Dear Jeebus, what about the men?

So it was about damn time I did this post, seeing that how I’m getting some sort of audience now. In most of my recent posts, I’ve seen whole conversations derailed by the interjection of a man exclaiming “what about me? What about my oppression? What about my right to read only about the things that matter to me and not be offended or asked to introspect?”

For a while, I humored these questions. I discussed the issue of what it means to be a man for pages full of theoretical rejoinders. Sometimes, I even assuaged massive egos and avoided calling a spade a spade.  Of course, nothing was accomplished for several reasons: (a) I’m working off a perception of masculinity gained by social interaction, media images, and my personal experiences with gender roles while most men are operating off a perception of masculinity that mirrors themselves, and is thus largely positive to assuage the ego, (b) I speak primarily of oppression through the patriarchy, and there is simply no contest between the suffering of women verses the general unearned privilege of men gained through this system, (c) I actually really don’t give much of a shit about exceptions to the rule of “men oppress women” because in light of the continued fear and oppression I face every day as a woman, the one or two times in a man’s year that he finds himself at the mercy of women is inconsequential.

Let’s just be totally honest here: men own and run the world. They possess 95% of the world’s wealth and 99% of the world’s land. There has always been a male head of state in 77% of the world’s 195 countries. There is currently a male head of state in 96% of the world’s nations (exceptions are Switzerland, Ireland, Liberia, The Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Finland, and India). Women have almost never been able to historically vote until they were granted suffrage for the first time in 1893 in New Zealand.

It is an undeniable fact that women, for most of human history, were brutally oppressed and abused politically, socially, medically, economically, and sexually. The very proposition that that legacy is inconsequential today, or that the wounds of millennia are healed, is patently absurd. I refuse to even debate any statements to the contrary.

Yes, already, I know: social gender roles suck for both sexes. Why must this continually be a point here? I have never denied this fact, and I have never mocked the real instances in which men are oppressed by other social factors. However, those social factors that most oppress men, not women, are usually those of their own making or completely invented for the sake of self-pitying argumentation. Furthermore, this is a space for women by a woman, and discussion of “men’s issues” marginalizes the extreme, pervasive, violent, and disgusting oppression of women spoken about here and in other feminist spaces.

If, by chance, you are a man, this space should be taken as an opportunity for introspection on what it means to be human. Here you will not find the glorification of your penis and masculinity and perceived sexual prowess. This protective space, which I have woefully neglected to properly police lately, should be a breath of fresh air, free from the usual focus on men, their sensitivities, their privileges, and their world-views. Instead, I have let it, to an extent, become hijacked with rallying cries of dearest (male) God, what about the men?

I’ll tell you about men. The male sex, for the totality of human history (even today) control every single aspect of socialization from media to churches to families and schools. For all of history and the present day they have waged wars, leveled our forests, raped women, children, and weaker men, and indiscriminately slaughtered and oppressed and abused on the basis of things as inconsequential as race, class, sex, orientation, or ability.

Are there exceptions to this rule? Yes, but that doesn’t invalidate my point that the majority of power and abuses of power have historically been had and committed by men with more men for most men.

Today, 100% of men count on the privilege of their sex to get them things that a woman in an identical situation would probably have a lesser chance procuring. To most men, this is either invisible or business as usual. This is an effect of all kinds of privilege, not just that along gender. Americans, for instance, buy cheap televisions without much of a care of all the environmental damage the production, and then disposal, of that television wrecked, nor will they spend the time to contemplate the fates of the industrial slaves who die young and hopelessly for their cheap material goods. Like Americans, all men have systematically benefited from a chance of birth for every day of their lives.

Equality is not a tag-line, it’s not just a word that is uttered to garner support of more bullshit pork barrel spending. To me, and to most feminists, it means the complete and total destruction of all unearned privilege decided upon by nothing more than gender identity and sex chromosomes. It means that men will do 50% of the housework, and earn 50% of the household income. It means that around 50% of the world’s nations will be governed by women at any given point. It means that female-specific slurs with no male equivalent (bitch, whore, slut, cunt, cougar, skank, trollop, doll-face, sweetie, hag) will disappear from the cultural vernacular. It means that gender-specific crimes such as rape and domestic abuse and sexual harassment will nearly disappear or affect both sexes equally. It means that every single person who decides to be a misogynist piece of shit is vilified, mocked, fired, jailed, fined, or arrested when appropriate.

When men come here, and any other space for women, by women and refuse to learn, to improve themselves, to ask questions and admit when they know less or are wrong and, most of all, ask dear Jeebus, what about teh menz? They are doing exactly what they do every single day for the entirety of their lives: they are exercising their perceived patriarchal rights to silence women, to assert that the conversation should be about them, and to insist that every single corner of the universe should only be about them, for them, by them, and in praise of them.

The question will be asked, “why should I, a woman, expect men to listen to me if I assert that their problems don’t matter?”

And my response is thus: Not everything is about you. If the shoe doesn’t fit, if you don’t beat, rape, torture, and kill, why are you threatened by the fact that your gender has been responsible for the systematic slavery, abuse, and fear of women for all of human history? Maybe it’s because you, smart dude that you are, have figured out that the above statement means that you are, in fact, currently benefiting from unearned privilege, and you have done so for the entirety of your past, and you probably will for the entirety of your future. By submitting this incontrovertible fact, I am making the statement that the things that you have, the person that you are, and the things you think you are entitled to are based on a hell of a lot of thoughts that presuppose you are better than others because of your penis, because of your skin color, because of your nationality, and because of a dozen other reasons. All of these reasons have nothing to do with the good things that you have done or the good person you think you are, but the fact that your ancestors of your class, race, sex, or religion have abused, slaughtered, raped, oppressed, and enslaved millions upon millions of people so that you could have the unearned privilege of being born into a position of power that was historically earned by the fear, pain, and blood of those your privileged class committed the most heinous acts upon for thousands of years.

Does this mean that you are responsible? Yes. Every second of every day that you witness blatant acts of discrimination and say nothing and do nothing and silently thank a higher power that your ancestors set up this vast mechanism of hatred and oppression to privilege your righteous ass means that you are a collaborator in injustice, in death, in destruction, in violence, in oppression.

But dear fucking God, what do you expect me to do?

For one, stop laughing at sexist jokes. Stop treating women like pieces of meat. Stop calling women bitches and whores. Stop whining about reverse racism/sexism/classism and start earning what you have instead of insisting that it’s given to you and not them. Stop thinking that just because you don’t see how the world works, how others suffer for your gain, and how others bleed and die and fear for you, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Stop telling me that I’m wrong if I point out one of the eight thousand instances of misogyny I encounter every day. Stop insisting that there are hoards of poor wittle oppressed white American men that are relevant to every fucking post.

Most of all, stop asking everyone to talk about you.

Advertisements

Posted on September 4, 2008, in 101, Feminism, Liberal Dudez, Offended White Men, Penis Brain, Priviledge. Bookmark the permalink. 84 Comments.

  1. Fuckin’ A. I’m sending some people to this.

  2. Please do. I want to piss off as many righteous assholes as possible.

  3. You should be Australian so I could include you in our next carnival. Nice post!

  4. You included everything – most importantly as the fact the privileged class/gender/race (read: white males like myself) benefits from a legacy of slavery. I want to be able to explain to my more right-of-center readers what it means when folks (like you and me) say that the privileged benefit from a legacy (and a current system) of slavery. Some of them want to deny that slavery still exists. I surmise that there is no point in history where slavery didn’t exist. It’s been really hard for me to wrap my head around this because it’s really difficult to see another’s point of view. My wife (a latina) has been a big help.

