Monday, June 11, 2012

Will the young pretty feminist stand up please?

Picture the most ardent feminist...
Um, on second thoughts, don't...
Don't wanna ruin your appetite...


This...is how I imagine a Manosphere denizen would start his standup comedy routine.

It is not strange or weird that men see feminists as older, less attractive, and brash.
Blow me down with a feather, but looking around, yes, they have a point.

Many people will agree that young, pretty women have no need for feminism, in fact.
This makes sense to me too.

Except...

I have a question.
Who exactly is a feminist?

Here's a little test:
Which one is the feminist out of these two women?
1.The one who in response to a man who refuses to help a woman in distress: 'She can help herself anyway! She can kill her own snakes!'
2. The one who responds to such a man: 'How sad. I wish he would help'.

I think most people would agree that Woman No. 1 is more likely to be the feminist.
And Woman No. 2 may well be viewed with suspicion. Explanation further down.

Another try:

1. The one who says to a man who offers to carry her heavy bag: 'No! I can do this myself!'
2. The one who asks a man to help her carry her bag when she seems able enough to do it.

I think everyone would agree that Woman No. 1 is perhaps the one who shows more 'feminista' tendencies. Especially if she appears offended that a man has offered to help her and thus thinks she is too weak to carry her own bag.
And Woman No. 2 is 'an entitled princess'.
And some might go even so far as labelling Woman No.2 in the first example in the same way if her mindset is more 'he should do it!' than 'well, pity he didn't, but there we are'.
Her attitude rather than her words belie any feministic tendencies she might harbour.

In the second example, if a woman refused nicely, making it clear to the man that she really did not need his help but thanks anyway, very kind of you, I don't think any man would feel slighted. More to the point, he wouldn't feel she was one of them feminazi types.
And I think everyone would also agree that the woman who in accepting help from a strange man says 'thank you' to him in a genuinely nice manner is definitely not showing feminist tendencies, whatever her age.

I find more and more that 'feminism' is a question of attitude...
And somehow some older women who should know better are getting it horribly wrong.

Why is this?
And why is this in fact good news for the archetypal feminist?

It is wrong to presume that a man will help only a young beautiful woman who needs his physical help.
More and more, I am seeing young men refuse to help a woman if they perceive her to be rude, brash, uncouth or ungainly even if she is young and 'hot'. Most definitely if she is not-so-young and not-so-hot.
This is really only something I have seen in the last five or so years.
Or maybe I was simply blind to it before, I don't know.

The same man who will refuse a young woman of childbearing age his help will have no problem coming to the aid of an old granny type who smiles at him so sweetly he might need insulin shots to neutralise the sugar (to borrow a brilliant phrase from Metak :-).

But I had the general sense of the reverse situation because I was more used to a younger woman being charming (some might say 'manipulating' but I insist on the use of the word 'charming') when she needs something from a man whereas there is a growing crop of older women who are harsh and angry and still expect favours from said young men, such as help with something heavy, giving up seats on trains, etc.
This is perhaps a physiological finding, aka the 'Daddy's little princess' who can twist Dad round her little finger like a pro versus the archetypal and sadly not-so-fictional-anymore five-time baby-mama who also happens to be angry, scary and frankly unpleasant and who demands that a Real Man 'wife her up NOW' (but by the way, the kids WILL come first).

We see more of the latter and I can see how this doesn't work anymore (um, did it ever?).
Chivalry died because it was murdered.
And the resuscitation team did not even turn up because rigor mortis had set in by the time someone thought to call them.
And now we must all live with the consequences.

It is really a question of attitude.
Some women are naturally man-friendly. Some have had to learn.
But I always find these man-friendly women to be generally woman-friendly too, strangely enough.
The man-haters are identifiable by their general hatred of everyone.
In this, at least they are consistent. Which is a twisted silver lining of sorts...

Feminism (at least the kind we are all familiar with these days) as an ideology rings hollow to me and has done for a long time but not in way I could understand.
Moreover, the 'representatives' of said ideology are not helping their cause any. These women who claim to have the best interests of women at heart are being exposed as liars and fraudsters all the time. And it seems this notion is gathering momentum.

Some of them have led sad and unfulfilled lives as a result of their unfortunate choices.
But instead of advising the younger generation of women to take heed, they advise the very same choices that have led them down the path of unhappiness and bitterness.

We briefly touched on this dark aspect of womanhood in the post about circumcision where female circumcision was mentioned in the comments section.
Which led us to discuss a woman whose abortion had caused her so much pain that...her only advice to women in a similar position was...'Go ahead and have that abortion, grrl!

What?!

I would have had so much more respect for these feminist women if some of them came clean and said,'Look, we made a mistake. It happens. But don't follow in our footsteps, unless you are sure that's what you really want. You are still young - you can change your life starting now...'

But no.
They would rather see young women today descend into hell like they did.

And now, weirdly enough, a young woman learns all about morality and femininity from men.
The Manosphere (at least the woman-friendly version) has done more for young women than feminists ever have.

Priceless.

On some level, I do understand the older, bitter feminist though.
It is too late for her.
She can't turn back the clock.
That is quite painful on a deeply personal level.
But...surely she wasn't always like this??
Ah,mais si.
Yes she was.

These women started on the path to feminism when they were young and beautiful.
That is, they started out on this journey at a time they didn't really need feminism. But they wanted it. So they created it.
The whole sex-positive thing could not have been started by old women. Not biologically possible.
Perhaps that's the problem.
The best years of these women were wasted on an idea which was flawed.
But they couldn't get off the express train until it crashed into the station at the final destination.
Whole lives had been spent developing and nurturing lies and hype that needed repeating so many times in order for them to stick.
And stick they did.


The other women who used their lives more correctly have no reason to be bitter.
They are also suffering of course.
No-one is trouble-free.
They may be lonely old spinsters, they may be divorced, widowed, happily married, whatever.
But they are not angry, bitter, loud and selfish women.


And so today, are there young and pretty feminists?
Unfortunately yes.
Some are unbelievably feminine-looking on the outside. Really beautiful women.
And yet they harbour tremendous man-hate which is not apparent to any man until he is hooked.
Sure, some of these women are misguided. They are capable of 'growing out' of this hopeless mindset.
I think this applies to the majority of the young and pretty feminist population.
Some are just that way because that is their own adopted ideology - no particular indoctrination involved.

But am I wrong on this?
Isn't all of feminism one big indoctrination?
Can a woman be a feminist in a vacuum? In a way that a girl can be 'born feminine'?
I dunno. But I suspect not.

I knew a woman when we were both very young (teens) who was so into the whole feminism thing that even at my young age, I sensed something was not quite right with her.
I avoided her like the plague, as did most boys our age and older. Even though she was much more beautiful, much more 'feminine-looking' than I could ever hope to aspire to.
There was just this undercurrent of something being wrong about her.
But I just couldn't put my finger on it.
Unlike all the other young, feminine women our age, I just couldn't click with this one.

Now I understand why she made me uncomfortable.
It was always 'women this, women that' with her, non-stop.
She chose a very woman-centric career which effectively meant that she would only interact with women.
She was also quite brash and abrasive and turned off even strangers.
And yet with all this 'women good, men bad' mantra of hers, she was very competitive with other women...which suggested to me that she wasn't particularly someone who liked women all that much afterall...a source of confusion for me.

The young and pretty feminist is still a feminist.
But unlike her older counterpart, this one is still curable.
All she needs to know is that she doesn't need feminism.
She may not only have bought it, but might now have shares in Feminism Inc.
All she needs to be told is that a market crash is coming. Those shares will be worthless soon.
That's all it takes to solve this problem.





The young and pretty feminist still has a chance.
If only she will stop listening to the old and bitter one.

Anyone know a young and pretty feminist?



165 comments:

dannyfrom504 said...

Brilliant. Will you marry me? Lol.

As always.....excellent post Pet.

metak said...

Hahahaha

"Anyone know a young and pretty feminist?"

It's my turn to tell you: ST that's disgusting! ;-) Apparently I'm not the only one thinking about lesbians... ;-) ;-)

For one thing, I'm glad that chivalry died along with concept of 'lady' that was present in western culture... these concepts fooled (blinded) men and made possible for women to exploit and walk over men...

"Isn't all of feminism one big indoctrination?"

Of course it is. It wasn't really 'invented' by women, but it was certainly intended to use women as a tool for greater scheme...

"And now, weirdly enough, a young woman learns all about morality and femininity from men."

Didn't I tell you last time that everything starts and ends with a man? ;-)

"But unlike her older counterpart, this one is still curable."

I saw how these young feminists blush when an interesting guy (me ;-)) completely disagrees with her on everything she says and simply reply's: you're wrong. ;-) Later she starts arguing with the teacher for interrupting our interesting discussion in the middle of the class... ;-) priceless ;-)

"to borrow a brilliant phrase from Metak"

This one is for the history books... ;-)
Now give me that insulin! ;-)

just visiting said...

For one thing, I'm glad that chivalry died along with concept of 'lady' that was present in western culture... these concepts fooled (blinded) men and made possible for women to exploit and walk over men...

The feminists say nearly the same thing about sex positive behavior. I mentioned how the two are linked in another post.

Anonymous said...

Um, where are all these bitter man-hating feminists?

I keep hearing they are out there, but where are they? I certainly don't see them in my environment, and my environment, higher education, does tend to attract a fair number of women who are interested in topics of general interest to women (feminism).

Believe it or not, in real life, I have written academic type pieces that have feminist themes and which draw upon quite clear feminist theoretical perspectives...Oh, the horror, Space Traveler, PVW, feminist????!!!!

Me, bitter? Huh? I'm not angry at all, I'm pretty pleasant on a day-to-day basis in interacting with everyone, young and old, male and female. I'm happily married and family oriented.

In my cohort, I see feminists who are not on the radical end of the spectrum: angry, strident, etc. There is one I can think of, who when we chat about gender-related topics of interest to us, she might grumble a bit about things in real life, ie., her marriage, or things her students say, but that is the most I see/hear about. Otherwise, she is quite pleasant.

Of all the young women I have had in my classes where we talk about these topics, and this goes back a fair number of years, only one I can recall was a bitter feminist type.

She is young and pretty, but she is very angry, but her anger makes her less attractive; I have seen her in action, and she can be out of control.

But she is coming out of a place of serious pain--physical abuse, sexual assault. She believes she has been seriously harmed by men. Do I criticize her for it, or do I try and understand? If anything, she needs some therapy to deal with her anger.

All the others--feminine, attractive, they might or might not identify with feminism; if anything, they take it for granted and go on with their lives.

just visiting said...

@ Metak

This was a comment that I made on the Madonna/Whore Conundrum post. It touches on the chivalry aspect.

I would suggest that men want virtuous women, and women want virtuous men. To steal a concept made by Dalrock, that becomes about honor.

If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?


As for young pretty feminists...ST, I try to stay away from them. Metak is going to laugh at this, but some of those friends matching that description developed crushes on me. Awkward to say the least.

Now, I've got a few older feminist friends. But they're pretty tied to their ideas.

just visiting said...

@NC

Agreed. Hard core types are not plentiful, and there's usually something else going .

metak said...

@JV

"For one thing, I'm glad that chivalry died along with concept of 'lady' that was present in western culture... these concepts fooled (blinded) men and made possible for women to exploit and walk over men..."

A. Schopenhauer at work here... ;-)
It was an observation of A.S. in his work 'On women' where he compared western Europe with other parts of world and realized that men here were stupid for treating women in that way and that made western men laughing-stock for other societies...


"Metak is going to laugh at this, but some of those friends matching that description developed crushes on me."

I have to tell you fortune cookie, you are in danger of being crushed by those crushes... ;-) Awkward for you, but funny as hell to me... ;-)

Bellita said...

@Anonymous (PVW, I presume?)
Um, where are all these bitter man-hating feminists? I keep hearing they are out there, but where are they?

I was recently chatting with a male friend I made through my religious blogging. He surprised me by revealing that I was the only "Catholic woman blogger" (TM--Hahahaha!) he had read, and then shocked me when he said that he couldn't stand reading the blogs of other "Catholic women bloggers" (some of whom I know consider him a friend) because sooner or later there would be some sucker punch at men. He said that they look down on men--or even hate men--and don't even know it.

It reminded me of MRA Paul Elam saying that he'd rather break bread with a feminist who openly looks down on men than with a "traditional housewife" type who says she loves men but (if you break down her reasoning) really just sees them as women's pack horses, meal tickets and combat fodder.

A woman doesn't have to look or sound like whatever stereotype comes to mind at the words "bitter manhating feminist" to be one.

dannyfrom504 said...

Mahal- you are the best. Seriously.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

"Brilliant. Will you marry me? Lol."

Hahahahha!
You are incorrigible you are, Danmny :-)

@ Metak,

"It's my turn to tell you: ST that's disgusting! ;-) Apparently I'm not the only one thinking about lesbians... ;-) ;-)"

Ah! Trust you to take up Ali G's definition of 'feminist'!
I remember now: the first video in the last post. I thought it was so funny when he said to the professor, 'Do you think all girls should try feminism at least once?' And she had no idea that he was talking about lesbianism. I think that was bad of Ali G. But then again, that's what his act is all about...

"It wasn't really 'invented' by women, but it was certainly intended to use women as a tool for greater scheme..."

Yeah. What a pity...

"Didn't I tell you last time that everything starts and ends with a man? ;-)"

Aherm! Well, certainly that's what you men believe ;)
We ladies know better :-)

@ Anonymous,

"Um, where are all these bitter man-hating feminists?"

It astonishes me that you ask this question. Is it a trick question?
The world is crawling with women with the wrong idea about what womanhood is all about. I am not suggesting that it is our fault. But the problem is there nonetheless.
The example you give, I am not sure is the best example, but only because it is an extreme one. (Now, as someone who uses extreme examples to make my point, I don't blame you for using her as your example!)
In this woman's case, she has a serious problem with a man, yes. Who can blame her? Even if she has developed an unhealthy hatred for all men, it is kind of understandable. One can only hope that in time, she arrives at the point where she realises it is wrong to pre-judge all men. But that is a personal journey for her. I don't think this makes her a feminist, as such.
I am talking of women who have adopted a specific doctrine (feminism) in response to a more general set of problems with men in general.
If you want a specific example, I shall happily indulge you. Germaine Greer.
She self-describes as an 'anarchist'. She admits her 'work' is nothing to do with 'equality' but more to do with so-called 'women's freedom'. Freedom from what, I wonder?
Each to his or her own, Anonymous. But if generations of women are being dragged down a certain path, some of us would like to know more about the ideology and its apologists. Greer was not content to be unfaithful during her own marriage of 3 weeks (yes she even beats KK's record!) but she herself publicised this as part of her 'doctrine'. Because it 'proved' that a woman was free to do as she pleased...true freedom!
Thanks but no thanks.
Sure, she's perhaps an extreme example, but there are so many others like her that I care not to list.
What does not surprise me is that so many of these women are married. No wonder there are many unhappy men living quiet, desperately suicidal lives.

Those women who brought about good things for women, I applaud. The rest, I don't.
The nice 'feminists' you talk about are not feminists, I would venture. Because true feminists as we know them today don't have goodwill in mind. Maybe we should find a new name for women who want a better life for all, men and women both. Because they are surely not what I know to be 'feminists'.
Any suggestions?

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?"

I am trying to work out why this is not equivalent... but I need time to get my thoughts together on this :-)

"As for young pretty feminists...ST, I try to stay away from them. Metak is going to laugh at this, but some of those friends matching that description developed crushes on me."

JV, don't encourage Metak's imagination lol.

"Now, I've got a few older feminist friends. But they're pretty tied to their ideas."

I imagine it's pretty hard to shake off a lifetime of dogma.

Metak,

"I have to tell you fortune cookie, you are in danger of being crushed by those crushes... ;-)"

Are you trying to say lesbians are obese?
What?!
This is of course a stereotype, but surely it is an overblown one?
Do I misread you?

