A Wooly Lamb for the MRA Wolves
The following comment appeared today on the ever-popular, first-ever post on CF. This person is, let me say it, the most perfected and unblemished specimen of an "earnest feminist" I have EVER known -- bar none. Aye, so help me, but it's not every day you'll stumble upon such . . . such . . . pristine dew-spangled innocence! How could I possibly not share?Warning: feminist subjectivism ahead:
"You - and your commenters here - make me very sad. You froth and rage at feminism... You claim we need to eliminate "man-hatred" and "family-destruction". What has this got to do with feminism? Feminists agree with you! We need to get rid of hate for both sexes, we need to make families better, to raise children free of hate and in a world where boys and girls have more potential than their parents.Immediately after the above, I posted the following response which, evidently, I am re-posting here:
"The problem here is...
"You, sir, don't understand what feminism is. You're attacking amazonism.
Amazonism is my name for people who think women are superior and who hate men. [Note: My name for such people would be female supremacists -- Fidelbogen]
Feminism is for people who want true equality for men and women. By freeing women they also free men, so that either sex can be free to perform both gender roles. [Note: The trouble is, that a lot of people, of both sexes, have no actual interest in the kind of "freedom" suggested here. Indeed, they find it arcane and abstract; they can formulate no clear conception of what is being talked about, or why it would allegedly "free" them. -- Fidelbogen]
"Amazonism is about putting men instead of women into the "stay home, clean the house, make me a sammich" position. [Note: I don't know about "amazonism", but female supremacism is about throwing men into jail, or into the gutter, or under the bus. -- Fidelbogen] Feminism is about the removal of that position entirely.
"Drop the hatred of feminism, please. Instead, join us in yelling at the people of both sexes who say that one side is better than the other.
Trust me. We don't like them either.
"-Disappointed and confused feminist who is banging her head on the table over yet another stupid misunderstanding.
3:52 PM
Fidelbogen said...Addendum: I am posting, directly below, an insightful comment that was written, in response to the present CF post, by a commenter on one of the websites to which I cross-post. Ahh. . . I love it when the blog writes itself!
"You, sir, don't understand what feminism is."
Oh, I'll betcha i DO!
You. . are a stellar example of what we in the sector call an Earnest Feminist. Maybe the best example I have ever seen.
Those "amazonians" are INDEED feminists, just as you yourself are a feminist. You are ALL feminists! "Feminism" is a social organism defined by a symbiosis. Without BOTH kinds of feminism working together, feminism as a movement would have no traction and make no headway.
Basically, you're playing good cop/bad cop. The reason that feminists such as yourself exist, is to provide cover and camouflage for those other feminists. If feminists like you were the ONLY feminists, feminism as a movement wouldn't last two weeks - it would be reabsorbed into "liberal humanism" or the like. Those other, nasty feminists are the true spiritual core of the movement, and the true powerhouse that makes it run. They are the "little man behind the curtain" whom feminists like yourself tell the world to "pay no attention" to.
As for you personally, I think you are just a misguided liberal. But since you sound like a very sincere person, I won't be hard on you. Although, I would advise you to drop the term "feminist" as a self-descriptor. That label is permanently tainted.
I have an idea. I am going to do honor to your comment by publishing it as a blog post unto itself, so that others may be . . . enlightened. ;)
4:33 PM
"I'd love to see some blogs or, better yet, video footage of feminists complaining about women who make false rape claims/ stop the father from having contact with their child/ women who complain endlessly about men or use men as scapegoats for their own inadequacies & poor choices/ hit men knowing there will be zero retaliations or repercussions/ etc. etc.Fidelbogen here again. I would add that many feminists have already responded to the substance of KM's remarks above. They have effectively declared that they have no duty, as feminists, to look out for men's interests or to concern themselves with men's issues. Now, although I could allow this sounds fair in theory (provided that we as MRAs enjoy a corresponding liberty per women's issues!), I cannot fail to discern that the feminist position is in many cases morally tantamount to an evasion of feminist guilt for creating men's problems in the first place.
"Can this feminist show us any feminists complaining about women doing these things?
