Tuesday, March 15, 2011

My Report on the USA to a
European Correspondent

I share now a portion of an e-mail sent to a correspondent in Europe, who wished for an overview of anti-feminist developments in the United States. Actually, I sent this to two different people: I copied the text I'd sent to correspondent A., and pasted it to correspondent B in a separate e-mail so as to save the work of writing the same story twice. I believe that such a summary would be helpful to a lot of Americans as well, who don't always have the big picture. Why, even feminists may benefit, since they are the most woefully "illiterate" ones of all as concerns matters MRM and non-feminist. Yes...I'm looking at YOU, Schwyzer!
"So. . . you ask about the state of things, antifeminist-wise, in the USA. All right, first the short answer:

"Scattered and fragmented. The rest is details. . .

"So now, the details - or some of them anyway.

"Antifeminism in the USA is currently a grassroots popular movement among "unpopular" people. Nevertheless, it shows signs of slow and steady growth. Emphasis on the word steady. The "slow" part just might be changing. Hopefully.

"Only in Europe, I think, is it currently conceivable to start a well-publicized organization with the word "antifeminist" in its name. Such a thing would be unheard of in the USA, and pretty sure it would be unheard of in England as well - or almost anywhere in the Anglosphere.

"Americans in particular are very conservative and don't like to rock the boat. They don't want to be associated with anything "radical". Americans are slow to accept new ideas, and once they do, they are equally slow to let go of them, even if they are not such good ideas after all! And feminism seems to be one of those ideas. Call this cultural inertia.

"The grassroots antifeminist trend in the USA is growing from many different centers, and these centers are gradually becoming aware of each other. But they are still far from being linked into any kind of effective political device. A lot of people, individually, don't like feminism, or don't like the results of feminism which they see in the world. Some of them are developing a keen analysis of the situation, while others are just barely opening their eyes and not able to put things into words yet.

"It is socially not cool to criticize feminism in mainstream everyday life, and for plenty of people (I would say most) feminism is a "no go" subject altogether. They just don't talk about it, full stop.

"However, the social undercurrent of discontent is growing - as anybody who watches the internet can soon figure out. On the internet, people speak their minds freely.

"I am happy to say that the activities of internet MRAs are doing quite a bit to fan the flames, both in the USA and elsewhere, although the exact percentage of this is hard to estimate. I am sure that other forces are producing this effect as well. A lot is happening, more than one person can possibly know about.

"I am certain that there are far more enemies of feminism who have never heard the term 'MRA', than there are people who call themselves MRAs. And there are also a lot of MRAs who refuse to call themselves MRAs!

"In addition to the populistic grassroots, there are actual political orgs and lobbying groups in the USA, but as I suggested earlier, they are not ostensively "anti-feminist". Generally, they are reform movements working on various separate issues (father's rights, family rights, paternity fraud, etc etc..). These issues are not "feminism" per se, but they all pertain to the feminist socio-political power structure in some way - the "femplex", as I call it. And so, as you might expect, the feminists see such groups and orgs as enemies!

"SOME of the members of these groups and orgs, if you talk to them privately, will agree that feminism is the enemy. OTHER members of these groups, however, don't appear to "see the elephant"; they just see the immediate issue they are working on.

"I'm afraid that the 2 major political parties are currently not much help at all. That is the consensus of most MRAs in the USA.

"And most MRAs will tell you that "right" and "left" don't amount to anything either: feminism extends through the entire political spectrum even if it takes a different form on the right than on the left.

"Right and Left feminists might despise each other in a lot of ways, but neither of them is about to do men, as a group, any favors. Some of the worst anti-male legislation in this country was supported by both liberals and conservatives, for example, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

"Also, there is plenty of organized corruption, and shady money to be made, within the various feminist-tainted institutional structures. Plenty of crooks want to keep things just the way they are, because they find this profitable.

"That's the USA picture in broad outline, as it now stands.

"You ask about the MRA blogs. Yes, they are doing quite well, and new ones are regularly appearing. My own blog has a solid core of readers -- about two-thirds USA and one-third international -- which is slowly but steadily growing. And there is nobody anywhere who does quite exactly what I am doing.