Bell,

"A woman doesn't have to look or sound like whatever stereotype comes to mind at the words "bitter manhating feminist" to be one."

I second this, Bellita. Now, I am also aware that 'feministic tendencies' is in danger of being 'overdiagnosed' somewhat, but on the whole, it is one of those 'slippery slopes' that all women need to watch out for.

metak said...

@ST

"Ah! Trust you to take up Ali G's definition of 'feminist'!"

It was a joke... ;-)

"JV, don't encourage Metak's imagination lol."

My fortune cookie knows me very well... ;-)

"Are you trying to say lesbians are obese?
What?!
This is of course a stereotype, but surely it is an overblown one?"


If I used word like 'overblown' it would be misogyny! ;-)

The stereotypes are not accurate anymore... nowadays there are barely left straight people... everyone is bisexual, gay, and latest trend is obviously coming from American Senate that legalized sodomy and bestiality in u.s. military...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"If I used word like 'overblown' it would be misogyny!"

Arrrggghhh! Wrong word to use in this context...You caught me out - again!
:-)

"...nowadays there are barely left straight people... everyone is bisexual, gay, and latest trend is obviously coming from American Senate that legalized sodomy and bestiality in u.s. military ... "

Can I borrow a favourite Bellita expression here?:
'And I buried my face in my hands.'

Dear Lord, Metak, where on Earth do you get your reading material from?!
If the FBI finds this comment, you do realise you are going down, don't you? For a very long time, I would imagine :-)
I am sure this is true...

You got some evidence for the above? Or do you just have some 'unusual' friends?

;)

metak said...

@ST

"Dear Lord, Metak, where on Earth do you get your reading material from?!"

Even if tried to I couldn't come up with kind of crazy shit... ;-)

Type in your search engine (start page ,google... ): Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

"You got some evidence for the above? Or do you just have some 'unusual' friends?

My 'unusual' friend is truth... ;-)

p.s. Dear Lord Metak... I like it! ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Yes, I did what you suggested...and instantly regretted.
I am not sure if I can believe what I read anymore.
This paragraph however, caught my attention simply because I am not sure what to make of it. I can't process it in my head.

“If we have a soldier who engages in sodomy with an animal – whether a government animal or a non-government animal – is it, in fact, a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code?"

My immediate thought was: We are splitting hairs as to whether it is a government or non-government animal?

Eh?

I wonder, do the military men (or women) here know about this?
Is there a history to this I am missing? Surely there is more to this story...
Totally off-topic, I know, but now I am intrigued. With Metak who knows where you end up?
:-)

"p.s. Dear Lord Metak... I like it! ;-)"

Yes, less 'Lord of the rings' more 'Lord of the flies'.

Hahahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveler:

@ Anonymous,

"Um, where are all these bitter man-hating feminists?"

It astonishes me that you ask this question. Is it a trick question?
The world is crawling with women with the wrong idea about what womanhood is all about. [Regarding a previous student]
I don't think this makes her a feminist, as such.

Those women who brought about good things for women, I applaud. The rest, I don't.
The nice 'feminists' you talk about are not feminists, I would venture. Because true feminists as we know them today don't have goodwill in mind. Maybe we should find a new name for women who want a better life for all, men and women both. Because they are surely not what I know to be 'feminists'.
Any suggestions?

My reply:

ST, it was me, PVW who posted that.

And it was not a trick question, because as I mentioned, I know lots of women with feminist tendencies who are not like what you described.

My answer: read the work of more conservative feminists who are within the camp you admire, those who want a better life for all, men and women.

I think you would like Erika Bachiocchi, Women, Sex and the Church (Roman Catholic conservative feminist who argues that the church's conservative positions actually benefit women), or Joan C. Williams, Reshaping The Work-Family Debate: Men and Class Matter, or Bernie D. Jones, Women Who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work Family Balance (balanced and nuanced discussions with a great chart on comparative feminist theories).

Germaine Greer, I have heard of her, she is from the early 1970s. Is she even around anymore?

And my former student, she sees herself as a feminist...fighting what she sees as male domination...

Bellita:

He said that they look down on men--or even hate men--and don't even know it.

MRA Paul Elam saying that he'd rather break bread with a feminist who openly looks down on men than with a "traditional housewife" type who says she loves men but (if you break down her reasoning) really just sees them as women's pack horses, meal tickets and combat fodder.

A woman doesn't have to look or sound like whatever stereotype comes to mind at the words "bitter manhating feminist" to be one.

My reply:

But like it or not, the traditionalist model did require men to serve women in that way in return for women's loyalty, devotion, chastity, motherhood, etc. So how is it about disliking men or hating them?

ST:


I second this, Bellita. Now, I am also aware that 'feministic tendencies' is in danger of being 'overdiagnosed' somewhat, but on the whole, it is one of those 'slippery slopes' that all women need to watch out for.

PVW replies:

Interesting point, it seems. Can you clarify?

Bellita said...

@Danny
I'm sorry I missed your comment to me earlier. Thank you for the compliment. :)

@PVW
But like it or not, the traditionalist model did require men to serve women in that way in return for women's loyalty, devotion, chastity, motherhood, etc. So how is it about disliking men or hating them?

It's about disliking or even hating men inasmuch as the woman in question tries to force this traditional exchange by disseminating the message that men are not "real men" unless they make it.

If a man really wants to Go His Own Way, having decided it is the best choice for himself, a woman should respect that and stop insisting that a man needs to serve a woman in order to be happy . . . or worse, in order to be virtuous.

It's not the traditionalist model that is the problem, but the "real man" mindset of many of the women who defend it.

(Here are the links to Elam's articles: A Letter to Traditional Women and A Letter to Traditional Women Revisited. Warning: Elam's writing is some of the most blistering I have ever come across!)

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"Germaine Greer, I have heard of her, she is from the early 1970s. Is she even around anymore?"

She refuses to go away.
I would listen to her if she had something sensible to say. Sadly, this is not the case...
Might I also add: she is from the 60s, so she has been around even longer than we would all like...

"...read the work of more conservative feminists who are within the camp you admire, those who want a better life for all, men and women."

Sorry to be obtuse, but can I clarify that you are positive these are women I would really admire?
If I read these books, will I just be filling my head with dreaded 'wiminz studies' material? Can I check with you that there isn't an iota of man-hatred in these books before I go in search of them?

You know, I am so glad we are having this conversation now, and Bellita's earlier comment which you also refer to is suddenly foremost in my mind, because it just so happens to be so so timely!

The Catholic Chrch is just this minute embroiled in a bitter dispute with a group of US nuns for embracing feministic ideology.
Nuns!
Feminist?
Surely these two words should NEVER go together...
But there we are...

This is the answer to your question, PVW:

"I second this, Bellita. Now, I am also aware that 'feministic tendencies' is in danger of being 'overdiagnosed' somewhat, but on the whole, it is one of those 'slippery slopes' that all women need to watch out for.

PVW replies:

Interesting point, it seems. Can you clarify?"


If Catholic nuns of all people are dabbling in this sort of thing, then imagine the high risk a secular woman is, of displaying said tendencies.
I think this is the sort of thing that creeps up on you when you are not looking...and goes 'boo' right in your face when you least expect it.
:-)

I know that YOU are not a feminist. But my point is that it is so so easy for a woman who you wouldn't think could be one, to become one. I think this is also the point Bell was trying to make.

Ultimately, my goal is not actually to point fingers at individual women. To this end, I shall 'play the victim' a little here by exclaiming, 'it's that PVW woman who made me mention names!' :-)

My goal is to identify cautionary tales and avoid the pitfalls.

It is helpful to know that feminists are not only the old, bitter hags. Some are young and pretty too. And for this reason alone, they are not expected to be feminists. But they are...
The nuns in conflict with Papa Ben right now are a case in point.

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

It's [not?] about disliking or even hating men inasmuch as the woman in question tries to force this traditional exchange by disseminating the message that men are not "real men" unless they make it.

PVW:

Oh, I didn't realize that is what was going on; pretty foul if that is the case.

When I first read what you wrote, I wondered, what is the problem?

Traditionalist-minded men have certain requirements of women because they want to be the head of their household with submissive wives.

If that is what the men want then an old saying applies: "heavy is the head that wears the crown...;" much will be expected of them in turn.

Anonymous said...

Hi, ST, PVW here:

ST: Sorry to be obtuse, but can I clarify that you are positive these are women I would really admire?


If I read these books, will I just be filling my head with dreaded 'wiminz studies' material? Can I check with you that there isn't an iota of man-hatred in these books before I go in search of them?

My reply:

LOL--It is funny, but all these women whose works I point out to you are women who from some in the manosphere perspective would be the "evil dreadful feminists," EVILL LADY LAWYERS....

They are academic minded women who come to feminist theory from the perspective of law, and their works are very nuanced, meaning they provide discussions of feminism as an institition, the goals of different policies, to help men and women....

The Jones book in particular talks a bit about the dominance (radical) perspective, but only as a counterpoint to the others forms, the liberal and conservative forms of feminism.

So the question is whether merely mentioning and discussing that women have experienced inequality and domination means that one must be a manhater? I argue that the latter does not necessarily follow the other.

So no, ST, I don't believe you will see any "dreadful man hating" in those texts! If you get any of the texts, feel free to post about them; I'd be happy to respond.

Funny, you mention the nuns; I have read about this. Bachiocchi's book has texts in it which I believe were written by nuns. They are conservative, however.

But those nuns who are fighting with Papa Ben are from the liberal or radical feminist tradition, from what I can tell.

Bachiochi is the postergirl for conservative Catholicism in support of the positive aspects of patriarchy. Her training mirrors that of her more liberal counterparts; conservative cultural critics from that part of the Catholic Church just love her: http://erika.bachiochi.com/.

Grasshopper said...

@PVW… “…feminism as an institition, the goals of different policies, to help men and women...”

While this is not the overt in your face hatred espoused by more radical feminists– there is a nuanced subtle overtone of disrespect and condescending.

Women deciding men need help – and determining – at a policy level no less – how that “help” should be codified into law?

If you have trouble understanding where I’m coming from – just switch the words men and women in my previous sentence.

Now do you understand?

I would rather trust someone like Mr. Elam – even though I don’t see eye to eye with him on every issue - to represent men at a policy level than even the most moderate and sympathetic “feminist”.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@B… “…If a man really wants to Go His Own Way, having decided it is the best choice for himself, a woman should respect that and stop insisting that a man needs to serve a woman in order to be happy . . . or worse, in order to be virtuous…”

Thank You B! Great thought!

Grasshopper

Anonymous said...

Grasshopper:

@PVW… “…feminism as an institition, the goals of different policies, to help men and women...”

While this is not the overt in your face hatred espoused by more radical feminists– there is a nuanced subtle overtone of disrespect and condescending.

Women deciding men need help – and determining – at a policy level no less – how that “help” should be codified into law?

If you have trouble understanding where I’m coming from – just switch the words men and women in my previous sentence.

Now do you understand?

I would rather trust someone like Mr. Elam – even though I don’t see eye to eye with him on every issue - to represent men at a policy level than even the most moderate and sympathetic “feminist”.


PVW's reply:

I don't understand where this tone is coming from; I have no argument with Mr. Elam and I have no argument with you. As far as I am concerned, you have nothing to say to me on this matter.

Senior Beta said...

No

metak said...

@PVW

It seems to me that I have to translate Grasshopper's comments into something digestible for women...

"While this is not the overt in your face hatred espoused by more radical feminists– there is a nuanced subtle overtone of disrespect and condescending."

Of course it is... just look at the comments at ST post (anti-social-or-just-normal-male).. it's like women are treating their sons and later men as a broken toy that needs to be fixed to meet her standards...

"Women deciding men need help – and determining – at a policy level no less – how that “help” should be codified into law?
If you have trouble understanding where I’m coming from – just switch the words men and women in my previous sentence."


Let me put it this way... what would Jews think if Hitler said that Jews need help and he's going to help them..?

They would run for the hills... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Metak:

@PVW

It seems to me that I have to translate Grasshopper's comments into something digestible for women...

PVW replies:

Whatever Grasshopper's arguments were, I was not addressing my comments to him. I was not starting an argument with him about what he thought of the different forms of feminism.

In light of his tone, I don't care what he thinks about moderate feminism, radical feminism, or any form of feminism, and he has nothing to say to me.

metak said...

@PVW

"But like it or not, the traditionalist model did require men to serve women in that way in return for women's loyalty, devotion, chastity, motherhood, etc. So how is it about disliking men or hating them?"

That's why I mentioned A. Schopenhauer earlier because he's probably celebrating in afterlife the fact that men are finally using their heads and walking away... For a woman to be loyal and devoted to her man he has to serve her? Chastity? Again the whole stupid notion of 'lady' and women inflating their market value... Isn't it funny how everything about women in western world is somehow oh so "special.. and men should pay for it in some way"..?
And what about motherhood? Men have to serve women and bring fatherhood?

"So how is it about disliking men or hating them?"

It's a parasite - host relationship...

You can have as many forms of feminism as you wish it doesn't make a difference... it's still a bull-sh*t wrapped in pretty paper...


@Bellita

"He said that they look down on men--or even hate men--and don't even know it."

"A woman doesn't have to look or sound like whatever stereotype comes to mind at the words "bitter manhating feminist" to be one."

Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts

Lesson learned.


@ST

I can't say I'm surprised with all this 'Don't leave the village..' rhetoric...
But honestly can't you see that there is no village anymore? In previous posts we discussed about the importance of confidence in men, what other qualities men need to have to attract women etc.. any yet we forgot to mention the cherry on top: He needs to be utter moron not to see how he's being used... no man in his right mind would accept that kind of deal and this is where 'no sex before marriage' comes in. Make a man so horny and needy that he'll go down on his knee... pathetic...

Grasshopper said...

@Metak… thanks Bro…

ST has both welcomed and encouraged men to participate in the conversations here. It would be evident to anyone reading through any of the threads that men are active participants here.

With that in mind, ST opened a thread whose theme is feminism. I presumed to hear the male perspective on the topic?

PVW does not have to dialog with me if she does not want to of course, but I hope she understands that if she posts comments in an open forum, as this site is, they are fair game for anybody who wants to jump in and offer their point of view or rebuttal.

Furthermore, ST has listed her Email address on this site if anyone wants a private conversation with her.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ Metak.

Society itself is a parasite host relationship. But it beats being raped and pilliaged by warlords.

Relationships between men and women are parasite /host. Whether it's the man giving resources and protection or woman literally hosting a baby.

As for men going their own way, I think that there's always been a faction of men who are dissatisfied with the status quo. In older times, they'd sail around the world, settle the wilds of newly discovered lands or bury themselves in academia.

metak said...

@Grasshopper

I wonder what is the value of a woman when you remove man from the equation? Without men all those 'qualities' chastity, bought loyalty, motherhood...etc. become worthless...

metak said...

@JV

"Society itself is a parasite host relationship."

Why is it then a surprise to some people that boys are anti-social?

They're merely resisting to something that is killing them...

"In older times, they'd sail around the world, settle the wilds of newly discovered lands or bury themselves in academia."

And look what those men achieved when they shifted their focus...

just visiting said...

@ Metak

Exactly. Hence my veiws about encouraging confidence in boys. It's not just about sex or relationships. It's about quality of life for the individual. Getting past fear and limiting beleifs has to be experienced in order to be internalized. Wrapping boys up in cotton wool hurts them. Not letting them fail at things hurts them. Scheduling their days to the point that that they don't have a moment to themselves to dream or explore hurts them. Expecting them to be passive and drugging them into passivity hurts them.

As for society, you're either giving part of your resources to a woman or taxation, or all of your resources and possibly your life to a warlord. It ain't perfect, but it's what we've got.

We could try for a totally equal society, but those primal instincts seem to get in the way.
As for sex, men aren't happy under patriarchal chastity rules, and they aren't happy under feminist sex positivism. Not sure how to solve that. Suggestions would be welcomed.

