Monday, September 24, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Update: This essay, read by its author, was flagged as “Hate Speech” on YouTube within hours of it being uploaded. A revised version of that video noting the censorship effort has been uploaded, and those who wish to fight the censors who marked this as “hate speech” are encouraged to mirror it.
Update 09/23/2012: The original video has been restored here.
Here it is:
"The New Nigger"There was a time in the history of my country, when an entire demographic group was regularly pushed aside and disregarded – legally and socially. That group had some but not all of the rights that were granted to the rest of society and the rights they did have were ignored and denied with shocking regularity. Each member of the lower class was socially valued by how well they were liked and how useful the were to their superiors, the privileged class.
Members of the lower class were best advised to mind their manners around their betters. It was best not to say things their superiors wouldn’t like and in some cases it was advisable to avoid looking directly at them.
The lower class of people were expected to accept their treatment and some of them seemed to. It seems odd that anyone would accept their systemic mistreatment and abuse, but who could blame them, it was the safest thing to do. Those who fell in line and did their part to keep the superiors happy suffered less abuse than those who did not. It was easier to keep your head down and if asked a question or spoken to, it was safest to smile and say whatever the superior wanted to hear.
As is the case with any oppressed people the lower class became angry. Some of the lower class people became disobedient. They had the very laughable goal of equality. Those of the lower class who complained were troublemakers. Any member of the privileged class who supported those troublemakers were traitors.
There were words the upper class used to keep those lower beings in line, and check those who’d forgotten their place. One of these words seemed more effective than the others.
That was what they were, after all.
Niggers weren’t the same as human beings. They were legally and socially less than the privileged class. Niggers could be harmed and the police probably wouldn’t help them. Niggers were subject to vigilante justice.
I don’t know if it happened on a conscious level but I do not doubt that when a nigger was reminded that he was in fact a nigger, he realized he had stepped out of bounds and if a privileged citizen decided to punish him, there would be no help for him. That little reminder must have done wonders to shut an uppity nigger up.
The word was used so often that, it seems, it lost its effectiveness. Niggers learned to ignore the word, it didn’t hurt as much and sometimes it simply made them angry. The magic was gone and it was just another word, like stupid, or ugly.
In that time of social unrest there was a member of that lower class named Melvin B. Tolson. If you don’t know who that is, look up the ‘Forensic Society Debaters of Wiley College’ and you will learn that he was a troublemaker who dared to think that lower class people should be allowed to hold civil debate with the privileged class.
It was a rather unpopular idea which met great opposition. However when he did succeed in arranging for the oppressed to debate their superiors, the lower class people won. Looking back that is not surprising, the lower class were morally correct. What I find most interesting about their victory is the amount of struggle it took for the matter to reach debate.
The privileged class seemed to believe that the lower class were just dumb niggers, but I believe that was an excuse. I think that the privileged people knew that the societal norms were wrong and that everyone would realize it if the lower class people were ever allowed to show their intelligence. If the lower class showed the public that they were not dumb and dangerous, the injustices against them would be unnecessary and cruel.
It would be revealed that the privileged upper class were the ignorant, dangerous fools.
The opposition to a simple debate came from a fear of exposure.
You may believe that such societal norms and treatment are a thing of the past. That sort of thing could never go unchallenged today. People are more enlightened now… Right?
But I see it.
I see an entire class of people who can be harmed by a member of a privileged class and there is no help for them. They can be legally abused and everyone looks the other way. There are those members of the lower class who try to make themselves as useful to their superiors as possible or keep their heads down unless spoken to and then he’d better say what ever pleases his superior, that is the safest way to behave.
I hear the privileged use a few words to try and keep the troublemakers in line. One seems to be a particular favorite.
Misogynists aren’t the same as other human beings. You don’t have to listen to anything a misogynist says. They aren’t allowed the same rights as everyone else. Debate with the superiors? Pfft, what for? They are just a bunch of angry misogynists after all.
Don’t talk to me because you hate women…Nigger.
Their misogynistic posters got torn down? Serves the niggers right!
Debate? No, they are dangerous nig- oops, I mean, misogynists.