    I’d like to quote your post in my journal, with your permission, of course.

  5. I’d argue that responsibility doesn’t go quite as far as you say it does.

    My family didn’t live in this country when it held slaves.

    That, and considering I am not a police officer, I am not a judge, I am not a prosecutor, I am not violent, nor am I a rapist, I am not responsible for the existence of rape or violence.

    To say I am responsible every second of every day for things I do not do, and have not done, is like saying you are responsible for that woman microwaving her baby, just because you’re both women.

    Considering I don’t commit the acts, and I am not vested with the legal power to do something about them directly, I am not in the least bit responsible for their existence.

  6. @Hellonhairylegs-
    Thanks! Sometimes I wish I was Australian too, especially now, so I didn’t have to hear about American politics all the time.

    @syndicalist702-
    Sure, go ahead. I have no problem with anyone quoting me as long as they do it correctly and attribute it to me.

  7. Hell, yeah!!

    That post is utterly brilliant.

  8. D, are you a dude? Just curious.

    Nice post Jen! Me like-y :)

  9. Yes! Yesyesyesyes! I hate seeing guys complaining about how bad they have it. It never seems to cross their minds that if things are bad for men AS WELL as women, that one doesn’t cancel out the other and that something should be done to change the situation so that EVERYONE can be happy.

  10. Considering I don’t commit the acts, and I am not vested with the legal power to do something about them directly, I am not in the least bit responsible for their existence.

    Apparently someone forgot how to read.

    For one thing, slavery is most certainly not a US-only phenomenon, and it didn’t only affect (and does not only affect) people of African descent. Most importantly though, you’ve entirely missed the point that Jenn was making, D. It doesn’t matter whether you participated in the oppression — actively or passively or consciously — of other people. What matters is that you benefit from the myriad ways that (mostly white, affluent) men have oppressed and continue to oppress women and minorities. Because of them, you are better off. And yet you have the fucking audacity to make your idiotic, condescending comment here. Fuck off, dude.

    Jenn, excellent post. Thank you for writing it.

  11. And yet you have the fucking audacity to make your idiotic, condescending comment here. Fuck off, dude.

    Yes, because telling me to “fuck off” is SO useful. Yawn, really.

    It’s not audacious for me to say “Sorry, not responsible.”

    I don’t do it, and I don’t have the legal ability to stop it.

    I’m sure that runs contrary to your apparent ideology of “Blame all men for all things”, but hey, sorry, can’t help you out there.

    Would you like me to blame you for things other women did/do?

  12. Can you seriously not read? No one here is BLAMING YOU individually for the fact that you benefit from men’s oppression of women. Wow you’re an idiot.

  13. Mmm, namecalling.

    This is such a mature debate.

    I much prefer debating with Jenn, thanks. She manages to make coherent, intelligent arguments that consist of more than “omg ur dum lawl”.

  14. Okay, let me pull a D here:

    Nowhere did I saw “omg ur dum lawl” or even “you’re dumb”. I generally don’t go around calling people mute, especially if I don’t know if they’re actually mute.

    I agree that Jenn makes coherent arguments. My point is that you have managed to miss the crux of her extremely well put-together argument which is that, whether you actively participate in misogyny or not, you benefit from the fact that our culture is pervasively misogynist. Lookie:

    If the shoe doesn’t fit, if you don’t beat, rape, torture, and kill, why are you threatened by the fact that your gender has been responsible for the systematic slavery, abuse, and fear of women for all of human history? Maybe it’s because you, smart dude that you are, have figured out that the above statement means that you are, in fact, currently benefiting from unearned privilege, and you have done so for the entirety of your past, and you probably will for the entirety of your future.

    See that? That’s not blaming you individually. No one is going to make you pay for the sins of your fathers and brothers. But you do share some responsibility for the women’s oppression by men if for no other reason than you continue to make misogynist and frankly stupid comments to various feminist blogs. If you don’t want to held accountable for patriarchy at all, stop acting like a damn agent of the patriarchy.

    Is it possible to have a debate when one person in the debate insists that strawman arguments are valid and reasonable? I think not.

  15. Nowhere did I saw “omg ur dum lawl” or even “you’re dumb”. I generally don’t go around calling people mute, especially if I don’t know if they’re actually mute.

    Semantics. Saying “You’re an idiot!” and having that little nugget of ad hominem be your entire argument is what I was getting at.

    See that? That’s not blaming you individually. No one is going to make you pay for the sins of your fathers and brothers.

    “Does this mean that you are responsible? Yes.”

    See that? That’s blaming individually.

    But you do share some responsibility for the women’s oppression by men if for no other reason than you continue to make misogynist and frankly stupid comments to various feminist blogs.

    Sorry, nope. I bear no responsibility for women’s issues. None. Accept that. I mean, if a guy has an unfaithful girlfriend, or a woman uses him for money, do you somehow share the collective blame for that, because you don’t speak out against it?

    See how silly it sounds when turned around?

    Also, there’s no such thing as an “agent of the patriarchy”. You make it out to sound like some collective Illuminati-style secret organization that’s “out to get you”. I dislike collective personification.

    Is it possible to have a debate when one person in the debate insists that strawman arguments are valid and reasonable? I think not.

    Yeah, so I’d say stop misrepresenting my position. Which, you know, they call ‘straw man’.

    I hate to be so blunt about it, but seriously. If I say something you don’t like, it doesn’t mean I hate women. I know the term “misogyny” is the favorite of the feminist bloggers, and you like to attach it to any and every male that says anything you don’t like, but, come on.

    Be rational. You can’t just say anyone who says something you don’t like hates women. It’s ridiculous.

    Saying that I’m not responsible for the actions of people who are not me, and for things I did not do is not “misogynist”.

    If being misogynist means I don’t endlessly apologize, or feel guilty for things that aren’t my fault, then call me a misogynist.

  16. I’m with L on this. He even said “be rational…” –rolls eye at seemingly identicalness of concern trolls-

    I’m going to keep this short D. What we’re saying is that you’re benefiting from being a male under patriarchy. We’re not blaming you specifically for the world’s problems. Now check your damn privilege.

  17. @D-
    I must confess that I am woefully unaccustomed to being referred to as nice or respectful in my rhetoric. Regardless, brusque or no, the other commenters in this thread have a point. The fundamental disconnect is that you are interpreting my post in a way which is incorrect, and I have no wish to debate a point that I have not put forward.

    Nevertheless, what seems to be the problem is that you are equating the responsibility of the founders of hierarchy with the responsibility that should rightly be attributed to those that benefit from hierarchy. They are not one and the same. One is born of malice and fear, the other from ignorance.

    If, as you say, you are not sexist in your day-to-day life, you do not refer to women as bitches or whores, and you do not associate yourself with rapists and misogynists and laugh at their antics, then you can wash yourself clean of the kind of responsibility active misogyny would grant.

    Nevertheless, one who does not oppose the current state of affairs is, in fact, implicit in them. One could actually make the point that one is implicit in the status-quo regardless of their opposition to it. For instance, I benefit daily from my whiteness. I have never felt the sting of racism, and it may be the case that there are certain things in my life that were granted to me by the prejudices of another or a corrupt system. Likewise, I benefit greatly from my able-bodiedness. I do not have to spend my days working around a disability. I do not have to fight for others to accommodate me in those things that I have a right to participate in.