"I'm gonna take an educated bet that the answer is an obvious, "No". Yet, are we not quite accustomed to seeing the now silent feminists complaining loudly when a man steps out of line? So what gives, where's this "yelling at people of both sexes"?"
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:12 PM
27 Comments:
Feminism = a dirty plate that shattered to pieces.
""You - and your commenters here - make me very sad."
Awwwwww :'(
Poor bb.
Men standing up for themselves after being made to eat bowl after bowl of shit for decades on end ...
Men refusing to be used as cash production units for the benefit of women? ... Men asserting their own rights as human beings, not mere instruments and beasts of burden for the use of the grrlz?
This must be heartbreaking for poor dearie ...
Are there any arguments or actual thoughts going in there, or merely BS spun around feelings,some assumed some arbitrary?
"You - and your commenters here - make me very sad. "
Smile that you're alive. :)
"You froth and rage at feminism"
aw hell now, I laugh and pity it. But even the best of jokes grow old with repetition.
"We need to get rid of hate for both sexes"
Who's doing the hating?
"Amazonism is my name for people who think women are superior and who hate men. "
There are many who do the former without overtly indulging in the latter. Feminists and even some traditionalist and conversvatives do it.
Or they simply don't focus on the problems that men face.
"By freeing women they also free men, so that either sex can be free to perform both gender roles. "
Your logical jump does not compute. Women can easily take on men's roles and ask men to be even more manly. Or only look out for such men.
"Instead, join us in yelling at the people of both sexes who say that one side is better than the other."
If you have reason on your side, you need not yell. History shows me that one gender is better, nay, there isn't even a comparison.
The canard of equality of men and women is based on an imaginary premise that men and women are above their biological imperatives.
Equality is a good concept in theory and put into practice, but taking it to its logical ends is something that should be kept in theory.
@anon.
I love that.
@FidelBogen:
You foaming at the mouth walnut!
Kidding.
Your blog is nowhere near "foaming" or "raging" or anything like that.
Your blog is mellow compared to others, and you present your arguments very clearly.
I would have to label her comment as a "shaming tactic".
Any criticism is called, "rage".
She doesn't even have her ideas straight.
Just look at this.
"By freeing women they also free men, so that either sex can be free to perform both gender roles."
I.e.: so that both men and women can be free to perform BOTH gender roles - that is, to be masculine or feminine.
She proceeds to give a caricature of the feminine role, or 'position' as she now calls it.
Then says - "Feminism is about the removal of that position entirely."
Go back and read it. It's right there. Internal inconsistency within the same couple of lines. Feminism is about allowing men and women to take the masculine and feminine positions, but it is also about the removal of the feminine position entirely from both men and women.
Riiiiight. I wonder why people don't take feminists seriously. They have so many lies and cover stories and earnest rhetoric that they manage to confuse even themselves.
"They have so many lies and cover stories and earnest rhetoric that they manage to confuse even themselves."
So, so true! and then trying to explain to them their own inconsistencies is like unraveling a Gordian knot - or at least it would be for as much as the would understand it!
Totally OT, but I can't resist. He's at it again:
I remind such people of the fate of the wedding guest who came without the right clothing. It starts early, even before the high school dances for which the girls spend days in preparation and their loutish dates are hard pressed to wear clean bluejeans. The louts know, at least dimly, but they don’t care. Now let us hear from the Mens Movement louts about how it is all the girl’s fault for being immoral, how men are really the victims, or how it is manly to grope women and address them with slimy language. Not to beat a dead horse, but most people who join identity movements–female, male, Gay, White, Black–are Jerks with a capital J, because they roam the world seeking the ruin, if not of souls, then at least of parties and conversations and domestic tranquility.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/11/29/jerks-i/#comment-205559
"Now let us hear from the Mens Movement louts about how it is all the girl’s fault for being immoral, how men are really the victims, or how it is manly to grope women and address them with slimy language."
This is, at best, a badly-drawn caricature of what SOME people in the non-feminist sector are saying. The writer talks about the "men's movement louts", but says nothing about the men's movement non-louts. . .
Of course, I am not exactly complaining about this, since I know that MRAs use the very same tactics against the enemy. I figure all's fair in war so long as both sides are free to freely use the same methods against each other. This "equalizes" things.