Of course this refusal and opposition to the very idea of debate has NOTHING at all to do with the knowledge that the people they call misogynists really do have something to complain about. This opposition isn’t fear this time… right? It’s legitimate concern that the people you so flagrantly antagonize, openly taunt and yet who have done nothing at all to harm you, will suddenly go ape-shit and assault a helpless innocent member of the privileged class.
It’s okay to wave weapons at them, because they’re misogynists.
Its okay to silence them. They are just misogynists.
It’s totally cool to disregard them cause you know… they’re misogynists, and everyone knows it.
You don’t have to treat the misogynists like human beings, so it isn’t bigotry. Everyone knows misogynists don’t get rights.
I can only hope that using this word to silence and shame someone you disagree with someday reaches the same public regard as coming right out and calling your opponent ‘nigger’.
What sparked her to write the above piece? Read about it here:
Men's Rights Posters Torn Down In Vancouver
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Another question: given the choice and all things being equal, who do you think men are more likely to help - men or women?
A recent study by Purdue University found out something very interesting: Women like other women more so than men like other men. In other words, women have a high propensity for in-group preference than do men.
Should we be surprised? Whens the last time you heard of men rallying behind Testicular Cancer as a "Men's Issue?" Or protesting the fact that they are the ones' forced to register for selective service?
As Anti-Feminist Blogger Girlwriteswhat points out:
"Men lack a mechanism for automatic group preference. Simply put, they do not relate to other men automatically, just because they're men.Women have this bias, which provides them a natural ability to form cooperatives, relate to other women, and seek consensus though their strong mechanism for own-group preference based on gender alone. Men, however, lack the hardwiring to form a preference for maleness based merely on maleness. And that only makes sense when you think about men's roles for the last couple million years or so--roles that involved things like beating the guys down the valley to a pulp when they threatened his women and children, and competing against other males within his community for a shot at the mating game. Given those roles, automatically siding with one's own gender over the other is...well, it just doesn't work.
But back to dealing with the ubiquitous presence of the Patriarchy Hobgoblin, which reads all history through the lends of Men oppressing women, Many still insist that this is a good and informative lens to read and understand history with.Well, OK then. Let's just look at one aspect of history; US Women's Suffrage - aka "the right to vote" and see what a closer examination of the facts fells us.
Before I launch into all of that, here's a couple of cool videos by Fidlebogen & Grilwriteswhat, respectively:
"Women Could Not Vote And That Was Not 'Oppression'!" as Fidelbogen suggests.
"Me a Feminist? No way!" says Girlwritetswhat? And she explains why.
I would argue that even today, the United States does not have fully effected, 100% suffrage on all fronts. Today the homeless for example, are at a disadvantage due to not having a mailing address. Currently only 15 states do not require such an address to vote. And although one can hold a job and receive a paycheck at 16, most states do not allow voting before age 18, resulting in taxation without representation. (However 20 states do allow citizens who will be 18 on or before the general election Day to vote in Primaries & Caucuses.) Not all states allow Prisoners to vote, as well.
But I want to piggyback on two points brought up in the videos above by Fidelbogen and Girlwriteswhat, because they will get us to where I'm going with this: 1) That women were not the only ones who were initially not allowed to vote and 2) Women were not initially fully united on the question of which they should receive the right to vote.
1) Women were not the only ones who were initially not allowed to vote.
Just to briefly summarize:
"When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed African Americans could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote."
Catch that? Women were not the only ones who were (largely) shut out of being able to vote. You had to be not only male, but white and a property owner. Therefore, the Right to Vote was not based on gender but on class. And that's not all: Jews, Quakers & Catholics were not fully enfranchised everywhere all at once, until 1810. Washington DC didn't get the right to vote in Presidential elections for 164 years - until that ended in 1964. Discriminatory practices that disenfranchised African-Americans weren't finally put to rest until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
So the US has never had, nor does it currently have (as I have argued above) full Suffrage for all it's citizens even today. Viewed that way, Women are neither the most nor least neglected person group in history to have the question of their voting rights settled. The 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote was passed in 1919, and enough states had ratified it to make it law by 1920. Since then, there have been men among those groups who were disenfranchised that the law hadn't corrected yet in due time, according to what we have just seen.