    Nevertheless, I recognize that I wrongly benefit from this sort of priviledge. It is not a smear on my character to say that many of the things I have were born of wrongful priviledge rather than my innate ability or goodness. I simply do not deserve many of the things that a chance of birth has granted me. This point should be completely obvious and incontrovertible in all discussion.

    Thus, I am “responsible” not in the way that grants legal or moral culpability. This is a nuanced point that I might address in a later post with much reference to the legal theory/philosophy I have studied. However, I am responsible in the way that, for change to happen, I must recognize that I have no way of knowing that the achievements I attribute to myself were not born of privileged birth rather than a rising above the masses on some superiority I might wrongly attribute to myself. Colloquially, this is a type of humble introspection that is beyond many, especially given the selfish individualism inherent in the American capitalist social dialect.

    Through the considerable introspection and research I do, much of which is simply accomplished by the opportunity of putting words to paper (keyboard) here, I can avert some responsibility in that I know some of the mechanisms put in place by those who came before me that probably granted me things that others are barred from on wrongful premises.

    If you do not disavow the former, than you may share some of this lightening of responsibility. It is not, however, enough to admit the fallibility of entitlement, one must oppose it in the way that one sees fit. That is not to say, however, that self-destruction is a noble way of doing so. By simply surviving on the bare minimum of sustenance in America (and I do more than simply survive), I am damning others in poorer countries to industrial slavery for cheap goods by contributing, even minutely, to the demand. This parallels the way in which one might benefit from sexism.

    It it not possible for one, human as we are, to deny all forms of survival that wrongly oppress another. Such would result in death. It may be enough, however, to recognize that the way our world is structured is fundamentally unjust, and to devote oneself to opposing this injustice in the ways that would not be suicide.

    This is all that I mean by assuming responsibility.

  18. I’m with L on this. He even said “be rational…” –rolls eye at seemingly identicalness of concern trolls-

    Again, my point about buzzwords and catchphrases.

    “Concern troll”. “Omg, someone took my irrational reaction and told me to be rational! They are [insert buzzword here]!”

    Seriously, knock it off. It’s not conducive to any sort of productive, interesting debate when your only response is “Buzzword! Catchphrase! Term-of-the-week! Insult!”

    I must confess that I am woefully unaccustomed to being referred to as nice or respectful in my rhetoric.

    Well, I’ve debated/argued with you often enough to know the difference. One can be quite terse, and incredibly blunt without being a jackass. That’s the part that’s “respectful”.

    Peppering your retorts with insults, or worse, composing a retort entirely from insults, however, isn’t. That’s the point I’m getting at.

    You might come off as sharp, but you don’t tend to show up as a jackass in debate.

    If, as you say, you are not sexist in your day-to-day life, you do not refer to women as bitches or whores, and you do not associate yourself with rapists and misogynists and laugh at their antics, then you can wash yourself clean of the kind of responsibility active misogyny would grant.

    Well, when it comes to terms like “bitch”, that’s a shaky bit of ground. When someone acts in a certain way, do you have a better term to use? And no, please, don’t give me the “strong woman” bit. If someone is nasty, rude, and incredibly unpleasant for no other reason than they can be (for instance, calling my job and cursing me out because I dared to make the choice to close the office and send everyone home due to the potential hurricane), that’s not a “strong woman”. For lack of any better word, you’d say that’s a bitch.

    I mean, hey, if you have a better one, I’m all for it. I’m limited by the language itself, as I’m not fond of inventing new words for old situations.

    Whore is used if deserved. For instance, when I was still doing the foolishness of relationships, a woman spent our entire romance in someone else’s bed, whenever she wasn’t in mine. At her own admission, she had no real reason for doing it, other than she felt like fucking that person, too.

    I’d say “whore” to that. Because that’s the behaviour it embodies.

    Anyway. That digression aside, I don’t really associate myself with anyone, let alone rapists, etcetera.

    The only person I regularly have any real association with is my best friend, the lesbian. Whom I highly doubt is a misogynistic rapist. :P (especially given her lament on her sex life, and our ongoing joke about which of us has gone longer without sex. :P)

    One could actually make the point that one is implicit in the status-quo regardless of their opposition to it.

    Well, just as you can’t treat women worse based on the happenstance of breeding, why then should you say someone else is responsible for this or that, based on another random lottery of breeding?

    A lot of what you say ends up sounding like “No matter what you have, if someone else doesn’t have it, you should feel guilty about it”.

    Which I’m not going to do. I prize my mind, and my generally immense technical skill when it comes to anything electronic. Does that mean that’s “privilege”, and I should feel bad that someone else isn’t as good at these things as I am?

    If that’s what you’re getting at, I’m not going to feel guilty, and say I “don’t deserve” my intellect, my expertise, my artistic ability, etcetera. I would think it sort of crass to tell someone they don’t deserve something, just because they’re better at it than I am.

    If I’m barking up the wrong tree on that, then ignore it.

    olloquially, this is a type of humble introspection that is beyond many, especially given the selfish individualism inherent in the American capitalist social dialect.

    I don’t consider individualism to be selfish, as such.

    At the end of the day, the only person who will truly, permanently, always have your best interests at heart, is you.

    That’s not necessarily America, that’s pretty much humanity. Even animals do it. Protect the pack, sure, but if it’s that sick one over there, or everyone else… The sick one gets left behind.

    I prefer individualism, because I know that everything I’ve done, achieved, or earned, I did without standing on someone else’s shoulders. To borrow a phrase “Nobody never gave me nothin’.”

    By simply surviving on the bare minimum of sustenance in America (and I do more than simply survive), I am damning others in poorer countries to industrial slavery for cheap goods by contributing, even minutely, to the demand. This parallels the way in which one might benefit from sexism.

    Still, though, who is more at fault? The consumer that buys the goods… Or the foreign government that allows it to happen, and encourages it because it brings them profit?

    I dunno. I’m aware I have it better than people in the third world. However, I’m not exactly wealthy enough to lighten their burden, and considering the cost of living in OUR country, in 10 years, I may very well not even be wealthy enough to support my own.

    I know it’s an easy leap to assume that being white and male got me everything I want, but lemme tell you here, no f’n way.

    My family, for as many generations back as we can go, never had crap. Hell, my grandfather was born on the boat from Hungary. My other grandfather lied about his age so he could continue being a firefighter to feed his family. It resulted in his death, via heart attack, while saving lives in Chicago.

    My own father wasn’t even allowed to give his valedictorian speech because of his Tourette’s tic. We barely had money, because he chose to be a chiropractor, in a city where the main set of workers was… GM. Which didn’t cover chiropractics.

    He then died, and my mother had to figure out how to feed us. (Which, as an even larger aside, she thinks feminism is silly, but has probably done more real life feminist acts than most feminists I’ve ever met.)

    My whole point here is, being white and male never made me rich, it didn’t send me to college, it didn’t buy my first car, it didn’t provide me much of anything. I can’t honestly think of anything in my life that was sourced in being white, and male.

    I can name a shit-ton of things that I earned from being good at what I set out to do, or exercising a formerly indomitable will.

  19. If that’s what you’re getting at, I’m not going to feel guilty, and say I “don’t deserve” my intellect, my expertise, my artistic ability, etcetera. I would think it sort of crass to tell someone they don’t deserve something, just because they’re better at it than I am.