"Websites such as the Spearhead and the False Rape Society are getting a LOT of traffic. Reddit Men's Rights is also a big draw.

"You should keep a sharp eye on this one:

http://gynotheory.blogspot.com


"All right, so what is going to make things move in the USA?

"One: continued recruitment by way of the grassroots and word of mouth; in other words, just what we have been doing all along. But hopefully, doing it better.

"Two:
the organization of men as a self-aware political force in the realm of electoral politics. Elected politicians will learn to respect the male vote when there IS a male vote. And there have recently been signs that men are starting to wake up in this way -- still embryonic, but promising. Also, an organization called the Men's Voting Alliance (MVA) has recently started up, which I take to be a sign of the times! The MVA has an excellent lobbying platform, but of course they don't call themselves "antifeminist" -- that wouldn't be respectable in the USA, you know! ;)

"Three: a pro-male force in academia. The Male Studies initiative seeks to create such a force, to establish a new academic discipline which is no longer under the thumb of feminist ideology. Their second conference will be held this coming Spring, and I have heard that they have had some successes even since their first conference.

"Well, that wraps it up for now."

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good assessment, and I agree consciousness of mens issues is progessing at a more notable speed than even 5 years ago.

As a worker on men's issues I've come to see -broadly speaking- three general interest groups:

1. MRAs/Antifeminists
2. feminists
3. 'the middle ground'.

MRAs and feminists are locked into a truly opositional stance on just about all the issues, and thier rhetoric is always one of anti-the-other. Neither group is popular in terms of the number of adherents per the overall population of people working on men's issues. In fact thier numbers are tiny.

My experience is that group #3, who work energetically on all kinds of male issues/discrimination occupies a middle ground between the feminists and antifeminists/MRAs. The 'middle ground' workers (as I'm calling them) don't like to be categorised and labeled- they simply feel compelled to help fix problems men and boys face. Their great benefit is that they do not put people offside, and so acheive far more politically than all the MRAs put together; the 'MGs' successfully gain services, funding, raised awareness, etc. and they have a higher success rate of winning the hearts and minds of uninvolved onlookers to the issues.

The big point to make -and one MRAs and Feminists seem utterly oblivious to- is that the middle-ground workers on men's issues comprise about 90% of those people around the worls trying or at least wanting to make a genuine improvement men's circumstances. What the MRAs see is, well, only MRA guys, which leads them to the conclusion that there is MRAs or unknowns who can be classified as Manginas or feminists.

All the ranting of MRAs about speaking one's mind amounts to very, very little improvment in men's circumstances, although there are some notable campaigns which made a dent in misandric advertizing etc.

I like to think all 3 groups are necessary, but hope that eventually the feminists (particularly!!) and the MRAs will be unnecessary combatants, and that the missle ground will occupy political ascendency.

8:04 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

"However, the social undercurrent of discontent is growing - as anybody who watches the internet can soon figure out. On the internet, people speak their minds freely.

That's the big trick :) I saw a feminist column the other day where the authoress was reassuring feminists "Men are not angry". She was saying how its just a bunch of online guys who speak like this... And, she was reassuring herself that most men are not angry since, well none of the men she knows offline speaks this way.

Oh, poor soul :D What she doesn't get is that even most MRAs don't talk like this in the offline world.

The trick they don't get is that 99% of the counter-feminist comments and forum replies on the internet are being posted by every-man... They're not MRAs... These commenters have never even heard of "counter-feminism" or "MRA".

8:35 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon:

Yes. The MRAs are an insurgency.

Your vision for the future is rosy, but if it came about, it would mean that feminists literally no longer existed. And if that were the case, then the problems that feminism created would disappear right along with feminism itself.

What you are talking about, is what I call the 'non-feminist revolution.'

But so long as feminism continues existing in any form, MRAs will be necessary.

Remember that 'MRA' can be classified as either a label or a descriptor. So anybody who defends or speaks out for men's rights is a de facto or 'objective' MRA whether he calls himself an MRA or not.



When the Middle Mass is working on various issues as you describe, they are indirectly attacking feminism by weakening the feminist power structure.

It would be much, much better if they would radicalize themselves by identifying feminism (in a political and ideological way) as THE problem, and attack it accordingly.