And for the cherry on top of the sundae? There hasn't really been a democracy that allowed all this to ferment and rise to the surface, until the US was founded. So really, for centuries of recorded history, nobody had a right to vote because voting per se did not exist!
2) Women were not initially fully united on the question of whether they should receive the right to vote.
You heard me, I didn't stutter! There was actually organized opposition among women to stop their sisters from getting the right to vote. Such a thing is hard to fathom in today's world. Once again history tells us something that public perception has long forgotten:
"The opposition to women's suffrage in the United States included organizations like the National Organization Against Women's Suffrage and women like Helen Kendrick Johnson. In New York, upper class women who thought they had a behind-the-scenes voice often opposed suffrage because it would dilute their influence. At first the anti-s let the men do the talking, but increasingly they adopted the mobilization techniques pioneered by the suffragists. The antis easily won the 1915 New York State referendum, using the argument that women voters would close the saloons. But the suffragists won the 1917 referendum, arguing that the saloons were Germanic (at a time when Germany was hated); the Tammany Hall machine in New York City deserted the antis as well."
It's interesting to note that apparently some women who were married to men of influence and power, thought they were better off manipulating their husbands out of the public eye. Once you are given the right to vote and begin to organize and speak out, you suddenly become an entity in people's minds and you are publicly accountable. As such you are in the queue to be able to receive great praise ...and great scorn as well.
But as we have just seen, it wasn't long before the anti-suffrage women's movement would give way to the Pro Suffrage Women's Movement, and Women would be granted the right to vote. And you know what? An all male House and Senate passed it for them! Once it was clear that the antis had no more currency and the pros for the right to vote for women were all that was left, it was a matter of a few short years. Did anyone really expect that they were going to be all about passing something that not all women really wanted?
So getting back to my opening question: Do women ever really have anything that men haven't already given them?
Lets' look at what are considered (by some, not all) to be the milstones of women's rights in history:
*Tender Years Doctrine, advocated by UK Feminists in the 1800's, standard child custody procedure ever since!
*Prohibition - Passed 6 months before Women even had the right to vote!
*Suffrage - Passed by an all male Congress.
*No Fault Divorces - 1st ever signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan, the horrible patriarch!
*Roe V. Wade - "Jane Roe" favored by an all-male Supreme Court.
*Violence Against Women's Act - Passed by a Congress overwhelmingly dominated by men.
*Sexual Harassment Laws. AFAICS, most every major case that has gone to court has been won by Women. "Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harrassment#United_States)
*Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - Ditto. (Even though her veracity can be called into question.)
*Gender-based Affirmative Action? - Ditto.
And sure, there have been some twists and turns along the way and even after most of these, but so it is with all landmark decisions & legislation.
What do women do in return for all of this? Oh, I dunno - screw men over by taking money intent on providing jobs through President Obama's stimulus bill for construction and electric grids - you know, jobs in modernization of the infrastructure, like the Left has been calling for quite some time - and have it re-routed to health, education, and government - largely "women friendly" work.
Remember in part one of this post, where we discussed the fact that men's jobs were hardest hit in this past recession?
And let's not even talk what goes on in Washington DC. What else have men done for women?
Build paved roads?
Invent the microwave?
Impliment a Social Safety Net?
Pass occupational health & safety regulations?
Continue to be n the front lines in most wars?
Continue to work in coal mines, construction, dams, grids, and a host of other physically and mentally stressful and dangerous occupations that make life more tenable for everyone, but especially for women?
Remember Obama's "You didn't build that" comment? You know how the left is always chiding people to be a bit more humble & grateful to a society that enabled them to become what they are?
Think the same principle applies here? I think it most certainly does!
I know I'd be a bit sheepish about receiving a privilege that I did nothing to earn from someone who did plenty to earn it in the moral sense. But Feminists never seem to have any shame about anything. Women wouldn't even have half the shit they have now but for men.