    Recognizing privilege isn’t about feeling guilty or not deserving what you get, but about recognizing that in belonging to a certain group, you have certain advantages that members of other groups don’t have, even if you don’t consciously take advantage of them. Allow me to direct you to “White Privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh. I think that gets the point across pretty succinctly:
    http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

    Also: I find “asshole” and “douche (bag/nozzle)” to be pretty good, gender neutral terms for mean people. And in calling your douchebag ex a whore for her behavior, you are labeling her with a term with no male equivalent, among other things. I mean, you can call a guy a whore, but he’s not going to really care; he might even like it! Calling a woman a whore, on the other hand, is an act loaded with thousands of years of male control over women’s bodies and sexuality. Apples and oranges.

  20. D is a Libertarian. I love Libertarians. They’re almost as funny as Die Hard movies.

  21. tl;dr

    Maturity kicks ass. So do ancient internet memes! Oh, be still my heart.

    D is a Libertarian. I love Libertarians. They’re almost as funny as Die Hard movies.

    Lol. #1, I don’t even know what a “libertarian” is. #2, even if I did, I don’t vote, and I don’t identify with any political party, regardless of my knowledge, or lack thereof, of their core values.

  22. I promise, you’d like ’em.

  23. I doubt it.

    Anyway, I could easily find some random political philosophy to stick to you, as well. I mean, if you agree with one single point they make, I could do like you and say “I promise, you’d like ’em.”.

    Can you even, say, perhaps tell me why you think I’m something I don’t even identify as?

  24. I love that this exchange is taking place in a thread about how men feel entitled to demand things of feminists. See, D, if you aren’t going to open yourself to charges of being a “what about the men” type, you’ll need to start looking things up for yourself rather than expecting us to explain them to you.

  25. Lol. No.

    I’m “demanding” something of a feminist, because a feminist saw fit to attempt to label me without my permission.

    Ergo, it’s rather up to you to justify your actions, not me.

    Accept responsibility, you know.

  26. Oh, I totally missed crankosaur’s post.

    And in calling your douchebag ex a whore for her behavior, you are labeling her with a term with no male equivalent, among other things.

    Well, to put a fine point on it, one does have to call a spade a spade. “Whore: a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse.”

    As for equivalent, thesaurus.com appears to be down, so I can only draw on what’s on the top of my head. The only thing I can pull is “lothario”.

    Point is, regardless of the term’s connotations, or what personal meaning some women take from it, when someone acts as a whore, do you have a better word? “jerk” doesn’t really cut it, does it?

    It has no real relation with control over sexuality. If you get into a monogamous relationship, you’re willingly putting yourself in a situation where you’re expected to exercise control over your sexuality, and you allow your partner to judge you if you do not.

  27. D – Almost all of your posts here and on my blog are demands that we explain things to you that you ought to find out on your own.

  28. I’m demanding you justify your labeling of me. I fail to see why I should bother researching your slander. If you label someone, it’s pretty much on you to clarify the why.

  29. I’m demanding you justify your labeling of me. I fail to see why I should bother researching your slander. If you label someone, it’s pretty much on you to clarify the why.

    You’re the one coming into someone else’s territory and demanding that the rules be changed just for you. YOU figure out why you’re being called a misogynist here — YOU’RE the one breaking the rules and getting called out on it.

    My opinion is that D is illiterate and cannot figure out the rules for the life of him. Get some male privilege mixed in there with that ignorance and you get basic fucking entitlement: “Well, I don’t know what’s going on, so I declare it wrong and I demand that you all change what you’re doing to suit my fancy!”

  30. You’re the one coming into someone else’s territory and demanding that the rules be changed just for you. YOU figure out why you’re being called a misogynist here — YOU’RE the one breaking the rules and getting called out on it.

    1, I haven’t “broken any rules”, 2, no one called me a misogynist, genius. She called me a “Libertarian”. 3, this isn’t Nine’s “territory”. Unless you assume she walked in and started pissing on things to “mark” her “territory”.

    My opinion is that D is illiterate and cannot figure out the rules for the life of him. Get some male privilege mixed in there with that ignorance and you get basic fucking entitlement: “Well, I don’t know what’s going on, so I declare it wrong and I demand that you all change what you’re doing to suit my fancy!”

    Again, it’s really quite humorous that you talk about someone being “illiterate”, when you’re the one making a statement based on your own lack of reading comprehension.

  31. “Misogynist” and “libertarian” are relatively interchangeable.

    And I didn’t say it was Nine’s territory. I’m saying you have entered into this community guns a’blazin’ demanding that Jenn and the rest of us change our views just because you’re here, D. That’s just rude behavior, and this isn’t the only place you’ve done it.

  32. “Misogynist” and “libertarian” are relatively interchangeable.

    Care to explain how? Like I said, it’s not up to me to research someone’s insult against me.

    Though, calling me a “misogynist” doesn’t really bother me. At all. Especially considering some feminists will accuse men of “hating women” for, well, everything. I’ve been accused of being a “misogynist” because I don’t date. At this point, the word has lost all meaning to me, because of how often and capriciously it’s used.

    And I didn’t say it was Nine’s territory. I’m saying you have entered into this community guns a’blazin’ demanding that Jenn and the rest of us change our views just because you’re here, D. That’s just rude behavior, and this isn’t the only place you’ve done it.

    I’ve been commenting here a long time.

    Secondly, I haven’t “demanded” anyone change their views, “just because I’m here”.

    I have noticed, however, you generally demanding I change MY views or attitudes because YOU’RE here.

  33. Does everybody see what’s happened to this thread? Jenn doesn’t deserve this intrusion.

  34. Level Best-
    I fully expected a “what about teh menz” post’s comments to be all about teh menz. I’m kind of letting it to prove my point.

  35. It’s certainly doing that, Jenn. Sorry for engaging in it.

  36. Yes, it definitely proves your point Jenn! Very nicely :) DUDE is taking it so personally, as if you wrote this post all special for him. Hee. Yeah dude, it’s not all about you!!!!

    What is a man doing on a feminist blog, calling women bitches and whores? Oh yeah, he’s here because he “likes to argue with Jenn.” Because to him, that’s all this is- arguing and debating. To us, it’s our lives. It actually matters.

    I betcha I could get bingo on this thread- he called women names, told us to be rational, posted numerous long posts, ignored the point of the thread, et cetera. Dang, where is my bingo card?

    I knew I smelled male privilege.

  37. I’m sorry for engaging in it too. I’m leaving it alone now.

  38. Yes, it definitely proves your point Jenn! Very nicely :) DUDE is taking it so personally, as if you wrote this post all special for him. Hee. Yeah dude, it’s not all about you!!!!

    All I did was begin an engagement about the incorrect views on responsibility.

    What is a man doing on a feminist blog, calling women bitches and whores?

    For one, I never called anyone here “bitches and whores”. To quote you: “It’s not all about you!”.

    I betcha I could get bingo on this thread- he called women names, told us to be rational, posted numerous long posts, ignored the point of the thread, et cetera. Dang, where is my bingo card?

    I never called any of you names, however, you called men names! Onoes! WHEREZ MAH BINGO CARD?”

    I told someone to be rational, because she was being irrational. It’s not “male privilege” to tell someone they’re being out of line, when they clearly are.

    Having a vagina and labeling yourself feminist does not mean every word out of your mouth is untouchable gospel, I’m afraid.

    I knew I smelled male privilege.

    You don’t even know what it means, apparently. You’re operating under the assumption that because I’m male, I’m walking around “privileged” and I have things just oh-so-much better than you ever will.

    Get a clue.

  39. Oh, D. You called your ex a whore in this very thread:

    Whore is used if deserved. For instance, when I was still doing the foolishness of relationships, a woman spent our entire romance in someone else’s bed, whenever she wasn’t in mine. At her own admission, she had no real reason for doing it, other than she felt like fucking that person, too.