Men want feminine women, equalizing society masculinizes women to a certain degree. And feminizes men to a certain degree.

We can change certain laws, but they are often left to judges who interpret them according to society. A law can become archaic but still on the books. Change society and the laws and interpretations change too. I'm sure certain states still have sodomy laws, but they're archaic.

We could embrace traditionalism, but as stated in an earlier comment, being king require responsibility. Hanging out poolside is pretty much the equivallent of fiddling while Rome burns. Less of an issue with MGTOW, more of an issue with pua's.

just visiting said...

@ Metak

I wonder what is the value of a woman when you remove man from the equation? Without men all those 'qualities' chastity, bought loyalty, motherhood...etc. become worthless...

Are you sure you aren't a feminist? Lol.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"They are academic minded women who come to feminist theory from the perspective of law, and their works are very nuanced, meaning they provide discussions of feminism as an institition, the goals of different policies, to help men and women...."

Oooh, I don't know, PVW...I am not sure these modern feminists have anything to offer men or women.
Hm, I shall think about this one...

@ Bell,

I finally read Paul Elam's posts. Whoa! You certainly weren't kidding when you said he could be blistering, were you, lol!

My thoughts on his posts, if anyone is interested:
The first post surprised me, until I realised his definiton of a 'traditional' woman was a lazy over-pampered woman who actually doesn't contribute that much to the family at all. He did clarify this in the second post.
I think on the whole, the idea of a 'traditional' woman can be misunderstood somewhat. Add to the mix the possibility that the men who have been divorce-raped the hardest are the very same men who have worked hard to support a wife and family singe-handedly while she enjoys a nice lifestyle that she would never have been privy to had she not married him. I don't blame men for this angry outburst at the so-called 'traditional' woman, then.
On the surface of it, one might argue: men are confused! They hate the career woman, they ALSO hate the SAHM. They just hate ALL women!
But one has to study the details of the why in each individual case where they have issues with the woman involved.
In many ways, I am glad I have a curious mind: I am always on the search for the 'why' and I find that that has helped me 'digest' a lot of Manosphere 'rants' as a result. Each rant is simply another 'learning opportunity' for me personally.
And of course, I am prone to 'ranting' myself, so hey, it's all fair and square...
So whilst my initial reaction to Paul Elam's article was one of dismay, I actually appreciate it now, because strangely enough, I agree with it somewhat.
In the 'Rich man, poor man' post, I figured out (in my usual round-about way lol) that a woman can use her pre-marriage skills to the betterment of her family in whatever way she can. Her career, as long as it does not conflict with the greater good of her family's wellbeing could be a great asset. A SAHM is the best kind of Mum, at least for the younger children, but there was nowhere where I was advocating for laziness of said SAHM. I think this is the issue Paul Elam had with 'traditional' women. I believe I made a similar point when I said that men seeking marriage should seek out evidence that the woman is not lazy or unambitious pre-marriage. If she was lazy before marriage, she will be lazy after marriage. On the other hand, she could be fiercely career-minded before marriage and stay that way after marriage...or, she could use her hardworking nature to the good of the family. You just have to know which is which before marriage.
As ever, swords are crossed before one realises that it is a question of definition...

@ PVW,

"Traditionalist-minded men have certain requirements of women because they want to be the head of their household with submissive wives.

If that is what the men want then an old saying applies: "heavy is the head that wears the crown...;" much will be expected of them in turn."


Yes, I actually agree with this statement of yours. These men know what they want, and they usually get it. Much is expected of both the man and the woman. It is not easy trying to live a 'traditional' life in a world that is anything but.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"Women deciding men need help – and determining – at a policy level no less – how that “help” should be codified into law?"

Well, yes, I see there is plenty wrong with this mindset. For that reason I have to disagree with PVW that feminism (in its present form) has anything to offer men or women of today...

@ Metak,

Thanks for your 'translation'. Actually it was helpful :-)

"Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts

Lesson learned."


This would be funny if it wasn't currently tragic.

"I wonder what is the value of a woman when you remove man from the equation? Without men all those 'qualities' chastity, bought loyalty, motherhood...etc. become worthless..."

This is intrinsically true, Metak. But can you see that you miss the point?

@ Senior Beta,

"No".

This is the shortest comment on this tread so far, and yet the funniest.
There must be a bug going round...some of you guys are getting so funny it's becoming unreal :-)
Senior Beta, remember, she is young and pretty! You still say no?

@ Grasshopper,

"If a man really wants to Go His Own Way, having decided it is the best choice for himself, a woman should respect that and stop insisting that a man needs to serve a woman in order to be happy . . . or worse, in order to be virtuous…”

Bellita is a better woman than I because I am still having trouble 'letting go' of you lovable rogues :-)

But at least I get it now, which is at least progress in the right direction. But I remain 'guilty as charged' so to speak.

Which brings me to Metak's points:

"And look what those men achieved when they shifted their focus..."

I say, 'good for them'! But I just can't help feeling bad for them, afterall, I feel it would be so much better if they also had a woman at their side and a few kids who adored them. But I am a woman. I am supposed to feel this way. But I agree, I shouldn't 'project'.

"I can't say I'm surprised with all this 'Don't leave the village..' rhetoric...
But honestly can't you see that there is no village anymore? In previous posts we discussed about the importance of confidence in men, what other qualities men need to have to attract women etc.. any yet we forgot to mention the cherry on top: He needs to be utter moron not to see how he's being used... no man in his right mind would accept that kind of deal and this is where 'no sex before marriage' comes in. Make a man so horny and needy that he'll go down on his knee... pathetic..."

Yes, mea culpa for the first part.

As for the last 2 sentences, it worked well for hundreds of years before the sex-positive femmies took control.
And as ever, the motive behind the ideology of a woman staying virginal or near-virginal is key. If she believes it is the right thing for her come what may, great. If she is only doing this to entrap a man, not so great. I believe you and I touched on this with Bell on her blog. In many ways, such a woman selects out the men who don't want this. In the same way as a man who wants a homeschooling SAHM for a wife selects out the woman who opposes this. It's 'horses for courses' as they say.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"As for sex, men aren't happy under patriarchal chastity rules, and they aren't happy under feminist sex positivism. Not sure how to solve that. Suggestions would be welcomed."

Yes, I agree that this is a somewhat confusing state of affairs. Metak is a clear example of a man who is happy with neither :-)
What is 'happy medium' when it comes to this issue?
I really don't know. And even if I did, would it be accepted? I suspect not :-)
Confusion reigns supreme. And both men and women are so afflicted.

My perception of this issue is that men actually do want a virgin if they can get one. She should just treat him special by abandoning her 'no sex before marriage' rule just for him.
But they can't see that this defeats the purpose, in fact. I have asked this question before, of Metak himself. If a woman does this, how is she different from all the other 'sluts' out there?
I never got a clear answer on this one.
Men must operate from their own biological self-interest. Yes, I got that much. But a woman should also safe-guard hers.
It worked for my grandma.
Sure, times are different now, but it still works for some people even in the modern era...

"Men want feminine women, equalizing society masculinizes women to a certain degree. And feminizes men to a certain degree."

So let's stop trying to equalise society :-)

For starters, let's ditch the whole feminism thing...

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveler:


Well, yes, I see there is plenty wrong with this mindset. For that reason I have to disagree with PVW that feminism (in its present form) has anything to offer men or women of today...

PVW replies:

It depends, as far as I am concerned. I tend to read what the thinkers are saying before passing judgment.

I have assigned to my students works by more conservative feminists who oppose the tatics and goals of mainstream feminism and who make policy arguments accordingly.

That is what I meant by mentioning conservative and moderate feminists; they are arguing some of the same points you were making, by articulating very strong arguments in against the current feminist status quo.

I do so in an effort to get the students to begin a dialog; with respect to reproductive rights for example, I have assigned men's rights advocates who oppose the current model of women's reproductive freedom.

With respect to an open website and fair game, I have no problem with anybody posting a rebuttal in response and responding to it. I'm happy to respon and as well. This is the wild, wild web, of course, and people will do what they will.

But I don't feel the need to respond to a comment whose tone was addressed to me in a manner which I did not believe encouraged me to engage in debate, but which seemed more in line of snark: "If you have trouble understanding where I’m coming from – just switch the words men and women in my previous sentence. Now do you understand?"

Anonymous said...

ST @ PVW,

"They are academic minded women who come to feminist theory from the perspective of law, and their works are very nuanced, meaning they provide discussions of feminism as an institition, the goals of different policies, to help men and women...."

Oooh, I don't know, PVW...I am not sure these modern feminists have anything to offer men or women.
Hm, I shall think about this one...

PVW again:

I meant to add this into my comment as well, that insofar as they are critical of the trends of modern feminism, they are questioning the status quo in a way you might appreciate, ST.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

You really are a patient person, I have to say!

Here I am dragging my feet about this new form of 'feminism' and you are patiently leading me by the nose to see its possible alignments to my way of thinking :-)

Thank you.
In utter respect for your modus operandi I shall give it a try. At least I gain something by reading new material...
And you know I respect you and what you stand for even if I don't agree with you on the topic at hand, right?

Hey, I notice Bell also has this patience in great abundance...is this a teacher thing?

With respect to the thing with Grasshopper, I am a firm believer in 'if one feels a certain way, it is a certain way'. So I shan't of course try to change how you feel about his comment.

But in defence of Grasshopper I know he wouldn't have meant to be snarky towards you at all. We are talking about really weighty issues here and I am sure frustrations about the state of world affairs sometimes show through in comments (unintentionally). And then it feels like we are 'yanking each other's chains'...
Yes sometimes it is nice when we can deflect our frustations about the status quo with humour. But sometimes as in this thread, even humour doesn't cut it. Then we really get stuck...

Sooo.....with no further ado, which of your feminism books should I read first?

Anonymous said...

ST:


You really are a patient person, I have to say!

Here I am dragging my feet about this new form of 'feminism' and you are patiently leading me by the nose to see its possible alignments to my way of thinking

Thank you.
In utter respect for your modus operandi I shall give it a try. At least I gain something by reading new material...
And you know I respect you and what you stand for even if I don't agree with you on the topic at hand, right?

Hey, I notice Bell also has this patience in great abundance...is this a teacher thing?

My reply:

Yes, I think it is...patience is important in teaching. I don't mind you don't agree with me, of course! In the classroom, I'm not one of those faculty members who wants everyone to be in lockstep; I encourage lots of healthy debate.

ST:

We are talking about really weighty issues here and I am sure frustrations about the state of world affairs sometimes show through in comments (unintentionally).

And then it feels like we are 'yanking each other's chains'...

Yes sometimes it is nice when we can deflect our frustations about the status quo with humour. But sometimes as in this thread, even humour doesn't cut it. Then we really get stuck...

My reply:

Yes, I have noticed this on occasion in some of the earlier threads. Because I aim to be diplomatic, I try to avoid going down that road of "yanking chains," especially since conversations "on the web" are not the same as conversations in person.

ST:

Sooo.....with no further ado, which of your feminism books should I read first?

My reply:

Read Bachiochi, anything you can find by her: http://erika.bachiochi.com/.

I find her fascinating, her training that mirrors that of any liberal or radical feminist, but she is on the conservative side in the way in which she gives mainstream feminism (in its current liberal and radical forms) a "run for its money."

She fits in with the traditionalist model I think you would like: family-oriented Roman Catholic woman writing in support of the Church's positions on all sorts of things.

metak said...

@JV

"As for society, you're either giving part of your resources to a woman or taxation, or all of your resources and possibly your life to a warlord. It ain't perfect, but it's what we've got."

It's not either this or that... it's this and that. You give resources to a woman and you pay taxes!
It's not nowhere near 'perfect'... it's crumbling. It worked only for so long as men were ignorant...

"Are you sure you aren't a feminist? Lol."

I was asking that to Grasshopper in a spirit of MGTOW... with all this men leaving and not caring. The market is going to be saturated with women(already is. as ST stated last time these women are cohabiting with men because they don't get the ring...) for those men that are still interested.


@ST

"This is intrinsically true, Metak. But can you see that you miss the point?"

Look above. Like I said men need to be fooled.. it's the only way...

"I say, 'good for them'! But I just can't help feeling bad for them, afterall, I feel it would be so much better if they also had a woman at their side and a few kids who adored them. But I am a woman. I am supposed to feel this way. But I agree, I shouldn't 'project'."

If they did have a wife they would be stuck in some job they don't like, without exit because they've family to think of... No es posible! ;-)

"If she believes it is the right thing for her come what may, great. If she is only doing this to entrap a man, not so great."

Women use these kinds of tricks...

"If a woman does this, how is she different from all the other 'sluts' out there?
I never got a clear answer on this one."


My answer became clear to me... women want men to see something valuable in woman's virginity so they can sell it better... just like with facebook stocks ;-) don't get fooled by bad investment because there's always a backroom deal and you're not part of it... you're just sucker that is meant to be used... ;-)

Grasshopper said...

@ST… “…I am still having trouble 'letting go' of you lovable rogues…”

Well we can always be friends.

It is my view that PVW is trying to blow the issue of my tone out of proportion. This kind of evasive tactic is typical of feminists. Make an issue of tone to avoid debate about the core issues raised. One cannot help but wonder why they do this.

If anyone thinks I am yanking chains here they are totally missing the point.


@Metak… “…I wonder what is the value of a woman when you remove man from the equation?...”

As long as women say “sisters before misters” I say “bro’s before ho’s”.
I am an outlier (to use ST’s term) in the MGTOW camp apparently because I really think NAWALT.

Because I know too many really good ones. My older sister for one, a former female boss who mentored me early in my career, ST and B for both their courage to discuss these issues with men and their sense of fairness to honestly try to see our point of view, JV for her insights… the list can go on.

Even if I was not in the equation of these women’s lives they would still be who they were.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

Thanks! I had a look at one of her articles...and got this sensation of 'familiarity' instantly, such that I had to ask myself, 'um, did I write this'?
:-)
So that's good...I look forward to reading more of her work. I hope all or at least most of her articles work out like this ;)


@ Metak,

"My answer became clear to me... women want men to see something valuable in woman's virginity so they can sell it better... just like with facebook stocks ;-) don't get fooled by bad investment because there's always a backroom deal and you're not part of it... you're just sucker that is meant to be used... ;-)"

You just know I am going to fight you tooth and nail on this point, to its bitter ugly end, don't you? :-)

Whatever the fashion of the day, it still stands that the most correct version of the whole man-woman interaction is that a man marries a woman who has not been 'dishing it out' to too many men before him. It is also preferable that they are child-free before they head to the altar.
That's the gold standard.
I am not saying it is easy to achieve. But suggesting that virginity in a woman could be equated to a bad facebook backroom deal is not an argument I will accept. If there is a disagreeable trait in a woman, fine, let's call her out on it if we must. But it wouldn't be her virginity. That's not usually the problem.

Are you sure you haven't got this backwards?
When young women of marriageable age were mostly virgins at marriage, men weren't complaining.
Now that most women of childbearing age are not virginal at marriage, men everywhere are (mostly) upset.
Not to say that one has caused the other necessarily, but the association is nonetheless unmistakeable.
One hardly hears of weddings anymore where the couple have not lived together for many years or don't have children already.
Each to his own.
But to some (including me I have to say, falling on my sword here), it is less aesthetic than the 'gold standard'.
I do understand that one has to take what one can get, yes.
I am human, so I have a sense of decorum about 'humanness'. But that does not mean I shall excuse the 'shaming' (for want of a better word) of the gold standard necessarily. Whether or not I myself have achieved it.
That in my humble opinion would simply not be right.

Just because we are prone to fall (sin) does not mean we should diss the idea of perfection.


@ Grasshopper,

“sisters before misters”

Hahahahaha!
This is a new one on me! Did you just make this up?
The quips just keep coming...

For what it's worth, you are only one of few men in the Manosphere who really believe NAWALT.
So for that reason alone, I just want to keep talking to you :-)

(And I am sure PVW too, on another topic, perhaps).

