VF (which has gone downhill) couldn’t give a damn about that. They want to paint Eastern European women as mindless sex-bots, because it’s an attractive sort of fantasy.

    I’ve had a lot of men try to hit on me because I’m Ukrainian, and Ukrainians are seen as more “obedient,” more “feminine,” more “submissive.” We have not been corrupted by “evil American feminists,” you see. These sleazebags usually bugger off when they realize I won’t suck them off for a chance at a green card. Then they want to meet my friends. Sometimes, I do want them to meet my friends… My friends Boris, Vladimir, and Pavel, in a dark alley somewhere.

    I guess it’s a good thing that I ultimately reject violence.

  61. “I know you all want to be independant and all that and dont NEED protection, but I dont think this quality should be bred out of men. Its one of the few good qualities that we have left and one I hope any future sons I may have, possess. If this dissapears we will only see an increase in violence towards women as men no longer wish to protect the weak but desire to dominate them.

    (And yes I know that men abuse women all the time and that domestic violence is prevalent, but I would still like to think that some, if not most, men are are good at heart and want to protect, not hurt, people, especially those smaller than them, ie women and children.) ” Brett

    Brett,

    I’m afraid you are missing the point, which unfortunately is not surprising. Stop and THINK realllly hard. What exactly is it that women currently need protection from? That’s right, MEN. It’s a bit much for women to have to sit and constantly listen to men argue that they wish to protect us when it’s their very counterparts who are hurting us!! If you really want to help, try educating the general male population on why their typical notion of women is completely erroneous. It isn’t feminist women who are in desperate need of a attitude adjustment and education.

    Now that me makes this very clear again:

    If men would learn to NOT hurt us, we overwhelmingly would NOT need protection from anyone.

    It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

    Blessings.

  62. “I have an innate tendancy to protect and shelter women, and quite frankly these days I dont know what from (as pointed out by Sniper in 3).” Brett.

    Um, Brett, Sniper’s response was a rhetorical question, I believe. She was making a crack about the fact that it’s men who hurt us.

    Blessings.

  63. It’s okay Brett,

    We understand that all of us are programmed by the same system. This issue takes a bit of serious contemplation to be able to think beyond what has been taught us, the same lessons learned by our parents, our grandparents, etc. Certainly it must be difficult for a man, a white man especially (not you specifically), to see past his particular privileges, and I say this without sarcasm. But try to imagine yourself as a woman. No, really, think about it. In todays culture, what do you think would be the most threatening to you? The lack of a strong man to protect you, or the society that condones violence against women? My vote goes to the issue of society. If I felt completely comfortable in this culture, I would not have the Plan B pill in my drawer just in case me or my daughter get raped.

  64. Excerpt from article concerning sexual violence prevention program:

    “In one exercise, Fort had the group write the number of daily precautions men and women take to prevent sexual assault.

    The goal was to show the significant differences of how women protect themselves against sexual assaults compared to men.

    The group listed 18 daily precautions taken by women, such as walking in groups and carrying keys in your hand.

    There was only one listed precaution for men. One man said walking in well-lit areas was a precaution he took.

    Fort said this illustrated the lengths women go to in order to stay safe.

    “I’d be pretty pissed off if I had to live like this,” Fort said as he pointed to the women’s list of precautions and the room fell silent. “It’s exhausting. It’s a form of second-class citizenship in my eyes.”

    Full article:

    http://www.statepress.com/issues/2006/10/11/news/698200

  65. Well stated and I agree. Men are dangerous. My point was to not stop the good ones from having their innate urge. We need to reinforce positive behaviours whilst disciplining negative behaviours (thats right super nanny, ignoring abuse and putting people in the naughty corner doesnt make it go away). People learn by example and a severe lack of male role models in today’s world doesnt help the situation.

    Do you think that we really can change the attitude of all men? Humans are prone to violence and historically men have had to protect women from other men, its history. I would love to see a world where women are no longer raped or abused, and women dont need protection, but are we striving for a grail that cannot be achieved?

  66. Faith, I think Sniper’s comment was literal…. well at least it can be taken that way and make perfectly good sense.

  67. Natalia said:
    “I’ve had a lot of men try to hit on me because I’m Ukrainian, and Ukrainians are seen as more ‘obedient,’ more ‘feminine,’ more ‘submissive.’ We have not been corrupted by ‘evil American feminists,’ you see. These sleazebags usually bugger off when they realize I won’t suck them off for a chance at a green card.”
    Yeah, I’m Asian, so I can relate to that dilemma – I’m so angry that some men will look at me and see a prostitute, a geisha or a mailorder bride – basically an exotic, submissive sexual commodity. Another reason I’m a feminist, so women don’t have to put up with crap like this.

  68. “Do you think that we really can change the attitude of all men? Humans are prone to violence and historically men have had to protect women from other men, its history. I would love to see a world where women are no longer raped or abused, and women dont need protection, but are we striving for a grail that cannot be achieved?”

    I appreciate your nobility and I’m happy you wish to protect women. However, your statement that men have an innate desire to protect women is basically innaccurate. Men have historically protected “their” women from other men while simultaneously subjecting “their” women to the same abuse that the other men were trying to force upon the women. Men by and large haven’t protected us out of chivalry, but simply as a matter of protecting their property and ego.

    No, I don’t think we can ever change the attitudes of all men. However, the fact of the matter is quite simple. By and large, men abuse us not because they are “prone to violence”, but simply because they have been raised in a society that condones men abusing women. They have been taught to behave in this manner.
    It wasn’t even illegal for men to rape their wives in this country until several years ago. A few decades ago it was simply accepted that a man had every right to beat and rape his wife. This is still accepted in many other cultures. She was his property afterall, and it was, and still is believed by many that women are put on this Earth for the sole purpose of serving men.

    You look at men who commit abuse and see “bad men”. Women know that it isn’t “bad men” that commit these crimes. It’s everyday, regular, NORMAL men. If you believe you can look at a man and tell whether he is a likely abuser, rapist, or child molester, I’m afraid you’d be sadly mistaken. Often the most violent ones are the ones that look the most sane and functional.
    They are also often the most religous ones.

    As to your comment that you would like to believe that most men are good and would never harm a woman or a child, that’s a common statement made by men. I’m afraid to have to burst your bubble and tell you it’s a largely inaccurate one. If you wish to begin to get to get a better bearing of what I and the other ladies here are trying so desperately to say, you might wish to visit one or both of my blogs:

    http://brokendreams.wordpress.com
    http://wallofshame.wordpress.com

    No offense, but if you really wish to understand what’s going on, you must first educate yourself in the sociology surrounding men’s behavior. Hanging out in the feminist blogosphere is definitely a good start.

    Blessings.

    I haven’t updated it in a few days but you might wish to check out my blog to get an

  70. “Excellent response Faith. I wonder if they will ever be able to see life through our eyes.”

    Thanks, Shawn. If only I had taken the time to proofread before submitting. 😉

    Blessings.

  71. Pingback: wrrxfiruv

Comments are currently closed.