    I’d say “whore” to that. Because that’s the behaviour it embodies.

    I can’t believe how ridiculously pompous and righteous you’re acting.

  40. I told someone to be rational, because she was being irrational. It’s not “male privilege” to tell someone they’re being out of line, when they clearly are.

    Actually, that’s about the textbook definition of male priviledge right there. Confused? Try here or here or here or here.

    That’s all the work I’m going to do for you D.

  41. It appears D has already been to the PHMT link over at FF101.

    There’s no reasoning with this asshole.

  42. Oh, I know male privilege all right. I could smell it all over every single one of your nasty posts. YOU clearly do not know what it is, silly man. Again, I wonder what you are doing on a feminist blog. Are you here to learn? Or just to argue with the “irrational” feminists?

    To the others- what is up with men always wanting people to be “rational” all the time, and they get to decide what “rational” means? Grrrr. I hate that!

  43. Actually, that’s about the textbook definition of male priviledge right there.

    Oh, so it’s the “textbook definition” of “male privilege”, when someone makes a false assumption and I correct them?

    I’m not allowed to do that? To be blunt, fuck that. Being a feminist and claiming someone has “male privilege” doesn’t make all your statements untouchable, sorry.

    I was basically told I “hate women” because I said something the person didn’t like. That’s irrational.

    There’s no reasoning with this asshole.

    Mm, more namecalling. What fun!

    Oh, I know male privilege all right. I could smell it all over every single one of your nasty posts. YOU clearly do not know what it is, silly man. Again, I wonder what you are doing on a feminist blog. Are you here to learn? Or just to argue with the “irrational” feminists?

    Uh huh, whatever you say, “silly woman”.

    Again, being male never got me anything. So, really.

    My purpose is my own. I can do as I please, amazingly enough. It’s not your job to “teach me”, as you put it. Way to be condescending.

    To the others- what is up with men always wanting people to be “rational” all the time, and they get to decide what “rational” means? Grrrr. I hate that!

    I hate when people make irrational statements like “I disagree with you, therefore you hate women!”, and then tell me I “hate women” because I point out that they’re making irrational statements.

    How entertaining. Really.

  44. Oh, D. You called your ex a whore in this very thread: I can’t believe how ridiculously pompous and righteous you’re acting.

    Yeah, and is she here? No.

    It’s not pompous at all.

    I’m sure you’d have very nasty words for a man that cheated on his girlfriend, no?

    I suppose it’s SO terrible to call a woman who did what she did a “whore”.

    I suppose you’d be more comfortable if I called it “A woman who is in control of her own sexuality, and choosing to show that no man owns her body”, right?

    I mean, let’s applaud foul behaviour, as long as women are the ones doing it, right?

  45. Being male never got you anything? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! That is the funniest joke I’ve heard all month! And yeah, I’m white, but I certainly don’t have white privilege! I mean, sheesh, being white never got me anything. Oh wait, yes it did. Oopsy.

    And yes, it IS SO TERRIBLE to call a woman a whore. Since you asked and everything. Same with bitch. Don’t call women whores and bitches. Mkay?

    I asked you what you are doing here because I really want to know. You don’t seem to want to listen to what anyone is saying, you prefer to insult us and then blab on and on about your beliefs. What makes you think anyone here is interested in what you think? You think we haven’t heard the crap you are spouting a million times, from a million different “completely unprivileged” men? Well, we have. It’s not new. It’s not interesting.

    Sorry Jen, for feeding the troll.

  46. Oh I see, it’s ok to call a woman a whore behind her back. I get it. That must be that male “rationality” that you speak so much of.

  47. Look, all I’m saying is you said you didn’t call women bitches and whores, and — lo and behold! — you did. You’re a liar or an idiot or both. Nowhere have I made any judgments or inferences about the quality of your ex’s character or applauded “foul behavior.”

  48. Being male never got you anything? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! That is the funniest joke I’ve heard all month! And yeah, I’m white, but I certainly don’t have white privilege! I mean, sheesh, being white never got me anything. Oh wait, yes it did. Oopsy.

    Prove it did.

    I’ll wait.

    And yes, it IS SO TERRIBLE to call a woman a whore. Since you asked and everything. Same with bitch. Don’t call women whores and bitches. Mkay?

    So, when someone is a whore, I shouldn’t call them a whore. Got it. Since she’s a woman, I should tell her how awesome and liberated she’s being, and congratulate her on defying stereotypes?

    No. If you’re in a monogamous relationship, and you decide to sleep around behind your partners back, you’re a whore. The end.

    You don’t seem to want to listen to what anyone is saying, you prefer to insult us and then blab on and on about your beliefs.

    Are you talking to a mirror? You prefer to insult me, and then blab on and on, and don’t listen to a thing I say. :)

    Oh I see, it’s ok to call a woman a whore behind her back. I get it. That must be that male “rationality” that you speak so much of.

    No, someone said I “called women names”. Plural. Multiple. Appeared to be related to women here. Which I pointed out that I called no women here names.

    I called a single one a single name.

    Which I repeatedly asked “Do you have a better one?” Ignored. Asked if you’d demand no insults be leveled at a man who did the same thing. Ignored.

    Sorry, but if a woman acts like a whore, I’m going to call her a whore. There’s nothing respectable or great about sleeping around behind the back of your partner.

  49. Well, then you are just a fucking sexist pig, so fuck off asswipe.

  50. Oh, I’m a sexist pig? You STILL haven’t explained why, or said an alternative.

    So, if a woman cheats on her partner, she’s NOT a whore, and we can’t ever say anything bad about her, because she’s a woman!

    If a man does the same, we can say lots of bad things about him, though.

    Please. You aren’t allowed to tell me I can’t call a spade a spade. You don’t control my language, and you certainly don’t control me.

  51. Yep, you are a sexist pig. Anyone agree with me?

    I don’t need to explain why to you. Don’t demand an explanation from me. Do your own fucking work, piggy.

  52. Dude, that’s not even acting “like a whore.” Was your ex a sex-worker? Did she earn money for performing sex acts? No? Then she wasn’t “acting like a whore.”

    There’s nothing respectable or great about demeaning women with gendered slurs, whether it’s to their faces or behind their backs, either, you know.

    The problem with “whore” is that it is a gendered slur. It connotes only women. I’d be fucking pissed if my male partner cheated on me, since our relationship is built on the understanding that we are monogamous, but if I called him a “whore,” it’d be either value-neutral or a compliment, depending on the listener’s context. There is no way to make “whore” value-neutral or positive when you’re talking about women. To call a woman a whore is to denigrate women’s sexuality as well as the humanity of sex workers; it is to invoke the tired madonna/whore dichotomy that limits the choices about sexuality that women can make.

    If she’s a cheater, she’s a cheater. If she’s an asshole, she’s an asshole. There are plenty of other words to talk about “foul behavior” that don’t call up misogynist and sexist conceptions of women’s sexuality and that don’t promote the assumption that the only good woman is a controlled woman.

  53. I don’t need to explain why to you. Don’t demand an explanation from me. Do your own fucking work, piggy.

    Lol. As I already pointed out, it’s not up to me to research your insults. It’s up to you to offer justification for them.

    Dude, that’s not even acting “like a whore.” Was your ex a sex-worker? Did she earn money for performing sex acts? No? Then she wasn’t “acting like a whore.”

    The first definition in the dictionary is “A promiscuous woman”. The very first one.