*sigh*
"You, sir, don't understand what feminism is. You're attacking amazonism.
Amazonism is my name for people who think women are superior and who hate men."
Really? Female supremacists are feminists... funny thing is, that most of them are Dommes too. These creatures have no idea what it means to have a truly loving D/s relationship.
"Feminism is for people who want true equality for men and women. By freeing women they also free men, so that either sex can be free to perform both gender roles."
Um...sorry? A laudable goal nonetheless, but your actions prove otherwise. You desire men to be some warped idea of a "masculine" man while being a paraasite.
"[Note: The trouble is, that a lot of people, of both sexes, have no actual interest in the kind of "freedom" suggested here. Indeed, they find it arcane and abstract; they can formulate no clear conception of what is being talked about, or why it would allegedly "free" them. -- Fidelbogen]"
Sorry Fidelbogen, I disagree. I understood what was said. I agree somewhat with that sentiment I find traditional gender roles should be a choice. The problem is, of course, that it shouldn't be met with ostracism from anyone.
"Amazonism is about putting men instead of women into the "stay home, clean the house, make me a sammich" position."
Yes and no. It depends on the flavor of "amazonism" we're talking about. Some call for gendercide, some call for emasculation of all men, and some call for the imprisonment of all males.
"[Note: I don't know about "amazonism", but female supremacism is about throwing men into jail, or into the gutter, or under the bus. -- Fidelbogen]"
See previous point, this only partially true.
"Feminism is about the removal of that position entirely."
No. It isn't. When was the last time you spoke out against Twisty Faster or Nine Deuce and their misandry?
""Drop the hatred of feminism, please. Instead, join us in yelling at the people of both sexes who say that one side is better than the other.
Trust me. We don't like them either."
Excuse me? I find your lack of consistancy...disturbing.
______________________________
"Excuse me? I find your lack of consistancy...disturbing."
I find the commenter's supposed lack of consistency not so much "disturbing" as void of interest.
"I find the commenter's supposed lack of consistency not so much "disturbing" as void of interest."
Sure, I was trying to be humorous and reference Star Wars while attacking her point.
"Oh, I'll betcha i DO!"
Damn right you do!
You know, you have my vote as the foremost spoken for this movement. A great post, very entertaining. Nobody messes with you, you, Fidelbogen!
@Pierce:
Thank you for the props. Honored, honored..!
@silentblood:
"Sure, I was trying to be humorous and reference Star Wars while attacking her point."
Ahh. . you have the advantage of me. I have never seen the movie Star Wars!
"I have never seen the movie Star Wars!"
A shame. It would be great to see you 'deconstruct' the impertinent, discourteous Princess Leia, a Strong and Independent Woman (TM) of vast political power who nevertheless needs to be rescued by a rogue smuggler and a clueless farm boy who are incognito as literal clone functionaries of the Galactic Empire run by her own father against whom she rebels, despite having clearly lived a privileged enough lifestyle to have never suffered any kind of patriarchal/imperial wrath.
And that Han Solo? MRA material for sure ... Luke is a White Knight.
"I care ..." he calls after Leia, juxtaposing himself to the swashbuckling Han who practically just spat in her face but nevertheless ends up in her bed.
@Snark:
The problem is that rescuing the princess, is a common literary them as is the maiden, mother, and crone set, and well any cliched gender role pre-1970s America. Before then, it was badwrong to break that.
O.T, I keep forgetting the name of the women's studies lecturer who says we need to eliminate men to 10% of the population.
Please help, I need it for an article and hope someone here can help me out.
BTW, nice little lamb. :)
Never mind, found it.
Thanks!
A Nice Respectable Word (2nd article on link)
http://tinyurl.com/26e6so3
@Anon:
To my eternal, undying shame, I too cannot recall the exact name in question.
HOWEVER . . . try googling sally miller gearhart and mary daly, in combination with various keywords, and you might hit the jackpot.
Also, google "the future if there is one is female".
And who is talking about freedom?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY&feature=channel
Ah, too late Fidelbogan, I've finished my article. NZ is looking at scrapping gender studies AKA women's studies and it's today's news so I wanted to be on time.