And they can start with not treating or labeling all men as potential rapists, abusers or pedophiles. Or denying that women are just as much prone to violence with intimate partners as men. Or denying that men also have much pain and disadvantage in society, such as the fact that 90% of all work-related deaths are male. or that men are 3 - 4 times more likely to commit suicide. Or getting privilege and preference in the divorce courts. Or deny that they are privileged even though they get tons of affirmative action benefits.Or denying that women ever lie about rape. Or that many men have rotted in prison over false sexual assault accusations. Or than men can be and often are, rape victims. Or that a man can be raped by a woman. Or that women can be predators. Or that they can be abusers in a relationship that men spend time in healing and recovery for. And if I have to read one more time the words "men can stop rape" or some such similar moronic bullshit, I'm going to throw up! Word: That is on the level of a slogan that says "Muslims can stop terrorism." Try that sometime & see how far you get!
Oh, and about this "Patriarchy" thing that sparked this whole 2-part post (which may grow into more given time) let's get real: Women have accepted and benefited from it. They did so by being protected and provided for when they were supposedly "unequal" and downtrodden, and have never had a problem accepting and benefiting from anything men do since then.
This is so against the grain of what most of society believes and sees as the conventional wisdom. I expect I'm going to take heat for it, or maybe (if I'm lucky) I'll be labeled as too angry a male to be dealt with and left alone. But in any case, I suspect I'd better wrap this up for now. Conserve enough strength & energy to be able to deal with this on another day.
What I would like to ask the reader to indulge me in is this one thing: If you find anything disagreeable or questionable, make rue you have thoroughly researched everything I have offered here: All the videos, (yes, even the 45 minute one by Girlwriteswhat) all the links, all the supporting data. Otherwise, I'll merely consider you too clueless disqualified to even be able to begin discussion these things!
Last minute entry: Here's another great blogger on these same issues with more supporting data, written from a young man's perspective. Aw what the hell, here' one from A Voice For Men worth reading, too.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Just ran across a few of essays by Marxist/Socialist writers who are critical of the whole notion of "Patriarchy Theory" as espoused by the overwhelming majority of Feminists. It makes sense if you think about it: Patriarchy Conspiracy Theory is focused on Gender as the locus of Women's Oppression. Marxism explains all oppression in terms of Class Struggle.
I believe there's more reading that can be searched out if you check the footnotes of each article. They are at least 20 - 30 years old.
The poverty of patriarchy theory by Sandra Bloodworth:
The Marxist tradition and women's liberation by Tess Lee Ack:
I believe there's more reading that can be searched out if you check the footnotes of each article. They are at least 20 - 30 years old.
The poverty of patriarchy theory by Sandra Bloodworth:
The Marxist tradition and women's liberation by Tess Lee Ack:
Theories of Patriarchy by Lindsey German:
I have to wonder about a group titled "Patriarchy" that excludes men from attending. Makes me tend to think that you are going to say something about me that you wouldn't normally say to my face. In any case, you can view a short blog post written by one of the pastoral staff of this church titled "The Curse of Patriarchy" by Angie Fadel by going here. Angie and her husband Todd are also the worship music leaders at this church, and have tirelessly kept up writing, arranging and producing progressive church music for several years now, over and against at times untenable circumstances.
I'd like to respond to Angie's piece on patriarchy, but that's a bit difficult to do. To be brutally honest, it doesn't contain much of a logically coherent argument, and instead kind of rambles on, touching on different topics that obviously touch her temperature control. There are however, a few presuppositions inherent in what she's written that I think could be addressed at length
Now I'm going to go ahead and upfront state what will become obvious in due time: I believe Patriarchy Theory is an inherently flawed and fallacious way of looking at history, and that it is not helpful for understanding anything, save for the political agenda some wish to drive with it.. I'll unfold my reasons for doing so over the course of these 2 blog posts (perhaps more?) But for those unfamiliar with the topic and who want a good crash course can read Wikipedia's attempt at comprehension here. Not surprisingly, the neutrality of the article has been disputed (in Wikipedia politics anyway.) You can also get a brief one-paragraph synopsis of the concept from an online Feminist Theory Dictionary here.
Before launching into the bulk of this post, I'll give the following thesis statement or statements so that what I'm saying in regards to Patriarchy Theory will be made crystal clear. Everything I will say that follows will be in support of these statements:
1) Using the term "Patriarchy" implies that the history of oppression has been largely about Gender conflict, when in fact much of the time it's been more about class struggle than gender.