    Thanks, come again.

    There’s nothing respectable or great about demeaning women with gendered slurs, whether it’s to their faces or behind their backs, either, you know.

    When you sleep around on a partner, you demean yourself. Having someone put a name to it isn’t demeaning.

    The problem with “whore” is that it is a gendered slur. It connotes only women.

    Yeah, and “whore” means promiscuous woman, and it was applied to, yes, a promiscuous woman.

    I’d be fucking pissed if my male partner cheated on me, since our relationship is built on the understanding that we are monogamous, but if I called him a “whore,” it’d be either value-neutral or a compliment, depending on the listener’s context.

    And you’re saying you’d call him NO names whatsoever? I highly doubt this.

    To call a woman a whore is to denigrate women’s sexuality as well as the humanity of sex workers; it is to invoke the tired madonna/whore dichotomy that limits the choices about sexuality that women can make.

    See, my point is, you come off sounding as though you’re defending or justifying her actions when you put it like this.

    There are plenty of other words to talk about “foul behavior” that don’t call up misogynist and sexist conceptions of women’s sexuality and that don’t promote the assumption that the only good woman is a controlled woman.

    AAaaaaand there it is.

    I knew it was coming. So, what you’re saying, is by daring to expect my partner to be faithful, I was “controlling” her.

    So, then. Are you saying your boyfriend is only good because he’s a controlled man?

  54. D, since you’re all over the place on my blog pretending to be a philologist of gendered insults, I’ll have to point out that your use of the word “whore” is, in fact, incorrect.

    Here’s the thing I think isn’t getting through: this blog is not a place for the discussion of whether feminism is “right” or not. We operate under the assumption that feminism is needed, and that women are oppressed across the world. Those two things are facts. We also realize that a large part of the reason women are oppressed is that men are running around acting as if every thing they have they’ve earned with no help, when in reality it’s women’s unpaid labor, women’s exclusion from higher positions in education, government, and business that allows men the success they think they’ve earned. Men have created and continue to define our culture (including the definition of what is “rational), both in the social and political senses, and they do so for their own benefit. You may find it easy to waltz through life thinking you’ve done it all yourself, but there are institutional forces at work that allow everything you achieve to happen. You couldn’t have done it without them. Until you recognize that fact, there’s little that can be said. (And that is what I meant in calling you a Libertarian. They believe that we all operate in a vacuum and that all is determined by personal will. It’s a pretty foolish ideology, and one most people drop by the time they get old enough to drive.)

    You may think that the issues you are raising are going to somehow cause some kind of enlightenment among us feminists, that you are bringing things to light that we’ve never considered. That, pal, is VERY presumptuous, and it tells me that you think you’re smarter than we are. Tell me, what education, what special knowledge, what special experience do you have that you think makes you better qualified to pronounce on gender issues than Jenn, L, buggle, or myself? I assure you, whatever they may be, that you’re kidding yourself.

    The thing is, I’ve been quite lazy in my responses to you because I’ve had to write the same fucking thing over and over so many times that I don’t care to bother anymore. That does not equal my being unable to meet your objections, but it rather means that what you are saying is so unoriginal, so myopic, and so uninteresting as to not warrant my expending the energy required to respond. That is what we mean when we tell you you’re trying to make this a “what about the men” discussion. It means you, as a man, are demanding that we answer your objections to our ideas, when you could just as easily search through our posts, or the posts of others, and find exactly the answers you demand from us. It doesn’t mean we are saying you want to talk only about men’s issues, but rather that you want us to stop our discussion and address your concerns, that you feel entitled to our time and responses. You aren’t.

    Oh, and you’re banned from my blog. Welcome to the club of 9.

  55. The dictionary I looked at didn’t even have “promiscuous woman” as a definition. You’re not relying on wikipedia or urbandictionary, are you?

    And you’re saying you’d call him NO names whatsoever? I highly doubt this.

    I’m not exactly sure how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. I didn’t say I wouldn’t call him names. I said that whatever I called him likely wouldn’t have the same connotative weight as calling a woman a “whore” or a “slut” because male sexuality isn’t under the same microscope as female sexuality.

    See, my point is, you come off sounding as though you’re defending or justifying her actions when you put it like this.

    Until you can show me where I’m saying that cheating is okay when the context of the relationship makes it clear that it’s not, you can drop this line of argument.

    I knew it was coming. So, what you’re saying, is by daring to expect my partner to be faithful, I was “controlling” her.

    Well, were you controlling her? Did you decide jointly that this was a monogamous relationship? Or did you assume or, worse, tell her that it was a monogamous relationship? Was there a disagreement about what monogamous meant in the context of your relationship? Did you listen to what she had to say about what being in a relationship means to her? Or did you just assume that you both were on the same page? Did you discuss what it means to cheat in both of your eyes? It’s not as simple as “she was a whore.”

    I’m not saying you were controlling her; I obviously wouldn’t know. I’m saying that mainstream conceptions of women’s sexuality revolve around whether women’s sexuality is out of men’s control or not. Using “whore” to describe actions borne out of very complex circumstances is evidence of this cultural context because it exhibits anxiety about the sexual choices that women make. This goes beyond your personal relationship squabble, if you haven’t picked up on that.

    So, then. Are you saying your boyfriend is only good because he’s a controlled man?

    No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Please read what I’ve written and try to draw reasonable conclusions from that rather than from your stupid assumptions.

  56. D, since you’re all over the place on my blog pretending to be a philologist of gendered insults, I’ll have to point out that your use of the word “whore” is, in fact, incorrect.

    You know you’ve hit rock bottom when your argument consists of “I’m right, and the dictionary is wrong!”.

    Here’s the thing I think isn’t getting through: this blog is not a place for the discussion of whether feminism is “right” or not.

    Never said it was.

    Those two things are facts. We also realize that a large part of the reason women are oppressed is that men are running around acting as if every thing they have they’ve earned with no help, when in reality it’s women’s unpaid labor, women’s exclusion from higher positions in education, government, and business that allows men the success they think they’ve earned.

    No such thing provided what I have. Sorry, no “women’s unpaid labor” provided me a thing. I don’t have a girlfriend who I make clean my house, or any such.

    You may think that the issues you are raising are going to somehow cause some kind of enlightenment among us feminists, that you are bringing things to light that we’ve never considered. That, pal, is VERY presumptuous, and it tells me that you think you’re smarter than we are.

    It’s VERY presumptuous to assume you know what I’m thinking, or that you’re somehow required to “educate” the “stupid man”, and it tells me you think you’re smarter than I am.

    Tell me, what education, what special knowledge, what special experience do you have that you think makes you better qualified to pronounce on gender issues than Jenn, L, buggle, or myself? I assure you, whatever they may be, that you’re kidding yourself.

    And what makes you more educated? Having a vagina? It doesn’t impart special knowledge, you know.

    I could easily say you’re too close to the issue, too biased, and can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Oh, and you’re banned from my blog. Welcome to the club of 9.

    Ohnoes. My heart is breaking. Really. Whatever. Shall. I. Do?

    How presumptuous of you to assume that your blog is somehow bigger than the world.

    The dictionary I looked at didn’t even have “promiscuous woman” as a definition. You’re not relying on wikipedia or urbandictionary, are you?

    Webster’s.

    Until you can show me where I’m saying that cheating is okay when the context of the relationship makes it clear that it’s not, you can drop this line of argument.

    Well, you’re saying “Despite her acting like a whore, you can’t call her a whore!”