This would cut off the lesser problems at the root, and a lot of those problems would solve themselves.

I call this the upstream solution.

10:43 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@AlekNovy:

"The trick they don't get is that 99% of the counter-feminist comments and forum replies on the internet are being posted by every-man... They're not MRAs... These commenters have never even heard of "counter-feminism" or "MRA"."

Well, as I said in my reply to the other commenter (see above), the term MRA is either a label or a descriptor.

And these "everyman" guys --- they actually ARE MRAs, in an objective, descriptive, de facto way. Even if they don't know what 'MRA' means.

After all, every MRA alive was once a guy who didn't know what an MRA was...

You can call an apple an apple in the USA, or you can call it a "pomme" in France..... but it's the same thing either way.

Yes, even if the American doesn't know what a 'pomme' is, or the Frenchman doesn't know what an 'apple' is.

10:58 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@AlekNovy:

Hey man, I am curious about that feminist columnist you mention. Have you got an URL?

While I'm at it, the funny thing about that is: where the hell does she think these "online" guys are coming from, anyway?

Does she believe that they somehow, magically, only exist inside monitors and internet cables?

11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, as I said in my reply to the other commenter (see above), the term MRA is either a label or a descriptor.

That makes sense intellectually. However I'm not entirely comfortable with naming the middler ground even as a descriptor, and I dont know why I'm uncomfortable. Is it because thats what feminists do; they tell women who work toward gender fairness, but who would not call themselves feminist, that they are in fact feminists because they work for fairness for women and thats what a feminist is. But most of these middle-grounder women hate the feeling of having thier behaviour classiefied. So to with the males in the middle ground. Why is that?

I'm guessing its because a 'feminist' is more than about equality, and an 'MRA' is more than about men's rights. What both of these are typically also about is oppositional war against their opposite nomber: feminist against MRA / MRA against feminist and mangina.

So maybe its that (usually unproductive) aggression and hate of the MRAs against non MRAs that is implicit in the MRA tag, and which leads people to reject it? Again am thinking out loud here, not sure where the discomfort comes from but maybe these issues play a part.

2:18 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

My own views on feminism have been changing to more of an anti-feminist one, namely because of the GMP, some really good arguments at Antimisandry, and feminists *themselves*. I tried being fair and giving their views a chance but dammit their "issues" is just a prime example of projection of their own insecurities and anti-dude rhetoric. This sadistic Domme is not some man-hater or insecure about her self image, thank you very much.

6:46 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@LC:

So, you have discovered what veteran MRAs have known for years, that feminists are their own worst sales reps! ;)

Some people talk about "working with" feminists....

...but any feminist that you COULD work with would be, ipso facto, not a feminist.

9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and an 'MRA' is more than about men's rights."


No we're not. The only thing we agree on is men's rights. We couldn't be about "more than men's rights" if we tried.

The thing is, the only way we can get them, is if we challenge feminists. They have ensconced themselves in the very legal institutions one would have to go to to get the rights we want and they are attempting to play the old carrot on a stick with us.

Every time we try to get,for instance, parenting rights,we are blocked by feminist groups shrieking and calling all men abusers.

If you can see some other way in besides a direct confrontation with feminists,I'm all ears. It would save us a lot of trouble.

12:52 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"If you can see some other way in besides a direct confrontation with feminists,I'm all ears. It would save us a lot of trouble."

Along with direct confrontation, plenty of indirect confrontation as well. We should hit them with everything we've got, and indirection is good because they "don't see it coming."

But yes, confronting feminism, aggressively and narrowly is the key to it. Chiefly, that means quit whining about women and relationships. Be a hard, ruthless fanatic and policy wonk, and just go after feminism itself like a prosecuting attorney.

And stick mostly to areas and issues where you know you have a strong case. Pick your battles; you don't need to win every conceivable argument in order to torpedo feminism, only a few critical ones.

6:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes- indirect confrontation is one other way. No confrontation with feminists is another way, eg. I see that fathers have less parenting rights, so i lobby lawmakers to correct legislation but say nothing about feminists. Another eg. I say men's heath is neglected in comparison to women, so I provide statistics to local politicians who then decide there is a funding imbalance and work to address it. Another eg- i create a website about how boys are doing poorly in education and lobby for a correction.