Anonymous said...

Grasshopper:

It is my view that PVW is trying to blow the issue of my tone out of proportion. This kind of evasive tactic is typical of feminists. Make an issue of tone to avoid debate about the core issues raised. One cannot help but wonder why they do this.

If anyone thinks I am yanking chains here they are totally missing the point.

PVW here:

I'm not trying to avoid debate on this topic, but your tone didn't seem to encourage debate--the part I quoted.

As I mentioned earlier in responding to ST, I teach feminist materials in all its stripes as well as the criticisms of it, from all perspectives, anti-feminists, critics from within different schools and outside of them.

So it seems to me the issue came down to whether even the most friendly appearing perspectives on feminism can be male-friendly, and whether someone like yourself, who seems sympathetic to the MGTOW crowd, should even bother with listening?

As I mentioned in response to her earlier, it depends. I have not been the type to reject a perspective merely because it is held by opponents to my view, which is why I told ST that if she looked at some of what I was telling her, she might find perspectives she could relate to.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...
@ PVW,

Thanks! I had a look at one of her articles...and got this sensation of 'familiarity' instantly, such that I had to ask myself, 'um, did I write this'?
:-)
So that's good...I look forward to reading more of her work. I hope all or at least most of her articles work out like this ;)

PVW replies:


I know my traditionalist conservative Catholic "sistas," in that I grew up one!

I knew you would like what she has to say, and yes, her articles and books are all like that...

As I am in your support of traditionalism (which I agree with 100%, regardless of what Elam says, I don't think all traditional housewives are lazy), I want you to have as much support for your ideas as possible!

Anonymous said...

To ST, PVW wonders--my reply--A play on the "sisters before misters..." meme?

:)

metak said...

@ST

"You just know I am going to fight you tooth and nail on this point, to its bitter ugly end, don't you? :-)"

I would be disappointed otherwise... ;-)

"If there is a disagreeable trait in a woman, fine, let's call her out on it if we must. But it wouldn't be her virginity. That's not usually the problem."

Virginity is one among those 'traits' that women keep using to their advantage... gold standard my ass... ;-)
I've seen it with my own eyes what happens... and it's not gold standard.. but a horror story in most cases...

"Now that most women of childbearing age are not virginal at marriage, men everywhere are (mostly) upset."

When men were led to believe that by marrying they'll get a virgin they thought that at least they get something... ;-)
Now they don't get this and they see marriage as a scam. (Among many other arguments..)
Even if they do get it, they quickly regret it and realize: I've got punk'd... ;-)


"Just because we are prone to fall (sin) does not mean we should diss the idea of perfection."

Perfection is for omnipotent imaginary beings that live in Imagination Land... ;-)


@Grasshopper

NAWALT or NAMALT (not all men are like that) they're both ridiculous. What's next NACALT (not all cats are like that)? ;-)
But the odds are crappy... go through minefield and if you're lucky you'll get through it safely (meaning finding that 'oh so special that is not like most of the others...') ;-)

@PVW

Traditionalism? It's common theme nowadays with women wondering what the heck happened...? (My grandparents had this fantasy marriage... and I want it too...) You can't have traditional relationship any more with a men that lives on planet Earth without questioning his sanity... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"To ST, PVW wonders--my reply--A play on the "sisters before misters..." meme?"

Well, PVW, erm, I think at least one person might see it that way (mentioning no names :-)

But seriously, you do understand my and other people's (male and female) beef about feminism, don't you? We were caught up in all of this completely unawares...whether or not we 'enjoyed the fruits thereof' or not.

Metak, if my earlier comment about fighting you tooth and nail seemed to you like an invitation to 'Game on', might I retract a little and suggest that it is less 'let's fight' than 'let's understand what our respective hangups are'.

In digging around for clues, it has struck me that your real beef is actually about 'marriage'. I am sure others following our rants would have spotted this long before this point. But in my defense I never said I was bright.

So, I think I am being distracted by your apparent disdain for virginity. I am going for the wrong target here, and I need to stop. In any case, I am beginning to see that a trigger word for you might well be 'virginity'. Each time I mention it, you go off on one :-)

If I bend over backwards to see where you are coming from, I might even see that perhaps your rants signal a healthier respect for marriage than I have. And that's saying something because I have a much higher respect for this institution than...Kim K :-)

Jokes aside, I think you and I are actually on the same side of the barrier, but we will lock horns forever on this unless one of us gives in.
Being a coward, I fall on my sword on this one.

And I shan't mention virgins to you again.
Even though if I remember right, you were the very first to bring up the whole virgin thing, when you mentioned Lolo Jones way back :-)

"Perfection is for omnipotent imaginary beings that live in Imagination Land... ;-)"

Yes, the Deity with many names :-) But even mere mortals can at least try to emulate this Deity.


"You can't have traditional relationship any more with a men that lives on planet Earth without questioning his sanity."

I beg to differ.
For sure, it won't be identical to grandpa and grandma's marriage, but the same elements (mutual respect, love, honour, loyalty, shared goals and values can still be achieved if both partners are single-minded about it enough.

Anonymous said...

Metak:

@PVW

Traditionalism? It's common theme nowadays with women wondering what the heck happened...? (My grandparents had this fantasy marriage... and I want it too...) You can't have traditional relationship any more with a men that lives on planet Earth without questioning his sanity... ;-)

My reply:

I don't question the sanity of men who want a traditional relationship, not when there are still such marriages around, and the couples are happy.

When I think about Elam, I think there is a lot more at stake than "male friendly views of feminism," ie. conservative feminist Bachiochi--whom ST enjoyed reading--or Elam despising traditionalist women.

He is really pissed at the "bros" who enable all this, whether they are called white knights, manginas, etc. I think this is what you are getting at, Metak.

Elam wants all the "bros" on board with the program of taking women off their pedestal, because the pedestal dwellers, in a funny "politics makes strange bedfellows" situation, are giving the traditionalist men no reason to join his program.

As was mentioned earlier, a fair number of men like being a king, and they have no problem having wives whom other men might think of as lazy.

So I think it is disingenous for Elam to criticize those women; if she is a queen, it is because the king willed it. That is why I don't believe they are lazy; it is a matter of Elam's opinion, and it really doesn't count in the scheme of things.

There are men who like that their wives can stay at home like Bachiochi does, raising five children and working as an independent scholar.

Now Elam's cautionary tale is that these "kings" could easily be dethroned in a coup and decapitated, but do the kings really care when they are happy on a day to day basis? It doesn't seem so, because they have the right kind of women at their side.

If anything, the "bros" are all into someone like Bachiochi. They have given her a national platform for getting "fame and fortune," ie., speaking fees as she writes her articles and books.

Well-known conservative Catholic men who have power in their institutions, just adore her because she is on point with their message.

If anything, Elam needs to talk to his boys. But he just might not be making much progress????

Anonymous said...

ST:

But seriously, you do understand my and other people's (male and female) beef about feminism, don't you? We were caught up in all of this completely unawares...whether or not we 'enjoyed the fruits thereof' or not.

PVW's reply:

Of course I do, but what I was struck by in your post, and please don't take this the wrong way, was a lack of nuanced understanding of feminism as it exists today, and not in the stereotypes of 1970s radicals.

If anything, there is indication that the conservative strands are getting more and more recognition, which is why I pointed out Bachiochi as someone you might read, a feminist whose views you can understand and relate to.

just visiting said...

@ grasshopper

Your ability to see NAWALT runs along the lines of my NAMALT.

@ Metak

I know that you were making the claim from a MGTOW perspective. My point is that feminist perspectives and MRA perspectives have a funny way of dovetailing. Such is the psychology of dividing and concouring a population.

As for giving resources to women and taxes or warlords, yes Metak, it really is either or. History has shown us that over and over.

A decaying society that is divided and doesn't breed, falls. And it falls to those who are united and breed. Period. No exceptions in the history of civilization.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

You brought up a very important point, and I am REALLY glad you did, because that alone may be at the crux of the problem here:

This:

"Of course I do, but what I was struck by in your post, and please don't take this the wrong way, was a lack of nuanced understanding of feminism as it exists today, and not in the stereotypes of 1970s radicals."

First thing I should say, I don't take it the wrong way at all. This whole blogging thing is a learning experience for me.

But the important point I see in your comment is this:

I, like most people my age (30s and under) are slowly coming to the realisation that feminism was a poison that was fed into our systems, rather disingenuously, almost as if it was sneaked into our school dinners without our or our parents' consent.

That said, we just know that feminism was 'bad' and it was 'stuff that came from the early 70s, before we were even born'.
So we stay away from it.

Rather like a dog who has been tortured by a group of kids, I am NOT going back to those kids. Even if you tell me that they are now 'reformed' kids. (Hm, why does this sound familiar all of a sudden? Did I just score a point for the MGTOW crowd? If so, it was accidental, folks! :-)

So as someone who never studied feminism studies, it makes total sense that my level of intel on feminism should be stuck on the 70s version.
Until you slowly coaxed me out of my 'feminism-free zone' I was never going to go there...
And I am a woman!
Multiply my reaction by ten and you have a man's reaction. Multiply that by a thousand and you have a Manosphere man's reaction.

Like I said before, if there is a new breed of feminists who have come full circle from the horrible women from the 70s, we need a new name for them.
Because the association with the 'old feminism' is neither helping their cause nor encouraging the likes of me to step into their camp.
It's an unfortunate word association thing...

So if I have little knowledge of feminism, it is a good thing (I believe). And more importantly, it is to be expected, for reasons outlined above.

I think it's great that we have been able to clear up this issue. I am no expert on many things I write about (which I hope I make enough disclaimers about to make this crystal clear), but certainly feminism has to be the topic I know least about. For good reason. Reminds me of a point Bellita made on her blog round about Easter time: something to the effect of 'if you hang about with dragons you start spitting fire'. Until you mentioned that it is no longer fire, I wasn't to know. In any case I didn't wish to be spitting at all :-)

@ JV,

The Blogger bug strikes again! I have deleted one of the duplicates of your last comment.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"A decaying society that is divided and doesn't breed, falls."

Thank you JV. We mustn't forget this.
Much as I am a blind supporter of marriage and family, somewhere in my logic is this understanding.

Erm, yes.
*shifty eyes*

:-)

OK, OK, I am just a blind supporter of marriage and family, period. But I SHOULD also be thinking along the lines of what JV just said.
Honesty really is the best policy. I feel better now.
:-)

metak said...

@ST

"Even though if I remember right, you were the very first to bring up the whole virgin thing, when you mentioned Lolo Jones way back :-)"

Lolo Jones might be see as a 'reward' at the other side of the minefield.. when you get there you realize she was just an illusion and there's only a sign saying: "Sucker!" ;-)

My whole problem with virginity is that men consider it as a positive thing but women keep 'overblowing' it... artificially increasing it's value... like cartel deal... ;-)

"Being a coward, I fall on my sword on this one."

I wasn't looking for a fight... I just need now and then, to regain my faith in humanity... while pissing you off in process... ;-) ;-)

"Like I said before, if there is a new breed of feminists who have come full circle from the horrible women from the 70s, we need a new name for them.
Because the association with the 'old feminism' is neither helping their cause nor encouraging the likes of me to step into their camp.
It's an unfortunate word association thing..."


Couldn't agree with you more... ST you're standing with a flag that has written "Make love, not war!" on it in the middle of no mans land... ;-)


@PVW

"I don't question the sanity of men who want a traditional relationship, not when there are still such marriages around, and the couples are happy."

Maybe I'll take your word on this one... I just can't shake this feeling that those traditional men get used... to be that 'king' is nowhere near rewarding as it may seem... you become (Jesus forgive me ;-) ) a Jesus carrying a cross... no wonder why women don't want to and are incapable of such a thing... ;-)


"Now Elam's cautionary tale is that these "kings" could easily be dethroned in a coup and decapitated, but do the kings really care when they are happy on a day to day basis? It doesn't seem so, because they have the right kind of women at their side."

How can you be happy on a day to day basis when there's someone next to you that changes temper faster than the speed of light? ;-) or is this just my insecurity?


@JV

"History has shown us that over and over. A decaying society that is divided and doesn't breed, falls. And it falls to those who are united and breed. Period. No exceptions in the history of civilization. "

I've studied History and all I can tell you is this: this society has to die... like all others before, it was built on lives of men and not for men... stupid men always acting for greater good... and always end up last... I can't accept this...

Anonymous said...

ST:

Like I said before, if there is a new breed of feminists who have come full circle from the horrible women from the 70s, we need a new name for them.

Because the association with the 'old feminism' is neither helping their cause nor encouraging the likes of me to step into their camp.
It's an unfortunate word association thing...

So if I have little knowledge of feminism, it is a good thing (I believe). And more importantly, it is to be expected, for reasons outlined above.

PVW, my reply:

Not knowing about feminism, it is a good thing if you are talking about the toxic 1970s types!

But not necessarily a good thing when you might be missing the ideas of those younger women who share your views!

There is a word for the newer groups, but you wouldn't know if you don't read up on it--these newer groups are in the "third wave," rejecting the old schools.

Jones' book (the introduction) does a fairly good job of discussing those contestations and pointing the way towards those perspectives that younger conservative women like you find palatable.

I just love intellectual history!

Anonymous said...

Metak:

How can you be happy on a day to day basis when there's someone next to you that changes temper faster than the speed of light? ;-) or is this just my insecurity?

PVW replies:

Perhaps not all men are experiencing their wives in this way, or they know how to handle it?

Heck, the husband knows that once in a while, things are stressful, I can sound like a drama queen. But he knows me well enough to know how to comfort me and to help me through it.

Of course, I can call my friends, but I don't live with them and I don't sleep with them. He is the one I turn to in the good times and in the bad.

I do the same for him, I know how to help him through his hard times, although, because he is a guy, he doesn't become emotional and dramatic. He is just more low key. And of course, I celebrate his good times with him.

Metak:

Maybe I'll take your word on this one... I just can't shake this feeling that those traditional men get used... to be that 'king' is nowhere near rewarding as it may seem... you become (Jesus forgive me ;-) ) a Jesus carrying a cross... no wonder why women don't want to and are incapable of such a thing... ;-)

My reply:

Does he feel used or believes that the cost he pays has even better benefits both today and in the long term?

A wife to be his companion and comfort him in his day to day life, children who provide him a legacy? People to share his hopes and dreams for the future?

The greater rewards outweigh the risk.

This is how every single marriage-minded man I know looks at his life; and this includes those who are married and don't even have children. Having a fantastic wife whom they love and care about deeply brings them great joy.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"Lolo Jones might be see as a 'reward' at the other side of the minefield.. when you get there you realize she was just an illusion and there's only a sign saying: "Sucker!" "

I think someone's been watching too many Japanese gameshows (not mentioning any names).

:-)

"Couldn't agree with you more... ST you're standing with a flag that has written "Make love, not war!" on it in the middle of no mans land."

Sorry to split hairs, but there is another word association I have a problem with, Metak...if you just substitute 'peace' for 'love' in that last comment, you've got yourself a sweet deal. (Yes we women really are hard to please, aren't we?...You agree with me on something and all I can come up with is a problem with your choice of word).
Hahahahaha!
Ah, Metak, will it ever end?
:-)

"How can you be happy on a day to day basis when there's someone next to you that changes temper faster than the speed of light? ;-) or is this just my insecurity?"

Er, no.

Just ask Grasshopper. I change dresses from blue to red on a daily basis.
Right Grasshopper?

:-)

"I've studied History and all I can tell you is this: this society has to die..."

Thanks for the suicidal thoughts on behalf of ALL of us, Metak :-)

What happens to those of us who wish to live?
We don't get a choice?
And do we at least get to choose how we die?

@ PVW,

Mais non! 'Third wave feminism' is worse than just plain old feminism.
That's the worst kind of feminism, and includes the whole sex-positive variety, no?. At least that's what the Manosphere says.
Can we pick another name that doesn't include the word feminism at all?
Pretty please with sugar and spice on top?