    Well, were you controlling her? Did you decide jointly that this was a monogamous relationship? Or did you assume or, worse, tell her that it was a monogamous relationship?

    When two people enter into a monogamous relationship, it’s no more me controlling her, than her controlling me.

    It’s a mutual agreement of terms. You don’t enter into an exclusive relationship, demand fidelity from your partner, but not have it expected of you in return.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with telling someone that it’s a monogamous relationship. If you state to a potential partner that you are not interested in so-called “open” relationships, and they say they want to be with you, then that’s an agreement to monogamous terms.

    Was there a disagreement about what monogamous meant in the context of your relationship?

    None whatsoever. Especially considering she had a keen interest in keeping an eye on any and every woman I associated with as friends.

    Did you discuss what it means to cheat in both of your eyes? It’s not as simple as “she was a whore.”

    You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who believes in being monogamous, who doesn’t find repeated acts of intercourse to be cheatnig.

    That said, what cheating meant was clearly outlined.

    I’m not saying you were controlling her; I obviously wouldn’t know. I’m saying that mainstream conceptions of women’s sexuality revolve around whether women’s sexuality is out of men’s control or not.

    I could easily say getting angry at a cheating man is a woman being upset that his sexuality is out of her control.

    Using “whore” to describe actions borne out of very complex circumstances is evidence of this cultural context because it exhibits anxiety about the sexual choices that women make.

    What’s complex about it? She got the selfish itch for orgasm from someone else, and then scratched it.

  57. D – you’re totally and completely missing the point of my fellow feminist commenters. I really don’t have any sort of desire to do your homework for you. My thoughts on that lie really close to the last thing Nine Deuce said, but I’m not going to type it out. If they, awesome people that they are, want to continue to “debate” that’s fine with me as long as the thread stays somewhat civil. Otherwise, I’m going to start using that ban hammer priviledge I posses.

    Nevertheless, I find it extremely illuminating how a post about male priviledge has a man defending his right to call a woman a whore, and then mischaracterizing the arguments of others to “prove” his point.

    Classy.

  58. No, D, I don’t think my vagina qualifies me as educated. What I do think qualifies me is the fact that I’ve been thinking, reading, and writing about these issues for over a decade, and the fact that I’m actually educated. I may be close to the issue, but that makes me more, not less, qualified to speak on it. You have come here to tell me that my perspective is all fucked up, that I can’t see the forest for the trees, which means you think you understand these issues better than I do because you have some kind of remove. Well, guess what, stupid? Intelligent people are able to see things at a remove and see the broader context in which things take place. I can do that, and I have done plenty of it. You are the one who’s unable to do so. Do you really think I was referring to one specific woman’s unpaid labor as a factor in male privilege? Christ. Go to school, read a book, but stop pretending you understand what we’re saying. Face it, dude, you are IN OVER YOUR HEAD here.

  59. Let me add to that. I can see clearly that this discussion is over your head because I can understand all of the points you are making/raising and the spots where you seem to refuse (I say are maybe unable) to understand what we are saying. I see all of this because I can remember having similar thoughts before I acquired the tools necessary to see beyond them. I promise, someday you’ll be really embarrassed.

  60. And I mean you’ll be embarrassed much in the same way I might be now over some of my more polemical and misinformed lower division papers from undergrad, because I now know much more about what I was writing about then and have deemed what I was saying before to be simplistic and myopic.

  61. D – you’re totally and completely missing the point of my fellow feminist commenters. I really don’t have any sort of desire to do your homework for you. My thoughts on that lie really close to the last thing Nine Deuce said, but I’m not going to type it out. If they, awesome people that they are, want to continue to “debate” that’s fine with me as long as the thread stays somewhat civil. Otherwise, I’m going to start using that ban hammer priviledge I posses.

    I’ve been nothing but civil. Unlike some, I don’t resort to slinging insults and namecalling.

    Nevertheless, I find it extremely illuminating how a post about male priviledge has a man defending his right to call a woman a whore, and then mischaracterizing the arguments of others to “prove” his point.

    Classy.

    Well, hey, they’ve mischarcterized MY point repeatedly. So, what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander? I’m defending my right to call a spade a spade. If someone acts in a way befitting a certain term, do you have a better one that means the same thing?

    You have come here to tell me that my perspective is all fucked up, that I can’t see the forest for the trees, which means you think you understand these issues better than I do because you have some kind of remove.

    Well, you’re acting as though you’re the final authority on everything. I’d lay even money that if I was a woman, you’d take me a lot more seriously.

    Well, guess what, stupid? Intelligent people are able to see things at a remove and see the broader context in which things take place.</i.

    Which you’re failing to do. You’re seeing your point, and nothing else. You’re viewing everything through the lens in which you choose to see. You’re automatically arguing from a point of “Everything he says is wrong. Everything I say is right. He’s stupid.”, and that’s why you can’t see any points I make. The ones you DO somewhat see, are colored by your bias, anyway, and the point doesn’t get across.

    You see what you want to see, and that’s about it.

    Do you really think I was referring to one specific woman’s unpaid labor as a factor in male privilege? Christ. Go to school, read a book, but stop pretending you understand what we’re saying. Face it, dude, you are IN OVER YOUR HEAD here.

    At this, I could easily, oh so easily, say “Check your privilege”. Not everyone can go to college, you know.

    Well, you’ve yet to be able to come up with any “unpaid labor” from a woman that helped me get where I am. Don’t even get me into the “unpaid labor” bit, because more often than not, I see feminists claiming a stay-at-home wife/girlfriend is doing “unpaid labor”, despite her not contributing anything else whatsoever to the household.

    Let me add to that. I can see clearly that this discussion is over your head because I can understand all of the points you are making/raising and the spots where you seem to refuse (I say are maybe unable) to understand what we are saying.

    I could say the same thing about you, you know.

    And I mean you’ll be embarrassed much in the same way I might be now over some of my more polemical and misinformed lower division papers from undergrad, because I now know much more about what I was writing about then and have deemed what I was saying before to be simplistic and myopic.

    Translation: “When you see things MY way, (because I’m right, all the time, no matter what) you’ll realize you’re a big dumb male and how smart I am, because I’m a woman!”

    I’ll pass.

  62. I’m kind of like you in that I think it’s a big deal that, despite the fact that no one in my family went to college (or even graduated from high school, save for a few outliers), I managed to go. But, unlike you, I’m not going to pretend that I got there without the benefit of any privileges. I’m white. I come from a middle-class family, I went to schools with decent funding, I’m able-bodied, and so on. You don’t have to say that none of your achievements belong to you to admit they aren’t solely of your making.

    The unpaid labor I’m referring to is a part of the forest you don’t seem to see. Women working for free in order that men can work outside the home has contributed more than any other single factor to the development of our form of culture and its successes. If men didn’t have women taking care of their kids and their needs, they would not have been able to do any of the things you all seem so proud of. The foundations of everything in this society were built on unpaid female labor just as much as paid male labor. Get it? That women have been excluded from public life makes your success in it all the easier. What’s so hard to understand?

    I’m not the final authority on many things, nor do I claim to be, but I most certainly know more about this subject than you do. And if you think I’d treat arguments like yours from a woman differently, see my cougar thread, in which a woman named Spectator takes a similar tack to yours. Not that I need to defend treating women and men differently. Women aren’t generally imperious toward women in the same way men are, and I thus view them with a less jaundiced eye until they prove I ought not to.