I love what you write and appreciate it being available when I need it.
http://tinyurl.com/27e85rk
"NZ is looking at scrapping gender studies AKA women's studies and it's today's news. . ."
Is there any major NZ news publication which has written about this? Link?
Hi again Fidelbogan,
My article isn't too bad. (see below this paragraph)I start with my own study experience but anyone can add with the trouble we have studying things from the 70's when our global world is fast evolving. We don't need the 70's social crap, we need to start thinking ahead. They've been saying for some time our children are learning things that are a waste for their world, lol.
http://tinyurl.com/27e85rk
Also, I give a link (see below this paragraph) to an article written by a feminist and she writes for a well respected offline newspaper. It's just that the site showing the article collects articles from lots of newspapers around the country. It's called the Dominion Post (the newspaper) and is sold at every local store around the country. Good to quote.
http://tinyurl.com/32a88f5
Skeptic from menz pointed me to the article.
@silentblood,
"The problem is that rescuing the princess, is a common literary theme"
I was struck more by how much of a common real life theme it is - and it's no different when the Princess is an actual Princess wielding power over multiple worlds ...
Strong, Independent Women still need to be bailed out.
I'm a woman, and I agree with this! I think feminism makes life harder for not only men, but women too. I could never figure out why other women thought this was an "empowering" philosophy. It just encourages women to be single, stressed out, and promiscuous, what an unhappy life! Why would anyone want that?
@Kate:
"I could never figure out why other women thought this was an "empowering" philosophy."
Probably because they weren't thinking of long-term consequences, or else they thought they could cover those consequences by writing the political or moral equivalent of a 'rubber check' -- not the kind that bounces, but the kind that NEVER bounces because it stretches and stretches and stretches.
Or at least, until it finally snaps, like a rubber band!
"They have effectively declared that they have no duty, as feminists, to look out for men's interests or to concern themselves with men's issues."
I hope they remember that the next time they exhort us to "stop rape" with their "only men can stop rape campaigns" or not to walk behind women in dark alleys ala "she fears you", lest they fall into stereotyping men into masculine "protector" roles.
Oh, who am I kidding? Feminists don't care about logical consistency, feminism is chivalry +. EAT THE COW,BUT KEEP RECEIVING ITS MILK! Makes no sense at all. Of course, the other side, conservative feminists, say "MILK THE COW FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN, THEN SHOOT IT AND EAT IT!". Makes sense,but not much better when you consider the milk they are talking about is our hard-earned money and the cow is us.
I still don't understand why feminists think we would give a shit about helping them in their issues when they refuse to quit falsely crying rape or even quit calling us worthless sacks of testosterone who need to be reduced to 10% of the human population in what they term a "decontamination of the earth" (Hitler,much?).
The feminists should have gotten on board when they had the chance to meaningfully address men's issues, because they answered by saying men should become transsexuals because it's gonna be hell on earth for anyone with a y chromosome and without a gender dysmorphic disorder, they will now have the devil to pay.
Before it's all over, they will end up creating the mythical "misogynists" they popularized in their fiction (through psychologically abusing and emasculating mentally healthy men with their poisonous anti-male ideology),but by the time they cry "wolf" again, they will be surrounded by wolves. There won't be any townspeople left to hear them, supposing they would believe them this time anyway if there were.
Poetic Justice? Sure. Preferable outcome? Afraid not. We begged them for fairness for about 20 years now, pleaded with them to be compassionate,empathetic, all those "superior" traits they claim to have. They would not come to the table. They are drunk on power and want nothing less than the destruction of every heterosexual man.
They still,to this date, refuse to enter into negotiations for peace. We've tried within the last 5 years to reach out to them. Those who call us woman-haters don't have the back story on this movement, we're responding to an ongoing attack,a gender war that they started. We've been doing so as peacefully and reasonably as possible for about 20 years.
I have REPEATEDLY asked feminists collectively and individually to surrender. All they have to do to become a friend of MRA's is put aside the bigoted hatred of men and drop the feminist label. They refuse to stop hating,they refuse to disassociate themselves with the lying, greedy,bigoted feminists who want to commit genocide on us, and so we must oppose them, vigorously, after all we're fighting for our LIVES here.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home