:-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"...but I don't live with them and I don't sleep with them."

Ah, you clearly don't practise Metak's brand of 'feminism' then.
*grin*

"A wife to be his companion and comfort him in his day to day life, children who provide him a legacy? People to share his hopes and dreams for the future?"

I think Metak's point is that this woman is an illusion. She doesn't exist.
I have to stop here, as I promised to fall on my sword regarding this hangup of his.

Anonymous said...

ST:

@ PVW,

Mais non! 'Third wave feminism' is worse than just plain old feminism.
That's the worst kind of feminism, and includes the whole sex-positive variety, no?. At least that's what the Manosphere says.

PVW:

Mais si(?), the third wave includes a lot more than the sex pozzies!

The third wave comes down to rejecting the old feminism and embracing arguments about "choice;" the sex pozzies are about their sybaritic choices, the conservatives are about their traditionalist choices!

The sex pozzies wanted to embrace porn culture as empowering in rejecting the old radicals like Dworkin and MacKinnon who said it harmed women.

One important aspect of the rise of conservative feminism and their choices had to do with several things: more and more women choosing to become stay at home moms in rejection of the second wave argument that women should have careers like men.

They also have ties to conservative strands that claimed the real problem with 1970s liberal feminism is that it demanded women be exactly like men, so they rejected liberalism.

Another name, ie. neo-traditionalist women?

metak said...

@PVW

"Does he feel used or believes that the cost he pays has even better benefits both today and in the long term?"

I've decided to put my head in the sand and pray that the tornado won't hit me... ;-)

I hope they're getting all that you mentioned... and I'll end it there...

@ST

"Thanks for the suicidal thoughts on behalf of ALL of us, Metak :-)"

I wasn't talking about people dying... this society-construct, way of living has to die... people will create new societies, new ways of living/doing... ;-)

""...but I don't live with them and I don't sleep with them."

Ah, you clearly don't practise Metak's brand of 'feminism' then."


Still hung up on that joke...? ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

So to summarise, third wave feminism has 2 branches: the one with the sex pozzies and the one with the 'good' kind.

So, 'third wave' is an 'umbrella' term for both then?

"Another name, ie. neo-traditionalist women?"

Uh, sorry to be fussy here! It is a brilliant suggestion, but I spot a problem. Another 'word association' problem, I'm afraid :-(

'Neo' anything just makes me think 'neo-nazism'.
That can't be good, right?

How about 'Returnism' or 'rejuvenatism' or something that embodies the whole concept of 'returning' to core values, rejuvenating life as it once was. Yes the name might be a little daft, but at least it conveys the right idea, no? What do you think?

@ Metak,

"Still hung up on that joke...? ;-)"

Yes.

Bellita said...

@ST
Reminds me of a point Bellita made on her blog round about Easter time: something to the effect of 'if you hang about with dragons you start spitting fire'.

Actually, it was closer to, "If you are passionate enough about slaying dragons, you will turn into one in order to vanquish them more effectively." ;)

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

So to summarise, third wave feminism has 2 branches: the one with the sex pozzies and the one with the 'good' kind.

So, 'third wave' is an 'umbrella' term for both then?

My reply:

In terms of practical applications, of what we are seeing out there (the Manosphere critics of the sex pozzies and the conservative types we are talking about here), yes, those are the two most important within the third wave.

Returnism or Rejuvenatism sounds like it can work, if neo sounds too like the Nazis--I forget, you are in Europe, and that is a big deal out there. I like rejuvenatism more, though! It has a nicer ring, I think.

Spacetraveller said...

Thanks Bell!

@ PVW,

Excellent. Rejuvenatism it is then!
I agree it sounds better than 'Returnism'.
:-)

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveler:

@ PVW,

Excellent. Rejuvenatism it is then!
I agree it sounds better than 'Returnism'.
:-)

My reply:

Now doesn't this sound like a new post for the blog?

just visiting said...

@ Metak

Society doesn't have to die in order to change. Too much energy and resources wasted for an out put. And you assume that once dead, rebuilding to your liking would be in your hands. But we don't get to pick and choose our conquorers. You might end up having to deal with far worse oppression than feminism. Better to work within your power of influence than to rebuild without any.

Returnism is a nice term. Sex positiveism isnt the only branch of negative feminism. Gender supremacy needs to be addressed.

metak said...

@JV

In this context death is change... when something is so screwed up it's better to let it fall apart than to try to fix it...

"And you assume that once dead, rebuilding to your liking would be in your hands. But we don't get to pick and choose our conquorers. You might end up having to deal with far worse oppression than feminism."

I can't predict the future... but I do understand why women are so desperately holding on to this one.

"Returnism is a nice term. Sex positiveism isnt the only branch of negative feminism. Gender supremacy needs to be addressed."

Yes answer to another evil -ism is another sugar coated -ism...

INSANITY: keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"Now doesn't this sound like a new post for the blog?"

Your wish is my command, Ma'am.
I shall think up something. Might need your help: fancy guest posting sometime?
:-)

@ JV,

"Society doesn't have to die in order to change."

Hahahahaha!
You know, JV, I think Metak and I really are birds of a feather. We are both prone to extremism to get our point across.
In an alternate universe we might have been related.

"Returnism is a nice term. Sex positiveism isnt the only branch of negative feminism. Gender supremacy needs to be addressed."

One vote for Returnism! :-)

I think Gender supremacy may be harder to eradicate in many ways...simply because it is never declared in such a stark manner. No feminist would dare exclaim: 'Women are better than men' because there are so many facets of 'better' to define. So I suspect the modus operandi would be to imply it in a covert fashion...
And so it gets under the radar, and yet is every bit as present as sex positivity.

@ PVW,

Do you agree this might be the case? Or is it declared in the open and I just haven't heard it yet?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"Yes answer to another evil -ism is another sugar coated -ism...

INSANITY: keep doing the same thing and expecting different results."


Hahahahahaha!

Einstein speaks from the grave :-)

Anonymous said...

ST:

Your wish is my command, Ma'am.
I shall think up something. Might need your help: fancy guest posting sometime?
:-)

PVW replies:

Absolutely!

ST:

I think Gender supremacy may be harder to eradicate in many ways...simply because it is never declared in such a stark manner. And so it gets under the radar, and yet is every bit as present as sex positivity.

@ PVW,

Do you agree this might be the case? Or is it declared in the open and I just haven't heard it yet?

My reply:

What a great question, and this is one of the challenges posed by the conservative feminists and other critics, Susan Walsh talks about this on occasion in her blog, that the old tropes about inequality don't necessarily hold sway any more and that supremacy is the current name of the game, or that if supremacy has resulted, that is not a problem.

A great source: Christina Hoff Sommers or the Independent Women's Forum: www.iwf.org.

Anonymous said...

typo should read, that is not a problem for those feminists...

just visiting said...

@ Metak

I seem to be at a loss in getting my point across, so I'll let it be. Lol.

Bellita said...

@ST and @Metak
"You just know I am going to fight you tooth and nail on this point, to its bitter ugly end, don't you? :-)"

I would be disappointed otherwise... ;-)


This reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Marriage is a duel to the death, which no man of honor should decline." Hahahaha!

@PVW
So I think it is disingenous for Elam to criticize those women; if she is a queen, it is because the king willed it. That is why I don't believe they are lazy; it is a matter of Elam's opinion, and it really doesn't count in the scheme of things.

But the two situations are not mutually exclusive! A man can will his wife to be a "queen" and she can be lazy at the same time. And that would be a terrible state of affairs for the man--albeit a fantastic situation for the woman.

One of my neighbors had a college-aged girlfriend he was serious about and wanted to marry. When she became pregnant, he insisted that she move in with him immediately and be a stay-at-home mother. She dropped out of school "for a while" to have the baby . . . and then never did anything else. After their son was born, she actually told my neighbor she wouldn't have sex with him again until they were married--which they couldn't do in the Catholic Church for at least one more year--and then proceeded to get fat. When they finally broke up a few months after their son's first birthday, he told her that the last straw was coming home after a business trip and finding the house even filthier than when he had left. Remember that she had been living there rent-free since she had moved in. And she couldn't even clean the damn house. Nor could she make the baby her excuse: she had insisted that the man pay for a full-time nanny.

Now imagine a woman like this wondering, "Where are all the good men?" (I'd insert a "Hahahaha!" here, but it's not really funny, is it?)

Note that Elam is not criticizing the former situation. He doesn't care if lazy women become "queens" because their husbands have willed it. One of his uncannily familiar analogies is that between a man's right to marry the woman of his choice and a man's right to engage in a business transaction with the prostitute of his choice. (Recognize the feminist rhetoric?) But he does care when women who secretly realize they could never be queens of any sort, if they had to support themselves, latch on to "traditional" values and start judging men for not "manning up" and supporting them.

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

But the two situations are not mutually exclusive! A man can will his wife to be a "queen" and she can be lazy at the same time. And that would be a terrible state of affairs for the man--albeit a fantastic situation for the woman.

Note that Elam is not criticizing the former situation. He doesn't care if lazy women become "queens" because their husbands have willed it.

But he does care when women who secretly realize they could never be queens of any sort, if they had to support themselves, latch on to "traditional" values and start judging men for not "manning up" and supporting them.

PVW's reply:

When I read the posts you put up, it seemed that he was speaking about the very existence of stay at home wives as being lazy merely because they are at home and their husbands permit it. If there were other posts where he clarified his views, I didn't see them.

Bellita:

One of his uncannily familiar analogies is that between a man's right to marry the woman of his choice and a man's right to engage in a business transaction with the prostitute of his choice. (Recognize the feminist rhetoric?)

My reply:

Yes, I do recognize the rhetoric of those crazy as all hell sex pozzies who have been howling over the years that sex work is empowering.

That is one instance where I am pissed that they rejected the old school dominance theorists like MacKinnon who knew what time it was.

Bellita said...

@Metak
I just can't shake this feeling that those traditional men get used... to be that 'king' is nowhere near rewarding as it may seem...

Your hunch is correct. Even traditionalist men who want old-fashioned marriages are starting to think these are a raw deal. It's dangerous to generalize, of course, but I think the real reason so many traditional men these days want a wife who is willing to homeschool is that they can be fairly certain she will be a wife who actually works.

It was one thing for a man to support a housewife in the days when housekeeping was truly a full time job. But if you look at how much time modern housewives spend blogging (to take one example), and engaging in hobbies supplementary to blogging, it is clear that women are currently getting a very sweet deal. Even being a stay-at-home mother isn't what it used to be, when you can park your child in front of the TV all day. But the men still have to punch in from 9 to 5. They don't get any shortcuts.

Bellita said...

@PVW
When I read the posts you put up, it seemed that he was speaking about the very existence of stay at home wives as being lazy merely because they are at home and their husbands permit it. If there were other posts where he clarified his views, I didn't see them.

With respect, PVW, I think you let yourself be so offended by Elam's tone that you failed to see the main point of his message. He is very clear that it's the housewives who latch onto the Men's Rights movement, pretending they care about men, when they only are about themselves, whom he condemns. It's very clear in the articles I linked. I added the wife/prostitute analogy for some extra spice, but I didn't need to.

metak said...

Bellita:

ST said:
"You know, JV, I think Metak and I really are birds of a feather. We are both prone to extremism to get our point across.
In an alternate universe we might have been related."


"This reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Marriage is a duel to the death, which no man of honor should decline." Hahahaha!"

I think we were married in that universe... ;-)

Most of the time we argue and disagree pretty much about everything, sometimes we share rare moments of happiness with occasional laugh and there is no sex life... ;-) ;-)


"He is very clear that it's the housewives who latch onto the Men's Rights movement, pretending they care about men, when they only are about themselves, whom he condemns."

BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS!

I can't stress that one enough.

PVW definitely triggered every alarm in my reptilian part of brain... I've become super sensitive to evilll... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Bellita:

With respect, PVW, I think you let yourself be so offended by Elam's tone that you failed to see the main point of his message.

My reply:

I was troubled by Grasshopper's tone in a response to me, not Elam's.

Yes, I did notice that Elam seemed to think that they cared only about themselves, ie., and were not really into the movement he claimed they seemed to support.

metak said...

@PVW

"Yes, I'm really an ALIEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I knew it!!!!! ;-) ;-)

I'm not kidding... from the first moment every cell in my body was screaming 'Feminist crap ahead!!!'... and I was right...

Anonymous said...

Metak:

Feminist crap ahead???!!!

PVW replies:

Metak, it is a lovely subject that I enjoy working in, teaching, researching and writing in.

I'm looking forward to this fall's class, lots of interesting ideas.

Lots of fun for a nerdy INTJ academic chick.

It encourages me to buy an extensive library, keep up to date on interesting controversial issues of the day on all sides of the political spectrum, reading the news, reading about legislation, reading and keeping up with a blog like this.

Too much fun for words!

metak said...

@ST

And I was the one reaching my hand to you so you wouldn't fall into the bottomless pit of evil feminism... Hahahaha ;-)

When you think you've seen it all...

Grasshopper said...

@PVW,
I think you read too much tone into my words. If we are going to be speaking directly to one another I would appreciate the same courtesy of the benefit of the doubt on tone as I have been giving you.

I am curious; you’ve said you teach various criticisms of feminism, but you did not specifically mention MGTOW as one of the criticisms. Do you teach from this perspective, if so from where do you gather your source materials and if not, why not?

And it is not clear to me exactly what you’re teaching about the criticisms or what the objective is in teaching the criticisms. Do you bring in guest speakers who hold these views to present them or summarize your interpretations of them?

Frankly, I am very skeptical that any form of feminism can be male-friendly. If you want to make the case to me on that I will listen and give you a thoughtful reply. Don’t send me to the library to read a book – I want to her your personal perspective, not the author’s, and why you believe its male friendly.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@Metak…”…NAWALT is ridiculous…”

For that one I’ll buy you a beer – or whatever they drink in Slovenia. Don’t ask me why – it’s a free beer – what more do you want?

By the way what do they drink in Slovenia? Here in the US its beer. In Russia it’s vodka – what about Slovenia?

And what kind of food? Here we have all kinds of restaurants Italian, Greek, Mexican, Chinese – but no Slovenian. What kind of Slovenian food is really good?

On NAWALT – I understand your point thanks for mentioning it.

Grasshopper

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
See, told you my blog was bigger than mine. Lol. I'm not even going to attemp to read the comments. I have a class I'm teaching that I have to get cirriculum ready for.

I'm bringing my blog to the classroom.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

"This reminds me of a G.K. Chesterton quote: "Marriage is a duel to the death, which no man of honor should decline."

Was GK Chesterton addressing the MGTOW proponents?
Hahahahahaha!

"Now imagine a woman like this wondering, "Where are all the good men?" (I'd insert a "Hahahaha!" here, but it's not really funny, is it?)"

You are right - it's not funny in the least. In fact it is almost akin to a Greek tragedy.

@ Bell and PVW,

I did mention that my initial impression of Paulm Elam's first article that Bellita links to also shocked me. But then it all became clearer who the target of his annoyance was, in the second post that Bellita links to. It was important that you linked both articles, Bellita, because only then would it be possible to 'get' what Elam was on about...

Bell, you are right, there was no time in history when women were lazy...until now. Now, it is geting difficult to imagine that the same standards of old are being kept up. Or rather, it is heavily skewed. On the one hand you have the overworked married mother of 4 who is a lawyer in a top firm, and is really struggling to juggle all her balls, and on the other, you have the unemployed unmarried mother of one who is totally dependent on government handouts and who actually does nothing all day, not even looking after the child (he is indeed 'parked' in fron of the TV). Paul Elam and I imagine most men, and for that matter perhaps women too, would have a problem with both scenarios, for very different reasons.
Bot cases are tragic, but at least the former can redirect her focus and she will be happier/more fulfilled. There is no hope for the latter. She would need a true miracle, in the form of a mentor, and a total rehaul of her values/principles/attitude.

@ Metak,

In defence of PVW her suggestion that this new brand of dogma (which we are calling Returnism/Rejuvenatism) does deserve a second look at least. I am all for exploring new things, especially if I am primed to believe they could be good. With this in mind I have taken very seriously her proposal for a new post on this. Watch this space.
Grasshopper especially will have his wish fulfilled, for I shall invite PVW to guest post. I say 'let's do it'! See where we end up.

"And I was the one reaching my hand to you so you wouldn't fall into the bottomless pit of evil feminism..."

Thank you Gallant Knight :-)
Sometimes I do need to be saved from my own self.

Grasshopper,

Are you sure you want to revisit the whole food and drink topic? I thought we had had enough when we ended up talking about pizzas and steak on a recent post!
Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Metak, what do you guys in Slovenia eat and drink?
I notice you are geographically very close to Italy - does this mean you eat Italian-like food? Please don't say pizza...

Hahahahahahha!

"I think we were married in that universe... ;-)"

Um, no-one informed me.

Hence,
"...and there is no sex life..."

Hahahahahaha!

@ Danny,
:-)

Are you lecturing on SMP issues? Is your blog allowed in the classroom?
How does one get into your class? I am curious...

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"If sexual honor is the basis by which women are judged, and courage is the basis that men are judged, then would the anti chivalry rants be the equivallent of slut walks?"

I slept on this, and now I think I have a plausible explanantion for why these two related concepts are not in fact mirror images of each other.

Chivalry is about doing something for another person. In this regard it takes effort. Moreover it is a gift, freely given, and though does not demand a reward back, is rewarding to the man who does it (even if his 'reward' is simply a smile from a woman, especially if she happens to be attractive or pleasant, preferably both lol). To stop doing it is therefore a relief on the whole. Men who withdraw their chivalrous tendencies only do so when they feel it is 'deserved' by the offending underclass they come to see as 'womanhood'. To this end, there is no guilt per se. Just disappointment and anger.
Being promiscuous is detrimental to one's own self. So to go on a 'slut walk' is to show that one is quite happy to cut off one's own nose in order to spite one's own face. Men would either not care, or duly take full advantage. Either way, the woman hurts her own self. It is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die, so to speak, to quote Nelson Mandela.
If it is intended to say to a man, 'Look at me, I can be like you in every way possible!', it won't work. Because biology says so. If on the other hand the woman really wants that label because it is a reflection of her lifestyle, then 'you go grrl!'. And for even this woman, biology will catch up with her one day when she makes the realisation that she made a terrible mistake...
The non-chivalrous man on the other hand (who is far more 'reactive' than a woman), will go back to being chivalrous if women start showing that they merit it. It is that simple for him.

Anonymous said...

Grasshopper to PVW:

I am curious; you’ve said you teach various criticisms of feminism, but you did not specifically mention MGTOW as one of the criticisms. Do you teach from this perspective, if so from where do you gather your source materials and if not, why not?

My reply:

As for the criticisms, it comes from different places.

This is a class in women's history. I give the students sources written by well-known women who are anti-feminists from the world of law and policy, as a counterpoint to what they see in the texts of mainstream feminism. I assign them materials by Phyllis Schafly and the Independent Women's Forum.

I also teach contestations within feminist theory, that not all supporters of feminism could agree with the primary schools of liberalism or radicalism.

I explain the significance to be found in the rise cultural/difference feminism, a more conservative school, that is critical of liberal feminism and radicalism; these latter two have perspectives that when taken to their extremes, tend to do two things in particular: one, expect women to be exactly like men (liberalism) or see all men as the enemy (radicalism).

When we get to reproductive freedom and abortion rights, we discuss the significant cases, grounding them in perspectives in liberal as well as radical theories.

We talk about rejection to abortion rights as grounded in the more conservative cultural/difference perspective, including looking at materials from Feminists for Life, a women's group that opposes abortion.

I also assign materials by men who object to the one-sidedness of women's abortion rights. Joseph Dellapenna fits into this. I do something similar with respect to divorce. These fit closely with some of the arguments made by MGTOW.

Grasshopper:

And it is not clear to me exactly what you’re teaching about the criticisms or what the objective is in teaching the criticisms. Do you bring in guest speakers who hold these views to present them or summarize your interpretations of them?

My reply:

My goal is exposure to all sorts of viewpoints so that they can decide themselves what they think about the perspectives. They have the sources themselves to read. We discuss them in that I contextualize the sources in light of American History--why this movement at this point in time, why this response, why that one.

Grasshopper:

Frankly, I am very skeptical that any form of feminism can be male-friendly. If you want to make the case to me on that I will listen and give you a thoughtful reply. Don’t send me to the library to read a book – I want to her your personal perspective, not the author’s, and why you believe its male friendly.

My reply:

Here, I'm thinking about the work Joan Williams is doing, where she runs a center on employment discrimination issues that affect men as well as women.

She has argued in the book I told ST about, that work family balance issues that emphasize women's needs tend to forget that men can experience the same issues that women face.

For example, the Family Medical Leave Act is seen primarily as a statute that helps women who give birth, as an example, enabling them to get leave to take care of their children. Although its impetus grew out of the activism found in the cultural/difference strand of feminism, it is gender-neutral, meaning both women and men can use it. Yet, there are employers who object to men using it.

So Williams runs a research and advocacy group that addresses employment discrimination cases involving men in those sorts of cases, ie., the husband who must undertake caregiving duties for their wives and children but he is fired for doing so.

Anonymous said...

ST:

In defence of PVW her suggestion that this new brand of dogma (which we are calling Returnism/Rejuvenatism) does deserve a second look at least.

I am all for exploring new things, especially if I am primed to believe they could be good. With this in mind I have taken very seriously her proposal for a new post on this. Watch this space.
Grasshopper especially will have his wish fulfilled, for I shall invite PVW to guest post. I say 'let's do it'! See where we end up.

PVW replies:

I'm replying to Grasshopper here, so I think a lot of what you're speaking of will be addressed here...I'll think about what a guest post might look like.

Anonymous said...

PVW, clarifying something I wrote earlier:

I assign them materials by Phyllis Schafly and the Independent Women's Forum.

This should read: I assign materials by Phyllis Schafly, anti-feminist and the Independent Women's Forum, conservative feminist opponents of mainstream feminism.

Bellita said...

@Metak
BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS!

I believe another saying in the MRA movement is that there are many MGTOWs who are "one blowjob away from becoming 'manginas.'"

Elam said as much in his second article. As disgusted as he is with the "traditional" women trying to latch on to the MRAs, he is even more frustrated by the men who are thrilled to have them there. A Greek bearing gifts is only dangerous inasmuch as there is a Trojan happy to receive them.

metak said...

@Grasshopper

Well normal people drink beer and other alcoholic drinks, they eat normal food, but I have Bosnian roots so it's a mixture of everything... and I'm not 'normal' ;-) I don't really eat 'Slovenian food' it's more food typical for central Balkans area (here we have Rakija- similar to vodka 60-70% or more alcohol)...


@ST

"In defence of PVW her suggestion that this new brand of dogma (which we are calling Returnism/Rejuvenatism) does deserve a second look at least. I am all for exploring new things, especially if I am primed to believe they could be good. With this in mind I have taken very seriously her proposal for a new post on this. Watch this space.
Grasshopper especially will have his wish fulfilled, for I shall invite PVW to guest post. I say 'let's do it'! See where we end up."


Go ahead... you still don't get it ST, do you? US, UK, Australia, Canada... are feminist hell holes for men to live in... just look at the sheer number of blogs, forums, etc. (happierabroad.com , boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com , MGTOW forum...). Men are leaving those countries like rats sinking ship. You asked me last time where do I get my reading material... I get it everywhere... and it wasn't pretty... that's why I can spot a fraud and call it it as it is 'A FRAUD'. To teach 'feminism' and say at the same time that it has something to do with intellectual history... God help us... delusional history... maybe. ;-)

"I say 'let's do it'! See where we end up."

That's what Hitler said... ;-) ;-) joking


"Thank you Gallant Knight :-)

Sometimes I do need to be saved from my own self."



"Um, no-one informed me."

We were young and drunk... ;-) divorce papers are on the way... ;-)


I have a song for you ST..

Well I won't back down
No I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

No I'll stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin me down
gonna stand my ground
... and I won't back down


@Bellita

"Elam said as much in his second article. As disgusted as he is with the "traditional" women trying to latch on to the MRAs, he is even more frustrated by the men who are thrilled to have them there. A Greek bearing gifts is only dangerous inasmuch as there is a Trojan happy to receive them."

I've had 'pleasure' to see one of those Trojan horses at work... that's why I've spotted this one... it's the same old shit.

And to all men: don't tattoo your girlfriends or wife's name on your body...
this warning should be there!

BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS!


@PVW

Sorry to burst your little feminist bubble but there is not political spectrum... politics is a tv show for ugly people... and if this sell out with the 'Rand/Ron Paul' didn't at least a bit opened your eyes... ahhhh why am I bothering... Even though you're an alien I send you the biggest hug because I see how much you need it...

Spacetraveller said...

"A Greek bearing gifts is only dangerous inasmuch as there is a Trojan happy to receive them."

Ah!!!
Bell, you are thinking ancient Greek!
All this while, I have been thinking modern day Greek tragedy with the whole economic disaster...thereby interpreting Metak's comment (wrongly, now I can see) as 'beware someone who gives you a present he can't afford'!

So now I have to go back and reread his comments with the new meaning in mind...
:-)

(By the way, when I mentioned 'Greek tragedy', this could be applicable to both the ancient and the more modern tragedy, if that helps anyone trying to understand what I meant here:
"Now imagine a woman like this wondering, "Where are all the good men?" (I'd insert a "Hahahaha!" here, but it's not really funny, is it?)"

You are right - it's not funny in the least. In fact it is almost akin to a Greek tragedy."


@ Metak,

"...politics is a tv show for ugly people..."

Oh you really do crack me up, Metak. You really do.

No wonder I married you (albeit in absentia)...
:-)

PS: Can we at least consider an annulment? As a Catholic woman I am allergic to the word 'divorce'.
It's my 'trigger word' same as yours obviously is v.....
No, won't say it!

Joking aside, I know what you mean about men all over the world seeking a new kind of woman. But I still stand by what JV says, which is, we don't have to kill the old way to get a new way. You may see the present situation as non-reparable, but perhaps I am just slightly more optimistic than you (maybe because I have to be, more than you?)

Thanks for the song...was this 'our song' at the wedding by any chance?
Not sure the words are the kind of romantic words every girl craves, but I'll take anything I can get right now.
Hahahahaha!
Is the tune catchy?

Spacetraveller said...

"We were young and drunk..."

Do you mean I was young and you were drunk?
'Cos if we were both young, that would kind of make you underage at the time of our 'marriage'.
:-)

This 'alternate universe', does it not have laws aginst this sort of thing?
;)

metak said...

@ST

I Wont Back Down by: Tom Petty

"But I still stand by what JV says, which is, we don't have to kill the old way to get a new way. You may see the present situation as non-reparable, but perhaps I am just slightly more optimistic than you (maybe because I have to be, more than you?)"

Again, as I said before "I do understand why women are holding on to this one..." I was talking mostly about women in those countries that I've mentioned previously... they want this 'old way' to stay because it's serving them at the expense of men... I'm very optimistic because when 'the shit hits the fan' I believe is expression, those women will be exposed and seen by majority of men for what they are... and those worthy women will be cherished even more... ;-)

"Thanks for the song...was this 'our song' at the wedding by any chance?"

I guess I was the "drunk one", even though I don't drink alcohol, singing to myself I won't back down from commitment... ;-)

'Cos if we were both young, that would kind of make you underage at the time of our 'marriage'.

You don't know my definition of 'young'... ;-) even when I'm 150, I'll still be young... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

"You don't know my definition of 'young'... ;-) even when I'm 150, I'll still be young... ;-)"

Hahahaha!
I know of a 'youth club' where the average age of its members is...60!

Why not?, I say. You are only as old as you feel.
(At least that's what my hamster says and I am sticking with it :-)

In my last comment to you, I have to add that it goes without saying that for women to hold onto the present situation, they (we) have to be very much part of the change, in order for the present society not to die.
I always fall back on this favourite saying of mine (well, it's not mine, I borrowed it from someone else): As women go, so goes society.
I find there is a lot of truth in that. I don't have to look far to see evidence of this.

So if we want a new 'village' in the present clime, we must be prepared to ditch the old one with its rubbish rules...

And even then, many of the old villagers won't be interested in the new village (MGTOW). Which is, um, fine.
*sob*

Anonymous said...

ST:

On the one hand you have the overworked married mother of 4 who is a lawyer in a top firm, and is really struggling...tragic, but at least the former can redirect her focus and she will be happier/more fulfilled.

PVW's reply:

Yes, switch jobs, go part time or stay home, if she can afford it.

metak said...

@ST

"As women go, so goes society.
I find there is a lot of truth in that. I don't have to look far to see evidence of this."


"First You Get the Women, Then You' ve Got the Children, So Follow the. Men" -Adolph Hitler

--- I can recognize evil when I see one... ---


That's why they always go for women first... easier to manipulate and what follows is domino effect...

p.s. you were probably arguing with me about who's going to stand on which side in front of the priest... ;-) hence -> I won't back down woman... ;-)

dannyfrom504 said...

I meant your blog is bigger than mine. Lol.

As for the class. I think I'm going to have my sister film it. I'll see about getting you a copy. What I share is just between us though.....understand. The class is just and dry run to me making an actual cirriculum for an 8 hour paying course based off my blog's message.

Spacetraveller said...

@ PVW,

"Yes, switch jobs, go part time or stay home, if she can afford it."

I am glad you said that...I have a big mouth and I say things which are really not in my power to say sometimes...
I guess I can't say anything about this topic until I am a mother myself...but in the meantime it's great if a woman who is a mother agrees with me :-)

And for those who don't, if what seems to me to be utter madness on their part actually suits them fine, then all power to them: I am impressed, but still prone to think 'why put yourself through all that stress'? (This of course only applies to those who can afford to do as you suggest...For the others, I have nothing but sincere sympathy...).

@ Metak,

"That's why they always go for women first... easier to manipulate and what follows is domino effect..."

As much as this sounds like yet another typical 'conspiracy theory' hashed up by two exaggerating extremists :-) I have to say I really do believe this. I don't think this is only in your or my imagination. I wasn't aware that Hitler's strategy included this, but there you go: perfect example...

Even the serpent in the garden of Eden knew what he was doing when he appraoched Eve first...
And the rest is history, as they say...

We women are great (aherm :-), but sometimes our Achilles' heel (of deviating from the relative safety of the patriarchical system we know works) can lead to devastating consequences. I shall watch out for this in my own self, I think. I am all for identifying 'pitfalls' and then avoiding them.
This is definitely one to spot early on.

@ Danny,

Yes, I would love to get a copy, thanks! Congratulations on your new venture!
And may you be handsomely rewarded for your efforts...I think your message definitely needs to be heard.
And I am not saying that only because I am a fan of your blog.
I am being objective here, not partial or biased.

Bellita said...

@ST
All this while, I have been thinking modern day Greek tragedy with the whole economic disaster...thereby interpreting Metak's comment (wrongly, now I can see) as 'beware someone who gives you a present he can't afford'!

Hahahaha! It does seem to work both ways . . . although the meaning will change, depending on which millennium you are applying it to! ;)

If it is an allusion to modern Greek, I see the warning being, "Beware someone who gives you a present that you will have to pay for!"

just visiting said...

@ ST

The non-chivalrous man on the other hand (who is far more 'reactive' than a woman), will go back to being chivalrous if women start showing that they merit it. It is that simple for him.

The thing is ST, honor in men comes down to courage. That's why I was wondering if the equivallent of Madonna/ Whore was Hero/coward.

My grandfather was raised with the advice -"Don't go looking for fights - but you damned well better not walk away from one.

A mans reputation was ruined by such things. The respect he would be treated with would be judged by such things. Who and how people did business or even if they would any more came down to such things. And of course, getting a wife would depend on such things.

Suddenly deciding to change one's reputaiton after that would not be easy. Especially in smaller communities, trying to change a reputation could be incredibly tough.

It's not a puzzle perfect fit, but I still think that honor is the common theme with men and women. Times are different. A modern life does not require being interdependant with your neighbors for survival. If your house burns down, insurance will cover it. And the mettle of men is not called out like it used to be in the old s. But back then, survival depended on mettle. And in modern times, women can lie about number count.

just visiting said...

@ Metak

I'll try again on this, but I seem to have trouble getting my point across. I want to see change instead of seeing society fall because I don't think that we'll recover from it. We do not have the structures in place societally to recover. And if we keep going in the direction we are going in, ever more divided, I think that we will see the fall of western civilization fall period. I'm not just talking about feminism, but everything. We just don't have the strength of character, work ethic, sense of duty, religious structure or strong family units and economic power that we once had. Or the desire for upright or moral behavior. We can't maintain freedom without it.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

"If it is an allusion to modern Greek, I see the warning being, "Beware someone who gives you a present that you will have to pay for!"

Hahahaha!
Quel horreur, Bell. There are some things that are just not worth having. A present like this would have to be one of those...

@ JV,

I hear you. I guess male honour is a judgment call - for individual men.
What is clear though, is that a lack of courage definitely disqualifies most men in women's eyes, yes.

But is chivalry the same as displaying courage?
Carrying a woman's heavy suitcase for her at the airport until her car arrives is one thing. Running into a burning building to rescue a pregnant woman who is trapped on the fourth floor bedroom at night is another, no? Can that be called chivalry too?
I think we might need a new name for that, if you say 'yes'.
(Hm, suddenly I want to give everything a new name :-)

This intrigues me now. What are the natural boundaries of chivalry? Assuming the man in the latter example is not a fireman whose job it is to do such things, is he being chivalrous, brave, honourable, stupid (!) or generous with his time (and life)?
I honestly don't know the answer to this question!
When I mentioned about 'chivalry being murdered' in the OP, I was really just talking about the non-dangerous kind.
But was I being incomplete?
Is there more to chivalry than I know?

just visiting said...

@ ST

Had a blogger error, so, I'll try again.

Chivalry stems from military code. In fact, our modern day manners and courtesies extend from that code. Life was a lot more dangerous and menacing in those days. Even a handshake was between men only. It was an alpha move, to show each other that you came in good faith and were not armed. Clasping hands in close proximity to a possibly armed male was risking your life.

The courtesies shown to women were to avoid risking violence from their fathers and husbands. It was only shown to women of virtue within ones own class. And was a pretty good way to impress the ladies. Manners weren't the fiat currency of today. It was backed up with a sword and possible violence. Hence the old saying, an armed society is a polite society.

metak said...

@JV

What is so hard to understand here? West as we know it is already dying...

Look at the birth rates in western countries... as experts are saying those are already beyond repair...
Feminism had large part in this...


I'm not talking about some biblical destruction here even though it's always possible... you're ignoring all the signs around you. This is slow death or better change (change - not the kind of change Obama was selling to his suckers... ) ;-)


"I want to see change instead of seeing society fall because I don't think that we'll recover from it."

Of course you would like that... women in west gain so many privileges and don't want to lose them. I can see that men don't care about this society because it's exploiting men in every possible way... Why are you so surprised that they would rather let it fall apart than anything else?

"We just don't have the strength of character, work ethic, sense of duty, religious structure or strong family units and economic power that we once had."

Let me fix that... you don't have MEN that are willing to do anything for their families... The work horse has left the building... ;-)

"Or the desire for upright or moral behavior. We can't maintain freedom without it."

Spoken like a true American... Hahahaha...

I'm rolling and laughing on the floor... ;-) ;-)

just visiting said...

@ Metak

Spoken like a true American... Hahahaha...


Nope. Nice try.

Metak,

I suspect that there are regimes far more oppressive to the western man than feminism.

metak said...

@JV

"I suspect that there are regimes far more oppressive to the western man than feminism."

Name one... ?

For a man it's far easier to fight with another man than to be betrayed by women as it happened with feminism...

It's like a disease that's destroying you from within...


"Spoken like a true American... Hahahaha...

Nope. Nice try."


I tried... ;-) that kind of mantra is typical for Americans... Wage wars against every county on the planet in the name of freedom and moral values... ;-)

just visiting said...

@ Metak

Take your pick of regimes world wide. The world is not a warm fuzzy blanket for the rest of the world.

metak said...

@JV

"Take your pick of regimes world wide. The world is not a warm fuzzy blanket for the rest of the world."

And yet American men and to large degree men from western European countries are fleeing in such a large numbers in other countries that are not infested with feminist shit...

Anonymous said...

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on Communism and feminism.

No, I'm not trying to pull out the 'spectre of Communism'. I've felt there is a connection between the two, or socialism if you prefer, for many years. Just wondering if anyone else sees it.


The Navy Corpsman

metak said...

@The Navy Corpsman

Feminism has its roots in communism... that's where it all began... it destroyed Russian family unit...

just visiting said...

Feminism and communism are very closely linked. Most of the strident ones that I've known are self proclaimed communists.

American men fleeing will usually settle into places that are not war zones or where their money will at the very least be respected by the locals. And where they can access a consulate if they need. If the west collapses, I doubt there's going to be much travelling, let alone a strong enough currency to carry the kind of good will that money buys. I suspect a fair bit of shadenfreude toward western men turned to contempt will also play out without the fear of reprisals from officials. If western men are not seen as wealthy tourists, they will not be catered to. And on the home front, occupying forces, or being overcome by more unified cultures will have a similar effect.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

Thanks for that explanantion.
So, chivalry has always been very much part of a social contract. There is no precedent in history where it was 'demanded' without the 'niceties' women accorded men in return.
I see.
Makes sense.
What happens when wives and daughters are no longer under husband's/father's jurisdiction, so to speak? No other man is obliged to keep up the code of 'respect' to said man by way of being 'chivalrous' to his womenfolk.
Quite the aesthetic picture you paint for us, JV.
But sadly that picture remains but in our imaginations only...

@ NC,

Feminism has always been described as a 'leftist' movement, no? Even though it may have appeared to have been 'driven' by the women of upper class who would normally be right-ish wing...

metak said...

@JV

You're talking about rich or wealthy American men... those are few... I'm talking about 'ordinary men'. Those that saw how much better they can get outside.. perfect example is this web site happierabroad.com.

It deals with dating and women in general but also with other aspects like feminism making it unbearable to live in some countries and ever increasing police state that is beyond anything George Orwell could predict in 1984...

Again you're missing the point.. they're not catered to, but compared to what they've had at home it's heaven... ;-)


Chivalry does not stem from military code. It was a kind of deal between aristocrats (knights) or code of conduct. Those knights weren't military. They were mostly actors like those in Hollywood movies where the main character beats all the bad guys and saves the girl... me puking... ;-)

That is why it only worked for a short period of time until Arabs came and showed them that you have to know how to fight and not chase pussy around... ;-)

just visiting said...

Metak, I'm not talking about rich men, I'm talking about normal everyday Western Americans, who by virtue of strong diplomatic ties to the Western countries, or by virtue of a stronger currancy are catered too.

The fact that we still have manners and courtesies from that time, always backed with courage and the possible threat of violence whether in the time of knights, the middle ages or even the wild west shows me that it was an effective code. It broke down when honor both male and female broke down.

metak said...

@JV

Our manners and courtesies are much older than that... compared to earlier times and the rest of the world at that time those knights were savages...

Arab scientists wrote about them and we other sources that prove that... if you want to you can believe in fairytale.. I don't care...

metak said...

@JV

"The fact that we still have manners and courtesies from that time, always backed with courage and the possible threat of violence whether in the time of knights, the middle ages or even the wild west shows me that it was an effective code."

That 'possible threat' is always there... it's very simple, you don't need a code to describe it. It goes something like this: If you're going to provoke someone, be prepared for consequences. Men know this but women fail to. That's where manginas and white knights step in to 'defend' her honor... it's a comedy I tell you... ;-)

When you're talking about these medieval codes of conduct you're only wasting your time... They've had all kinds of codes of conduct for everything because most of them were illiterate... it sounds funny and somehow stupid but it's true... ;-)
They communicated with gestures at least in large part.. ;-)

dannyfrom504 said...

Thanks Love. I appreciate it.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"It goes something like this: If you're going to provoke someone, be prepared for consequences. Men know this but women fail to."

I have no doubt that this is true. I have heard a variation on this theme before.
But perhaps women only fail to realise this because in the female world, violence that can result in death is rare. Men are 'trained' to face violence from their toddlerhood. Women are oblivious to violence in the main. So it makes sense that they do not have the same (healthy) 'respect' for the threat of danger?

Does this make sense to you?


@ Danny,

Prego :-)

metak said...

@ST

"But perhaps women only fail to realise this because in the female world, violence that can result in death is rare."

That may be true... but I've noticed interesting trend in this part of the world.. when it comes to violence in schools nowadays it mostly between girls! ;-) the boys are filming it with cell phone... ;-)

But also as I mentioned some women rely on those manginas and white knights to defend them even if it's their fault...

As a young boy you fight with other boys and it's no big deal... you learn what to expect and to control your actions... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

"That may be true... but I've noticed interesting trend in this part of the world.. when it comes to violence in schools nowadays it mostly between girls! ;-) the boys are filming it with cell phone... ;-)"

True, Metak. Interestingly, Danny has a recent post about this...

But this relatively new finding amongst young women still does not (yet) result in the level of injury and mortality rates that male violence can cause. So these women are in a precarious position really, because their level of violence is escalating rapidly, but their (necessary) fear of this violence hasn't yet caught up with the escalation. There seems to be a lag time - which I agree could turn out to be a very dangerous thing.

metak said...

@ST

What I see here is something weird.. ;-)
The trends are changing... I can barely see boys fighting except those 'bully' types... ;-)

On the other hand girls are going out of control.. and not in a good way... ;-)

I can see girls fighting for popularity and status in schools... manners are nearly non existent... (cursing, drinking alcohol, smoking...) they're openly going for married men... (I had an offer from a woman to fu*k the sh*t out of her while her boyfriend watching... it's an extreme case but it's becoming a norm) sorry for the bad language.. ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

For sure, I agree with you. I have seen this trend too, and it is not pretty...

I would agree that something needs to change, and fast.

Perhaps the economic crisis might be the great leveller in all of this (albeit a very unpleasant one)...

metak said...

@ST

"I would agree that something needs to change, and fast."

Now you sound like pessimistic Metak... ;-) ;-)

I don't know exactly how but change is imminent and no I don't see it as total destruction... ;-) but merely as a fundamental shift in our thinking and attitude towards life and everything else... ;-)

To use the metaphor: you can't have a butterfly without caterpillar dying... ;-)

p.s. Who would've thought that I'll be the one passing on the opportunity to have other man's woman...?

She never was his...

just visiting said...

We'll have to agree to disagree Metak. There's too much written history showing that men have upheld this code through the ages to deny it's existence. I can't say if it started with the arabs. It may very well have, but it got adopted as military code.

I'll also have to disagree with ST that men are brought up from childhood to deal realisticly with violence. SOME men, but quite a few are no longer taught. I even know men who have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Even I can't make that claim.

Women are fighting because they are masculinized. I remember as a teen, a couple of girls coming to my place looking to kick my best friends a$$. We weren't there, but my father was and he was astounded by these girls. Girls weren't like that when he was young. I quipped that back then girls didn't have slutty divorced mothers and dead beat fathers to deal with. Even the boys expected us to act like boys. Just prettier.

just visiting said...

I'd always read that the code was adopted from Roman military code. Britain was in a bit of a mess after the occupation was over. It was seen as trying to restore the honor and codes from a fallen civilization. The Romans spent a lot of time in the middle east, so, it's possible they picked it up there.

metak said...

@JV

Again your missing my point.. or I'm just not articulating it right...

I'm not denying it's existence.. of course there were men that tried to live by that code. You still don't understand that this code was in use only among small group of aristocrats... only they had money to afford a horse and armor... and they had "noble blood"... I'm saying that Arabs were much more 'civilized' in many ways compared to those knights... It didn't started with Arabs... ;-) I never said that... ;-)

It didn't become adopted as military code... some men were seeing something in that... you maybe see honor... but it never became widespread... only stories did.

Romans had nothing to do with chivalry...

dannyfrom504 said...

She's Canadian.

I can't believe you're still prattling on about this. This isn't a discussion any longer. It's a fucking screaming match between 2 jr. High girls.

I'd have "agreed to disagree" long ago.

dannyfrom504 said...

No clue how PM came up. It shouldn't be there.

But to continue-

I can't blame JV because she's a woman, and it's just in her nature to keep keep at this.

You, as "man" should have walked away from this LONG ago. Seriously. You're sulking a blog I adore.


Seriously ST, do I need to be the site's bouncer now? I can call DogSquat over too.

Grasshopper said...

@PVW…
Thank you for your post. I want to take a couple of days to think about it before I respond.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

@ We'll agree to disagree.

Spacetraveller said...

Danny,

"Seriously ST, do I need to be the site's bouncer now? I can call DogSquat over too."

Hahahahahaha!
You know why I am laughing, don't you Danny? Do you remember one of Dogsquat's posts where he describes what he did to a drunk guy who was harrassing someone at the club he was a bouncer in...
It wasn't pretty...
And for sure I also know what he can do to unruly hamsters...
Certainly he can do unkind things to their posterior orifices which I wouldn't necessarily wish on anyone...
Hahahaha!

"I can't blame JV because she's a woman, and it's just in her nature to keep keep at this."

And I would have happily prattled along as well if I knew enough about the aspects of chivalry JV and Metak were on about.
You are right - we women can really talk the hind legs off a donkey! We got no limit :-)
I remember Bellita warned NC about this when she and he were embroiled in their own marathon discussion about something, I forget what.
And I had my own issues with Grasshopper about beauty/confidence recently, and I see he walked away discretely at a strategic point ;) Otherwise I would still be arguing that one out. Hahahahaha!
So we never give up talking :-)

But it seems some men will give us a run for our money sometimes. Metak has his own rules and he's sticking to them!
:-)
But that's cool...

Danny, what's PM?

And how did the class go?

metak said...

@ST

I was trying to tell JV that she's taking chivalry way to seriously... ;-)


@dannyfrom504

I don't know if you can't see or don't want to but what you're 'teaching' writing on your blog is the same but less quality stuff as that of Ross Jeffries or David DeAngelo... Do you even realize how delusional and blinded you are? You're writing about female ejaculation but you don't have any idea about you own sexuality as a "man". For love of God first learn something about your own ejaculation, it's real purpose and how to control it and start experiencing real orgasms... Don't you even realize that ejaculatory orgasm is the lowest possible kind of pleasure a man can experience? And no, every kind of orgasm expressed outwards (ejaculation) is nowhere near to internal orgasm and "real deal"... You have no idea how you're embarrassing your self...
Go out and practice your 'PUA' skills...

@ST

You wanted me to learn from him? Please... I surpassed that level in Kindergarten...
You may treat me as your "little brother" and that's fine with me... but I can't stand that kind of stupid arrogance...

dannyfrom504 said...

Metak-
Calling into question a mans sexual performance is what women do.

metak said...

@dannyfrom504

I wasn't calling anything into question... I'm telling you that you have no idea about man's sexuality any you're wasting your time writing about woman's...

dannyfrom504 said...

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Dude, that's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I don't understand women, yet I have female readers admitting they're attracted to me.

I really feel bad for you.

metak said...

@dannyfrom504

Sexuality and attraction are not one and the same...

you can feel about me any way you want...

those women can't tell you anything about man's sexuality because they know even less than average man does... and of course they will enjoy as much as they can get out of you... but they still don't have any idea about man's sexuality...

dannyfrom504 said...

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

That's why I have a blog where my girls ASK to be on my site. And most of my readers ate women.

You're a bitter guy that has problems women, I'm sorry for that. But don't come on my friends site and be an asshole. Which is what you're doing.

metak said...

@dannyfrom504

You're right about one thing.. I'm wasting my time commenting with you...

I never said you don't know anything about how to please a woman... what I am saying is that you're blind when it comes to man's sexuality otherwise you wouldn't be wasting so much time writing about other things and failing to see the bigger picture...

Do your self a favor and go find a Taoist monk to teach you something about being a man...


And please, are you really that blind?

btw: what I've learned I teach my friends for free... and I'm really bitter guy and I have problems with women... ;-)

dannyfrom504 said...

You're too cute girl.

metak said...

@dannyfrom504

You're just a prisoner in Plato's Cave watching shadows and I'm trying to tell you there's whole world of possibilities outside the cave...


Never the less I wish you all the best...

Spacetraveller said...

What happened, gentlemen?
Did I miss something?

Perhaps this is 'male locker room stuff' and I would do best to stay out of it?

I have to say though, Metak, every woman who comments here would have encountered Danny either on his blog or on other blogs.
Whatever the gripe you have against him (which of course you are entitled to) his blog is not to be dismissed as unimportant. Believe me, the first thing I or any woman will look for before trading comments with any Manosphere blogger is 'woman friendliness' and Danny is one of the most woman-friendly. Sure, I, like other women may 'pick and choose' which of his posts we comment on, because the others may be a bit too 'male locker room' for our tastes, but he does provide great info for us ladies who may not necessarily be aware of certain things no matter how exerienced we think we may be with you gentlemen. Danny's blog is what makes the Manosphere palatable for a lot of us women who want to learn more about the opposite sex having swallowed The Red Pill along with you guys.

I get it that you have a lot of experience with Taoist stuff. By all means share them with us!
But please don't diss Danny's blog. He is our favourite guy in the Manosphere because he won't let the big bad wolves get us :-)

So by all means spar with Danny, call him whatever you like, but please don't touch his blog, because Danny's Dolls (including me) will be after ya...
As will his dog Brody, who has a Terminator laser eye and isn't afraid to use it...
:-)

Hey, anyone notice the new post yet?

metak said...

@ST

I'm sorry but I've read few posts on his blog and it's the same old 'PUA' as I wrote to him... (bad imitation of Ross Jeffries, David DeAngelo and others... nothing new)...

What's going on? These guys are everywhere nowadays??? ;-) ;-)


"But please don't diss Danny's blog. He is our favourite guy in the Manosphere because he won't let the big bad wolves get us :-)"

I know he's your favorite guy in 'Manosphere' because he's a bad wolf in sheep's clothing... ;-) I think this is what that creepy looking 'Mystery - PUA' was talking when he said that this is some kind of evolution of men... Jesus Christ...

My biggest problem with him was that he's writing about being a "man" and sexuality... but his head is so far up in vagina that he can't see anything...

What I mean when I mention Taoist teachings is that those should be foundation for every man to learn how his body truly works and to have complete control over it... use the energy wisely and it transforms your life... and what he's doing (without knowing it) is quite the opposite...

This blog is certainly not the right place for me to spew my crap... ;-)


He was right that I was posting way to many comments... I'll stop..

If I behaved as an asshole than I apologize.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"If I behaved as an asshole than I apologize."

No I wouldn't go that far, but thanks for the apology. Warmly accepted and appreciated.

I am interested in your Taoist stuff.
I have never done any meditation but I know a lot of people who do. I guess it is the same as 'praying', but having never been exposed to Eastern religions, I wonder if there is indeed a difference.
Care to explain the ins and outs of this?

I am just about to respond to JV's comment about meditation in the new post on grace - she mentions meditation. I never thought about that as being a necessary part of a woman's 'grace' before, but I see her point now...

metak said...

@ST

Meditation is only a part of it... biggest thing for a man is to gain and keep control over his ejaculation... sexual energy... to separate between ejaculation and orgasm... to enjoy in orgasm without ejaculating (far greater orgasms...)... to make your erection rock hard and you can lift weight with your private parts... not to mention health benefits... all these things in return build that famous "confidence" in a man... I could go on forever about positive effects about what it really means to be a man...

Spacetraveller said...

"...to separate between ejaculation and orgasm... to enjoy in orgasm without ejaculating (far greater orgasms...)..."

Huh?

Is this even possible or desirable?
Now you are going to probably get annoyed, but isn't this a form of 'onanism' in the sense that the purpose (or one of the purposes) of sex is circumvented with this practice? In this sense it is basically like contraception, and The Church (currently my only spiritual guide on this issue) is dead against it.

Please understand that I am not passing judgment on this practice as practised by individuals. But to place this on a spiritual plane and pass it off as 'virtuous' and as part of some 'masculine power' thing is what I question, for the reason above.
(Yes I know, only a woman could ask this question, right? But do you see what I am getting at?)

metak said...

@ST

This teaching was widely used also as a contraception...

I see what you're asking...

There's a feminine and masculine (yin yang) and understanding better your true self is first step... Yes sex is a tool for procreation but you're not trying to make a baby every time you're having sex... you're not getting it how much energy man gains and overall improves physically, mentally and spiritually... by not wasting his sexual energy (sperm)... You become completely different as a man...

dannyfrom504 said...

ST-
My best friend is an active practicing Buddhist. She's tell you Metak is someone to avoid. Like I said, I'm done with addressing him.

Now, let me teach you something about hosting a blog- at some point persons arrive and comment and do noting but add crap to a discussion.

Healthy debate is one thing. But this drones on WAAAAY too long even after it was obvious that JV and Metak disagreed. While calling out my "manliness" Metak is arguing (over the Internet no less) about complete drivel.

Express you opinion and move on. WOMEN can drone on and on, that's the hamster at work. "men" doing it need schedule a pap.

As far as his jabs at me ST- *yawn* I'm well aware of where I stand in the Sphere and it AIN'T on the PUA side. Hell, most of the blogging persons give me shit becailise I'm friends with Susan.

I'm done here. Love you Pet.

metak said...

For love of God big part of those teachings is also in old Buddhism...

I know it's very 'trendy' and 'hip' nowadays to be Buddhist or whatever...
but you can tell your friend to familiarize her self better with what she's apparently practicing actively...

i was sooo wrong to question your "manliness" because there's nothing to question apparently...

That 'drivel' is a thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and philosophy that was apparently very valuable to many emperors that had many concubines... but what do they know compared to you I guess...


I told you already, open your eyes...


@ST

Thanks for your time and patience but it's time for me to go away from this kind of ignorance...

Wish you well... ;-)

dannyfrom504 said...

My friend is Cambodian and has been practicing since she was born.

It's pretty presumptuous of you to judge me. And for the record, I CaN orgasm without ejaculating. It's not that difficult to do.

Guys like you are no better than the Christians that claim what they practice make tem better or wiser than others.

I hate blogger ST. It's not letting me correcty typos.

metak said...

Like in every other teaching you have many different schools that teach their point of view... when it comes to Buddhism I find it to be even worse...
When it came to an important issue in Buddhism there were always groups that didn't agree and went their own way...
Some schools accepted this and rejected that...


I wasn't saying it's difficult to do... I said it should be only a begging for a man...

btw: I was raised as a Christian and practiced it... does that make me a good Christian? Not at all...

and you were right it was pretty presumptuous of me to judge you and I do apologize for that.

metak said...

not 'begging' ;-) it should be 'beginning' for a man...

dannyfrom504 said...

I appreciate and accept your apology. What I saw was an attack on a woman I know IRL and the discussion had become a train wreck.

I wish you nothing but the best on your journey Brother.

metak said...

Thanks. If anything this whole experience brought to light my own stupidity and ignorance that I really need to address...

Even though I might not agree with your teachings I wish you success on your endeavor...

Like they say there's no one sided coin... If you have something to offer, than there's someone willing to receive it.

I would appreciate if you could explain to me why you and your friend consider it drivel?

dannyfrom504 said...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you restate the same opinion over and over, the message becomes lost.

I understand ST does do touch on religion, and that's her perpgitive....it is her site. But this became uncivil, and I felt te urge to step in.

You opinion is just that, yours. Those that don't believe it aren't wrong simply because they disagree. And eventually it becomes apparent there will be zero agreeing, so move on.

metak said...

I understand that... I just wrote it awkwardly...

What I was trying to ask you was, what was your and your friends take on Taoism because you said she's Buddhist and that I'm someone that should be avoided...

I was asking that purely because I've studied and practiced Taoist teachings and techniques for years now...

Grasshopper said...

@PVW… I promised you a reply and in spite of the length of this thread and the many distracting turns it’s taken since we last posted I hope you’re still checking to see it.

“…As for the criticisms, it comes from different places…. Dellapenna …fit closely with some of the arguments made by MGTOW…”

Let me rephrase my question re: source materials on MGTOW…. You’re comparing Dellapenna (your source) to some of the arguments made by MGTOW… My question better phrased is from where are you getting the arguments made by MGTOW in order to compare them to Dellapenna?

I have a sense you have a particular mindset about MGTOW based on your comment “…someone like yourself, who seems sympathetic to the MGTOW crowd, should even bother with listening…” and I’m wondering where it is coming from.

“…I also assign materials by men who object to the one-sidedness of women's abortion rights…”

Kudos on this one PVW.

Since my reply is lengthy I am going to post it in two parts.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@PVW – Grasshoppers reply part 2 - Re: the FMLA being extended to men…

I remember my sister telling me when she had her first child that she was so overwhelmed that she did not want her husband to go to work. She wanted him home helping her.

If this kind of thing is common of new mothers as I have been led to believe it is, then I have to think the driving force for FMLA for men was the benefit it conferred on women – new mothers specifically – and not that feminists wanted to do anything helpful specifically for men.

It is my experience official FMLA leave is something most men do not need and would never use. There are better alternatives to achieve a work life balance in that circumstance.

Tools such as flex time, stockpiling vacation time, working from home and reprioritizing projects can creatively be done by managers, many parents themselves, to extend what essentially amounts to FMLA leave to male employees they valued and wanted to keep. For example one can catch up on work Email from home while the baby is sleeping.

And these options are first choice for new fathers at my work place which has male FMLA leave as an official benefit. The plus side is with these options they continue to get paid whereas official FMLA leave would be unpaid.

Any individual working for an employer so unsympathetic to the situation of new fathers that they are driven to suing them for FMLA leave – I’d have to ask – why do you want to keep working for such an employer – wouldn’t you be better off finding greener pastures?

Re: Williams advocacy, I question the wisdom of suing one’s employer, even though some employers do behave badly. The time and effort spent meeting with attorneys, filing depositions, preparing for cross examination, etc. would be better spent, in my view, both looking for other work and with one’s wife and children enjoying life.

Grasshopper

Anonymous said...

PVW here, addressing Grasshopper...

It is a lot to go through those old posts, I admit, to discover your points of criticism and address each one.

So I'll just reply by addressing the key points in light of your latests posts.

As for MGTOW, I cover Delapenna and other such sources as examples of men's responses to women's empowerment, insofar as men have felt disempowered by some of the feminist rhetoric in those instances--abortion and divorce, so they want to be part of MGTOW.

We talk about how these men's ideas can lead to equalization, and how do they feel about that? What type of behavior and attitudes are required on each side for that equalization to happen? Which school(s) of feminism presume that equalization is problematic?

Is my goal to criticize the MGTOW movement in my classes? No; I aim merely to show that the feminist movement generated a response in some men which can be seen in those ways.

As for FMLA, even though the impetus might have come out of the women's rights movement, I don't think that merely because it began with women and women were its original focus that it can't be helpful to men and be male-friendly.

If anything, it brought men into the conversation by making it gender-neutral, applicable to men, and not just women, opening up room for these sorts of conversations between spouses.

It is interesting, I was just reading some texts which discuss the history of the passage of the FMLA, a debate between the difference feminists v. the sameness feminists.

The difference feminists focused on women's differences, that women might need the FMLA because they alone give birth.

The sameness feminists argued that to focus on differences would lead to stigmatization of women employees, especially in the ways women's differences had traditionally been used to deny them basic rights we take for granted today, ie., for married women to own and manage property in their own names or to vote.

They argued to focus instead on sameness; how is any sort of need for family or medical leave the same for men and women? Should it be seen just like say something like having an accident and needing to take time off for say a broken leg? They said it should be.

Thus, the sameness ones argued that to make it meaningful and less stigmatizing, it should apply to everyone, men as well as women, because both parents are affected by parenting, whether it is the woman giving birth or the man who is with her helping her with their child.

The irony is that men who use FMLA and their employers resist is that they believe caregiving is exclusively female, not realizing that in today's world post FMLA, caregiving is gender neutral.

Of course, the best employers are going to do what they need to do to keep the best employees they want to have around, and the examples you provide are great examples of those. Some men might not even use FMLA, as you suggest, they might not want or need that much time, but for those who do, at least it is an option.

Anonymous said...

PVW again, am I covering MGTOW as a movement? No, I'm merely providing examples of MGTOW arguments as a response, which I mentioned, to certain aspects of feminism.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I go away to eat some soup for a few minutes, and the Sanctuary becomes a War Room (Dr. Strangelove reference).

Women are women, men are men. Except for those that aren't.


The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

Yep, got my bowl and spoon handy, lol.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"If this kind of thing is common of new mothers as I have been led to believe it is, then I have to think the driving force for FMLA for men was the benefit it conferred on women – new mothers specifically – and not that feminists wanted to do anything helpful specifically for men.

It is my experience official FMLA leave is something most men do not need and would never use. There are better alternatives to achieve a work life balance in that circumstance."


This is interesting!
Never saw it from this angle before. 2 thoughts on this:

1. If feminism, in pushing for fathers to be home in the early days for their kids is doing it for women, I would still say that in this particular case, feminism is actually being 'unselfish' in the sense that most of its other mantra are something of the order of 'we can do it all'. But parenting especially of a newborn, especially for a first time Mum is (I imagine!) not easy, so getting all hands on deck is quite a good ploy, no?
Some women may not have mothers/big sisters/friends who could help out. Getting father to stay home could be their only chance for this help they desperately need.
But I see where you are coming from on this...

2. I have mixed feelings as to whether men benefit from this or not. On the one hand you have complaints from women that their husbands take the time off, but don't spend it with them or baby, and on the other, you have men who wish to actually increase their perceived usefulness, not decrease it (because in their view being home with a newborn is not their role - which is fair enough).
Certainly, for a man whose pay is linked to taking time off, he may not even feel that this is going to help his financial situation at a time when he really needs to feel financially secure.

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha... You are *so* right on so many things. I have come to expect women to be rude. And I hear more than a few of the women who work for me complaining about "being sold a bill of goods" because they are older - approaching 40 - and have no children, no career, and lament all that they missed because they believed they could have it all - like men.

Then never seem to understand the life of men sucks - generally. Or it did - these days I have a great life, mostly because there are a lot of young women still buying into those sale-pitches, and there are no men for them, since they have been systematically thrown under the bus, or are so sick of the present state, they have given up.

But from my view - there are lots of young women, all wanting the approval of a successful older man (many would say father figure - but I do things no father would ever do to his daughter). Who am I to complain? The women are the ones complaining - a lot of men are enjoying the present state of things. Of course, most of them aren't - but such is life...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

Yes, it's a sad state of affairs, isn't it?
It was indeed a big lie that women could 'have it all'.
But what happens if you are sold that story from birth?
And then you can't find your way back to the light and you are condemned to a life of darkness?

This cannot be a man's problem, however, unless he is the father or brother of a particular woman. So no, I can't blame you at all for enjoying the fruits of this horrific orchard that feminism created.
But hopefully women as a whole can change their own personal and collective destinies.
Maybe in yours and my lifetime?
:-)