2) Women have not necessarily been "held down" by Patriarchy. In fact, to a large degree women have accepted and benefited from it. This is true both in terms of attaching themselves to men of power, but also in terms of general preferential treatment and of occupying a place in society that asks them to take less responsibility overall. (PS: Feminism has done nothing to correct this problem either. but has served to reinforce it.)
3) In keeping with the previous statement, Men have by and large responded to wonmen's inequality by going out of their way to empower women, They have done so in terms of passing a great deal of legislation women have asked for, but also in terms of creating safe spaces for women with technological and construction innovations that have brought this about.
4) The current push for equality by much of politically organized feminism has resulted in untenable circumstances for men and for society in general. There does not need to be a "gender balance" in every single sphere of life, and failing to recognize this has caused economic hardships, has forced people to support things against their conscience, and have resulted in inequlity for men in many verifiable instances.
5) Most (if not all) of politically active Feminism has not been about achieving equality for both men and women, despite what is often claimed. Most of the women's movement has actually resulted in a perpetual net gain of inordinate female privilege.
I say all this as a heads up: If you already have your mind made up about the nature of patriarchy, feminism, and gender-equality, then you most likely will not like most of what you are going to encounter here. Choose your time, interests & battles wisely.
For an introduction to some of the Men's Issues thought and philosophy that I've been absorbing, I'll post some recent videos by some the vloggers I read and listen to, particularly as it relates to Patriarchy Conspiracy theory. Be forewarned also, there will be plenty of external links posted on this blog entry of mine, although you can feel free to consider them supplementary material, and just focus on my writing for the time being if you prefer. But if you come away from all of this wondering why I take the positions I do, don't say I didn't warn you there was more to absorb.
Canadian Men's Rights Vlogger Typhon Blue on "Why Feminism is wrong about patriarchy theory:
Another Female Men's Rights vlogger, Girlwriteswhat, addresses the question of whether violence against women has ever really been "socially acceptable" and comes up with some surprising historical evidence often not considered:
Self-described "Counter-Feminist" vlogger Fidelbogen asks: "What is this thing called Patriarchy?":
And finally, vlogger Rocking Mr. E talks bout why so-called Patriarchy is largely a Conspiracy Theory:
I'm going to unpack my views on this topic by focusing on one section of Angie's essay, respond to that, follow up with some historical notes not often considered by most people, and pull back the curtain hopefully on the larger picture of where I think things are today in Gender-related issues.
Near the end of the blog post "The Curse of Patriarchy," Angie Fadel writes the following:
"I have watched too many women and girls crushed by a culture and society that wants to make them victims. Sexualized them, while not allowing them to call there viginas what they are, VAGINAS! Gives them impossible standards of beauty, then is surprised that they are starving to death and going under the knife. Tells them they have a future, but is only willing to pay them 70 cents to every $1.00 made by their male counterparts. No matter what her qualifications."
I will leave it to Angie to explain exactly what, where and how women are being kept from calling their "viginas' as such. As far as I can see, most women don't have any real problem doing so in an extensive, ad hoc & ad nauseam fashion.
What I want to focus on here is the implied issue of the so-called Gender Wage-Pay Gap, to what degree does it or doesn't it exist and what I really think it means. Are women really earning less than men in America, and is this the result of some kind of conspiracy on the part of men, either consciously or unconsciously, to keep women out of better living & earning circumstances?
Hear out the 2011 report "Women In America: Indicators Of Social And Economic Well-Being" prepared for the White House Council on Women and Girls by the US Department of Commerce. The report spells out the scenario as it is today with the following evidence:
*" roughly equal access to flexible work schedules." Wait. What? Did I just hear that right? Men and women have the same access to flexible work schedules as men? Yet women are working part time more than men? No way!
But isn't that because men are keeping women out of the work force, expecting them to stay in the bedroom and the kitchen? Well frankly, no. The same report cites Bureau of Labor stats that show female participation in the labor force has steadily risen, while male participation has declined:
Monday, September 03, 2012
I'm so glad there are so many Christians who feel it's wrong to take others' property and give it to someone else! So I assume we'll be packing up soon to give America back to the Native Americans?
Ok, well it's not as important to abolish Labor Day as it would be for Columbus Day. But I'll take up that argument another time.