Yes yes yes, you can say its all impotent, that these efforts prove impotent unless we cut the problem off at the source- feminism. We need more attacking of feminism.

I'd say that approach of attacking feminism is FAR less productive than simply trying to address the problem feminism has created and maintained. As soon as you say "feminists did xyz" you immediately lose 99% of your potential support, because people in positions of power are scared of feminists and try to avoid insulting them. If however you simply talk of male disadvantage you have many more ears. And I mean MANY.... most people dont want to see disadvantage.

This comes back to my original point- MRAs are popularly defined as people who overtly demonstrate direct anger at feminists. You cannot leave this out of the definition of an MRA because it is almost universal, along with the fact that MRAs advocate for men's rights.

This is why people in the 'middle ground', that constitute the majority of people working on men's and boys rights and wellbeing, do not suit the label 'MRA' - ie. they are not all angry at feminists, nether covertly or overtly angry (although admittedly several are covertly but see it as counterproductive in thier lobbying work).

To me 'MRA' is synonymous with feminist-oppositionalist. It is this as much or more than lobbying for men's rights.

As I suggested above it is not correct to assume all people advocating for male welfare are MRAs any more that it is to assume all women who like fairness are feminists.

2:58 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

I seriously thought there was gold somewhere in the sack of shit known as feminism, Fidelbogen. But no, I can't even side with a contradictory ideology that tells me I'm wrong for wanting power dynamics in my relationships but also tells me I'm wrong for not hating men or thinking men have privilege, it's bullshit. Just you wait and see, I'm cooking up a big criticism of feminism and how I feel about their "issues".

3:44 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Yes yes yes, you can say its all impotent, that these efforts prove impotent unless we cut the problem off at the source- feminism. We need more attacking of feminism."

Oh no, not impotent at all. If such lobbying efforts bear fruit (which they well might) then men are helped. And if men are helped, then feminism is harmed. (And vice-versa.)

It might not cut the problem off AT the source, but it closes in upon the source and isolates it more and more. Then, the next round of lobbying, maybe, will pull the noose just a little bit tighter.

If the feminists don't like what you are doing, they'll scream about it for sure. And that is what tips you off: it means you are taking flak because you are getting close to the target.

Sooner or later, it must occur to most of these lobbying-activist types that feminism has got SOMETHING to do with whatever they are working on. If it doesn't dawn on them eventually, they're thick as a brick.

Anyhow, I have no problem with people not calling themselves MRAs, if that makes their game easier for them. They can tip me a nod-and-a-wink, and I'll know what's up. I won't blow their cover! ;)

But in the end, I still say that feminism, qua feminism, must be confronted rudely. Later if not sooner. I'm happy to get started sooner, just to get the ball rolling. Others can (and I think will) join me later.

5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nod and wink ;-) ;-)

Cheers

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS. and yes I'll be joining you later to openly demolish the enemy.

Cheers

6:03 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"I seriously thought there was gold somewhere in the sack of shit known as feminism, Fidelbogen. "

You know, the funny thing is, that there actually IS gold in that bag. The "gold in the shitbag" trick is feminism's foremost scam. Plenty of people are duped by it, but the thing to understand is that the "gold" is not feminism, just something that got thrown in with it.

The same gold can be had elsewhere; one need not dig through the shitbag to get it. But feminism's trick is making you believe that you'll never get it any other way.

For example, when the say "what will you replace feminism with?"

They want you to think that somehow women will instantly fall into sinkhole if feminism "goes away" . . .

That men, en masse, will instantly start raping and beating and oppressing women with wild abandon, and that feminism is the only force that stands between women and such a fate.

There is a name, in the jargon of the psychology biz, for the kind of "mind game" that I am describing here. Help me out with this. . . . will ya? ;)

6:06 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

It's a form of abuse and social control you don't need psychology to recognize that.

I'm probably going to alienate a huge portion of my readership tomorrow with a blog post, I'm going totally anti/counter feminist. I don't need to be a feminist to support gender liberation, sex-positive thinking, and egalitarianism.

8:18 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"It's a form of abuse and social control you don't need psychology to recognize that."

Oh sure, most anybody can spot it happening. . but I thought perhaps there was an exact word for it.

Anyhow . . . I will for sure be checking for your next blog post tomorrow! ;)

9:33 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

Nah not really, I can express most psych concepts in layman's terms and some of them don't have specific psych terms. If, for example, I was discussing Freudian psychodynamics in gender development, I could simply state it as that it's the idea that parenting makes or breaks a kid's gender identity(this isn't true by the way).

9:55 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Well, since you mention Freud...

Does Freud's stock have ANY value at all any more, or has the old scoundrel been completely knocked off his pedestal?

In other news, I am presently reading, for the first time ever, Germaine Greer's 'The Female Eunuch'.

But I think I will interrupt my reading to search on the web for a copy of Rudyard Kipling's 'Just-so Stories'.

10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Freud has currency as a building-block for many schools (and their ideas) which came later. His basic concepts of repression, denial, objects, environment, conversion etc. etc.

Germaine Greer? Sounds like a punishing read.

You wont alienate me from reading your stuff by coming strong with the counter/anti feminism. Its obvious that your writing is largely oppositionalist in it's orientation so nothing new there. Thats not to dismiss oppositionalism but to acknowledge your orientation in it.

I like your writings.

12:05 AM  
Anonymous Snark said...

"I don't need to be a feminist to support gender liberation, sex-positive thinking, and egalitarianism."

Ding ding ding ding ding! We haaaaaaave a winner!

Yes, this is the gold in the shitbag Fidelbogen referred to.

The feminists will HATE you for suggesting you can have these things without feminism.

Why? ... Because then it casts feminism into doubt.

If we can have these things without feminism ...

... then why do we need feminism?

What else is there to feminism but these things?

Ah, now that is a question they do not want addressed.

2:19 AM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

@Fidelbogen
Freud's ideas on psychotherapy are still considered valid and the Anon that answered you is pretty much correct, it's just that Freud was wrong about how gender developed.

@Snark
Because those ideas predate feminism. Sex positive thinking originated from the 60's *before* Betty Friedan wrote the Feminine Mystique and got co-opted by the feminist movement in the early 90's(admittedly there's a lot of legit gripes with sex workers and their work conditions). Egalitarianism has existed in some form through out history. Gender liberation? From my understanding those ideas came from the culture of the 60's with counter culture.

1:08 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

Getting worried Fidelbogen...

7:13 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@ScareCrow:

Good heavens, why?

8:40 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@LC:

Freud's ideas are still considered valid, but by whom. . .?

Freudians?

8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many of Freud's basic concepts are still considered valid building blocks for/by cognitive psychologists; object-relations psychologists; present day psychoanalysts; analytical psychologists, archetypal psychologists, social psychologists, relational psychologists, and a thousand others TODAY. The definitions of his original concepts have been improved and expanded but these still owe a debt to Freud for introducing them. Of course he had many silly and wrong ideas too, which are today dismissed. When it comes to Freud's concepts its a matter of take the good bits and reject the silly bits behind. To say that "he's completely debunked" is an oversimplification spoken almost always by those people who know little about him or his ideas, or by people who know of just one or two of his bad ideas and nothing else.

Dismissing Freud would be like dismissing Einstein because the later did not know all about quantum physics and made some outlandish errors among his good discoveries.

12:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When my daughter was an infant I happened to be reading Freud's ideas at the time re 'penis envy'. I had head this was a load of debunked crap and so concluded with the naysayers that his idea of penis envy was a joke.

However, when teacking my daughter to use the potty she said one day, "I havn't got a willy, but mine is going to grow one day".

I was shocked at this Freudian slant, having dismissed such fantasies in girls as non-existant rubbish. I hasten to add that i confirmed my daughter didnt need one of "those" and that she already owned her own girl parts.

I have since heard of many little girls who expressed this fantasy about wanting or growing a penis to thier parents (reported by parents).

Penis envy, perhaps?

You be the judge.

1:05 AM  
Anonymous Snark said...

Fidelbogen:

Freud is one of the three thinkers whose ideas have most thoroughly permeated popular and high culture of the 20th/21st centuries.

The other two being Darwin and Marx.

Like the ideas of those two, Freud is found EVERYWHERE. He's in your face so much it's sometimes hard to notice him there!

2:07 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

...just making sure you are still around...

you haven't written anything for a while.

not complaining - just worried.

8:41 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

If Freud has been even halfway debunked, then his stock should decline accordingly and the zeitgeist should reflect this.

What irks me most of all is the horde of 'armpit psychologists' who wish to 'play Dr. Freud', especially with people they consider adversaries.

The history of feminism wrt Freudian theory is notable. The feminists started out hating Freud for what he said about women. But somewhere along the line, they discovered that Freud gave them ammunition to use against men, and so . . .

. . they compartmentalized their earlier distaste, and commenced to using a quasi-Freudian rhetoric in certain contexts.

For them, it was part of 'making the personal political'. Yes, that is what I would call it when you drag the personal psychology of your adversary into the discussion forum as an adjunct to a political power struggle.

Very much a totalitarian way of doing things...

12:00 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

If the feminists wish to play Dr. Freud, then they ought to address the female narcissism which they themselves have so richly empowered.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes feminists have indeed ebraced chunks of Freud's theories- there and numerous feminist psychoanalysts, and feminist psychoanalyst theory. They are particularly interested in the workd of post Freudian psychoanalysts like Lacan who placed so much theory in words. And of course feminists love this word-play stuff.

2:08 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Anon 2:08:

I am ahead of you here. See the following:

Lacan to Darwin

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indeed, it seems you are on to it. Lacan emphasised words as primary psychological markers. The feminists love to cherry pick Lacan because he gives licence to thier love of verbal deceipt and bullshitting.

And Lacan is hard reading too, which means the average person can't verify if Lacanian theory is being used properly- whuich it isnt.

Another the feminist like is Julia Kristeva, who uses a Freudian base.

Back to Freud's ideas, for me they find thier ultimate evolution in British Object Relations theory and practice. A really brilliant feild.

One thing we can say about freud's ideas is that it is mostly depth psychologists who gravitate to them. Scientific/clinical psych researchers dont mention Freud or his ideas much- "too unscientific" apparently.

2:39 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

""""Hey man, I am curious about that feminist columnist you mention. Have you got an URL?

While I'm at it, the funny thing about that is: where the hell does she think these "online" guys are coming from, anyway?

Does she believe that they somehow, magically, only exist inside monitors and internet cables?""""


Apparently yes, she believes there's some cave-dwelling creatures called "mras" that live in some internet-enabled cave somewhere, and somehow even though they're a "fringe insignificant grou" they manage to dominate every comment sections or every forum topic in any country about any gender issue or topic :D

Here's the column:
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/why-are-men-angry-theyre-not

3:32 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

@kathrin

""I tried being fair and giving their views a chance but dammit their "issues" is just a prime example of projection of their own insecurities and anti-dude rhetoric. This sadistic Domme is not some man-hater or insecure about her self image, thank you very much."""

The best part about feminists is that they're amazing at driving away potential allies.

No matter how fair you try to be to them, they will insult you, mock you, shame you and ridicule you.

Unless you agree with every facet of their religion to the T, you will be cast-aside.

If you're a woman, that doesn't help... They'll just tell you that you're "insecure in your femininity and probably secretly hate yourself you low-self-esteem girl you" :D :D

3:35 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

@Kathrin

"""Gender liberation? From my understanding those ideas came from the culture of the 60's with counter culture.""""

More like 4060's bc :D

There has been toying with gender roles, gender role reversals and complete gender liberated periods of pretty much most cultures on planet earth.

Didn't even some parts of rome toy with that?

3:41 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

@Everyone: http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.com/2011/03/anarchy.html

Thoughts?

@Fidelbogen:
The anon beat me to the punch.

@AlekNovy
I know! Even in the areas where I do think there are legitamate gripes(sex work and other *social* issues) I had to agree with them all, which is frankly bullshit. Even though i really agree with Lady Porn Day >.> (Is there a Gentleman Porn Day?)

About gender lib: I'm not incredibly sure, some cultures have/had more complicated concepts of gender, and others have/had very clear roles.

5:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home