    You think I’m not taking your points because I’m biased? Did you ever consider the fact that your points aren’t convincing? Everything you’ve said is sophomoric and is something I’ve heard a million times. There is absolutely nothing going on here that’s above my head, and that you think you could tell me there is highlights your absurd and unwarranted hubris.

    I’ll say this once more: I’m not right because I’m a woman, I’m right because I know more about this than you do. You’re an ill-informed boor, and you don’t even realize it. You are the poster boy for the kind of thing Jenn wrote this post about. Thanks for making her point for her.

  63. I’m kind of like you in that I think it’s a big deal that, despite the fact that no one in my family went to college (or even graduated from high school, save for a few outliers), I managed to go. But, unlike you, I’m not going to pretend that I got there without the benefit of any privileges. I’m white. I come from a middle-class family, I went to schools with decent funding, I’m able-bodied, and so on. You don’t have to say that none of your achievements belong to you to admit they aren’t solely of your making.

    Except I didn’t go to college. Whilst I do happen to be white, I didn’t come from a middle-class family, and I didn’t go to schools with decent funding. I don’t class “able-bodied” under “unearned privilege”. That’s guilt-talk, trying to make someone feel bad for being born with a fully functional body.

    The unpaid labor I’m referring to is a part of the forest you don’t seem to see. Women working for free in order that men can work outside the home has contributed more than any other single factor to the development of our form of culture and its successes. If men didn’t have women taking care of their kids and their needs, they would not have been able to do any of the things you all seem so proud of. The foundations of everything in this society were built on unpaid female labor just as much as paid male labor. Get it? That women have been excluded from public life makes your success in it all the easier. What’s so hard to understand?

    Well, who is taking care of the woman’s needs? Oh, right. The guy working. That’s why it’s not “unpaid labor”, as such. You get a house to live in, electricity to use, food to eat, amenities to enjoy…all for what? Cleaning up once a week? Sounds like a pretty good deal, to me.

    I’d be glad to date a rich woman and do a bunch of her “unpaid labor” if that’s how it works.

    I’ve had one live-in girlfriend, which was enough for me to realize how bad an idea that is. She quit her job a month in, and sat around eating my food and playing Gamecube, doing absolutely nothing, and being completely useless, and got insulted at the mere suggestion she lift a finger and maybe do something around the house.

    “That’s sexist”, she said.

    I’m not the final authority on many things, nor do I claim to be, but I most certainly know more about this subject than you do.

    Yeah, and there’s lots of things I know more about than you do, but even when they get brought up, you still act as though you’re the authority.

    Not that I need to defend treating women and men differently. Women aren’t generally imperious toward women in the same way men are, and I thus view them with a less jaundiced eye until they prove I ought not to.

    My point exactly.

    There’s nothing egalitarian or equitable about giving preferential treatment to one, while denying it to another. Isn’t that the complaint you have about the current system?

    There is absolutely nothing going on here that’s above my head, and that you think you could tell me there is highlights your absurd and unwarranted hubris.

    I say the same to you.

    You’re an ill-informed boor, and you don’t even realize it.

    I say the same to you.

  64. Oops, missed a bit:

    And if you think I’d treat arguments like yours from a woman differently, see my cougar thread, in which a woman named Spectator takes a similar tack to yours.

    Oh, no. Wouldn’t want to do that. Since I’m banned and all. :P

  65. You can say the same to me, but it’s a bit silly. I’m ill-informed on gender issues? Something involving gender issues is going over my head? I think there are a few people who might disagree with you, but where are the people who’d disagree with my statement that you’re ill-informed? [cue sound of crickets chirping]

    Anyway, I’m done with you. You’ve served your purpose in proving Jenn’s point and there’s no further point in my discussing anything with you. I’m only sorry I’ve yet to develop the cynicism I need to not bother engaging with people like you in the first place.

  66. You can say the same to me, but it’s a bit silly. I’m ill-informed on gender issues? Something involving gender issues is going over my head? I think there are a few people who might disagree with you, but where are the people who’d disagree with my statement that you’re ill-informed?

    You’re ill-informed on anything that speaks on male perspective, yep. Sure, you can talk about things that involve women, and the perspective of women, but outside of that? No.

    Also, having an opinion, and saying that you’re correct, doesn’t mean someone who disagrees is “ill-informed”.

  67. The entire world is dominated by men’s perspective. Fuck off and allow us a space to discuss our own.

  68. The entire world is dominated by men’s perspective. Fuck off and allow us a space to discuss our own.

    Except far too many feminists seem to think they’re qualified to speak on it.

    Or, in many cases, not only speak on it, but in fact, tell us what our experience is, or worse, tell us what it “should” be.

    Basically, a great many things feminists accuse men of doing to them.

  69. Nine Deuce, I commend your patience with this assclown. If he was truly interested in learning, he wouldn’t be saying the crap that he is. Do these guys have any idea how BORING they are? They all say the same shit and expect us to be fascinated by it.

    I’m out

  70. Nine Deuce, I commend your patience with this assclown. If he was truly interested in learning, he wouldn’t be saying the crap that he is.

    Mm, more namecalling. Mature. Enlightened, even.

    “Interested in learning”. Again with the pretentious “feminist knows best, stupid man!” attitude.

    Do these guys have any idea how BORING they are? They all say the same shit and expect us to be fascinated by it.

    Do these gals have any idea how BORING they are? They all say the same shit and expect us to be fascinated by it.

  71. Oh, yeah? Well so are you. Na-na-na-na-na-na. What a fucking baby.

  72. Again with the pretentious “feminist knows best, stupid man!” attitude… Do these gals have any idea how BORING they are? They all say the same shit and expect us to be fascinated by it.

    You’ve been greylisted D. All your comments will now go to moderation before I approve them. Keep it up and I’ll make it a blacklist.

  73. D – As one last gesture, I’d like to recommend two books to you that I think might make you reconsider the idea that we all operate in a vacuum and don’t benefit from the oppression of other social classes:

    White by Law by Ian Haney Lopez, and When Affirmative Action was White by Ira Katznelson.

    I don’t particularly agree with all of the conclusions these two draw, and I don’t support Katznelson’s prescriptions for current policy, but these two books are helpful in illustrating the ways individuals benefit from institutionalized discrimination.

  74. Folks like D, who are completely oblivious to the effect that have on others, make my blood boil.

  75. 702 – I’m almost positive that he did it all on purpose to prove Jenn’s point. OK, I wish.

  76. I’m not a misogynist!

    five posts later…

    And my ex is a whore.

  77. And you feminists are all stupid.

  78. Also: I’m rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you nanny-nanny-boo-boo stick your head in doo-doo!!!1

  79. Exactly, L. I really liked that tactic. I’d tell him he was misinformed, then he’d say I was as if saying so made it so. He was pretty much a classic “what about the men” guy.

  80. Well, his response to the grey-list was enough to immediately put him on the blacklist.

  81. Hahahaha, that is excellent. I’d like to see what he said because I’m sort of masochist like that, but I understand if you don’t want to take this thread any farther off-topic than it already is.

  82. What a fucking moron.
    “My life was hard, so I don’t have privilege!”
    Look at any intro sociology book and you’ll see that (GASP!) you don’t have to FEEL privilege to HAVE it, and you can simultaneously be privileged and oppressed. I try to be patient with people just in case they’re just misinformed, but D doesn’t want to actually learn anything about the points of views of others, he just wants to argue.

  83. I am surprised that this classic comment thread, with “D” taking all the honors, has not yet been zapped into oblivion. It does not make the feminists look good at all. Thank heavens we have archived it for eternity! ;)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: