Rachel Lucas explains why she is steamed that stores are selling male bashing merchandise: "Some have asked me why I bother getting pissed about this kind of thing, and the reason is because it’s wrong. It’s hypocritical and unproductive. It deepens the rifts between men and women, it puts men on the defensive, and personally I don’t LIKE men being on the defensive because they’re just as difficult to deal with as bitchy women. It foments contention and has absolutely no redeeming value. It’s just like “reverse” racism - which we all know is actual racism - and any woman who thinks those captions are “cute” or “funny” is no smarter or more enlightened than your average chauvinist pig."
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 5:26 PM
37 Comments:
As far as putting men on the defensive goes, I think male-bashing merchandise is a drop of water on a hot stone. There are certainly many other things going on in society that may put a crimp in men's desire to be what she apparently wants.
Today's (Aug 19th) issue of the Star Ledger (NJ) has an article on back-to-school clothes. The models are three Caucasian females: Two teens(?)and a 5-6 year old; two blacks: one light skinned (the main image) and one darker skinned; one and only one white male of the same age as the youngest female. The boy and girl were dressed similarly in t-shirt and pants and had similar haircuts: the sex of the boy was blurred to become merged into the girl's.
Now if you were a relatively intelligent Caucasian kid or teen, what would be your conclusion regarding your place in society, in school, and as a clothing market?
Wouldn't you rebel in clothing style, in school, and socially?
She was going pretty good until she uttered this unmitigated bullshit---
" The whole trend of women being able to say whatever hateful thing they want about men and getting away with it is rooted in the fact that women were oppressed by men for thousands of years."
1. " "Trend"-- its been a torrent of abuse for about 40 years now.
2. "Fact"-- "that women were oppressed by men for thousands of years "!--- thats feminist bullshit. What an absurdity.
Thanks so much for forgiving us our thousands of years of oppressing you !
The mean-spiritedness is the issue, I believe. Unfairly attacking fellow human beings because of the class they were born into is simply wrong, even if done "in fun."
But let's be frank: most men -- rightly or wrongly -- do not feel threatened by such things, or by women in general. I wish men were more observant that we, as a class, are unfairly stereotyped in certain respects. In some important ways (e.g., in the effort to be seen as a full-fledged parents), men do themselves a disservice by being oblivious to these sorts of things.
But still, I must admit, I admire the male spirit that refuses to view itself as a victim. We are stranded in an age of hyper-self-awareness and far too many people are all-too-ready to declare themselves "victims" of one sort of "oppression" or another. Perhaps men, who have been tempered by millions of years of evolution to overcome the greatest foes, could never be threatened by some woman's coffee mug; perhaps it's because we have too damn many responsibilities to wallow in the victimhood mud. Whatever the reason, I do not think such things dent the male self-esteem, and a part of me is glad.
If one were to take the logic behind the ancient oppression argument used by feminists to its natural conclusion, it would allow for all manner of unsavory things like giving Jews a blank check to murder Germans, American Indians to rob non-Indians and the Koreans and Chinese to rape and pillage modern Japan. After all, the argument is essentially that the sins of the father are carried down to the child, and thus the child must bear the punishment for those sins.
Playing the same game that feminists play, can we now call this hate speech and sue claiming that our civil rights have been violated.
What really galls me, is that if everyone is still so oppressed by men, then how do these things even make it on to store shelves, let alone get produced? This is the hypocrisy of the feminist movement, and the biggest lie that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by those seeking oppression....ooops, I mean equality.
The whole trend of women being able to say whatever hateful thing they want about men and getting away with it is rooted in the fact that women were oppressed by men for thousands of years.
Even if I believed that, when did men as a class ever utter such hateful things about women?
"Men" have not been "oppressing women for thousands of years," that's feminist BS that accurately finds the nuclear family as a threat to the ability to share the "Big Man" ... the ideal being Rielle Hunter as the mistress of John Edwards.
Feminists have no problem with female genital mutilation, honor killings, honor rapes, forced/arranged marriages, polygamy, burquas, and the like, as long as they are done by non-Western men. After all, non-Western cultural men are their allies against the nuclear family.
Men generally don't care about these kinds of merchandise or shirts, if they are already in a relationship. What concerns I think Lucas and other women is the effect of men in the relationship market.
If you are considering a relationship with a woman, if you're not married etc., this male bashing WILL enhance pre-existing tendencies to form negative attitudes. Be less willing to commit, to be faithful, to not dump/drop if things appear heading south, and so on.
For women not looking for long-term relationships, this is no big deal. But for women looking for a long-term relationship, men constantly bashed in the commercial marketplace will have a marginal negative effect on behavior.
Lucas can see that, and she's not wrong on it either.
What's interesting is that when women come out against some kind of bad treatment of men in society, it seems to always be rooted in self-interest.
Rachel doesn't like male-bashing merchandise BECAUSE IT MAKES MEN ACT IN A MORE NEGATIVE WAY TOWARDS HER.
Some women call for something to be done about the huge gender imbalance at colleges BECAUSE WOMEN MAY HAVE TROUBLE "MARRYING UP" IN THE FUTURE IF MEN DON'T PLAY THE GAME.
Men are kind of like inanimate pylons or robots; they are only a means to an end.
Oppression of women:
1. Up to around 100 years ago, most people lived in rural / farm settings and most work outside of the home required a great deal of physical strength. The split of jobs probably reflected that. If you have a group of men in a village that meets to build houses (while the women stay at home), it is also natural that the group is going to discuss other "political" issues and that will turn into the men voting. But when society changes (i.e. machinery comes in and women can do some of the jobs), women get what they want.
2. If anything, men have protected women in the past, there was a kind of chivalry at work.
3. Some of us who have worked all of the time since age 16 think that sitting home and having someone else be your wage slave is not oppression - in fact it is quite the opposite.
4. Rachel wasn't around 1000 years ago. Feminists have taken historical facts and slanted them (or have even outright lied) to make it appear like women are oppressed. History departments at colleges are overrun with these types of people today. I don't know what things really looked like a 1000 years ago, but I absolutely know that I wouldn't count on people with an agenda to tell me.
And Rachel falls for it hook-line-and-sinker.
In short: I don't believe the feminist assertion that, although women are equal to men in every way, in fact most men are stupid grunting beasts, men have managed to oppress women on every square inch of land and at all times over the last 10,000 years, with just a little let-up starting in the last 40 years. I just don't believe it, sorry.
Another reason the past may have looked oppressive: Women had to actually give something to men to get what they wanted out of them.
Today, there are many instances in which the man is simply forced to give the woman what she wants with no quid pro quo.
An example of that is alimony. The woman wants her chunk of the man's income, but not the man. That's considered "fair" today. Another example is that tax money is taken on a net basis from men and transferred on a net basis to women.
It's funny that this is considered "equality" and that an exchange in the past was "oppression". You could almost make the case that forcing things out of men, ultimately at the point of a rifle, and giving them to women could also be labeled "oppression".
I first heard about the "4 F's" in 7th grade, junior high school.
I thought it was the most cruel, indifferent thought pattern anyone could possess. But I also thought females were the greatest thing God ever made. Like all young boys.
Not true. It's table saws. But I digress.
Tossing the "4 F's" aside, indifference isn't a bad thing; total indifference (these days) is a good policy for a man to have.
What saves the gender (for me) is the boundless love I have for my daughters.
There has to be something in women, somewhere, that is worth all this. But the water has become so murky.
"There has to be something in women, somewhere, that is worth all this."
--------
And then a few men on this planet suddenly SEE ... that women are just human beings, just like men. They aren't goddesses.
And when you really SEE that, you also see the relative contributions of men, you see the manipulative crap that women pull and you see that the assertion of eternal victimhood by feminists and even a lot of everyday women may not be entirely true.
But puffed-up chivalrists like Joe Biden will continue their catering to women and life goes on.
Sex goes a long way in clouding men's ability to think rationally.
More than one author in the world has also suggested that love is simply a sublimated sex drive (i.e. sex repackaged by processes of the brain to be something more "acceptable").
I wrote a letter to Royal Caribbean complaining about the anti-male shirts sold in their store. To their credit, a manager gave me a personal phone call of apology, and stated they would file the complaint with the store selling them.
The shirts said things like "boys are dumb, hit them." "Boys stink, throw rocks at them." I told them that they wouldn't dare have shirts that said "girls nag, slap them." They know the consequences would be huge.
I haven't been back, so I don't know if the shirts have been removed.
I also once encountered a woman selling snow cones at a park with a shirt that said "I have the p*ssy so I make the rules." Lovely for kids to see. I've also seen grade-school sized shirts saying "boyfriends make nice pets," among others.
Sad that so much money can be made through wrecking a society.
My mother hasn't had to work at a job since 1947. While she did her share of hard work raising kids, the last kid moved out nearly 30 years ago. She's never had to worry about where and if the money would be there. My father made sure it was. Some oppression.
These sorts of shirts PISS ME OFF. And before any troll gets rolling, I don't give a pair of fetid figs what any self-appointed arbiter of manliness thinks about that. The fact is that wrong is wrong, the inverse would never remotely be considered acceptable, and hypocrisy seriously chaps my hide.
Rachel Lukas, on the other hand, I entirely adore.
Dadvocate, your mom's oppressed because she's been denied the impetus to be an economically productive part of the economy. She's a kept woman, imprisoned by benefits as sure as they were bars.
I'd almost kill to be "kept." Work sucks.
What's interesting is that when women come out against some kind of bad treatment of men in society, it seems to always be rooted in self-interest.
JG, why is that surprising? are you not aware of the (I think) Heinlen line of Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage.
People who haven't lost hope have a sense of enlightend self-interest. This is a good thing.
@peregrine - The fact is that wrong is wrong, the inverse would never remotely be considered acceptable, and hypocrisy seriously chaps my hide.
Agree completely. Once again, we get back to the issue of entitlement, not equality. It's not equality if you are picking the issues you want to be treated equally on.
uh oh... I just realized something.... I'm a man, and I don't think this is right. Someone needs to throw a rock at me. :)
Helen and Rachel are awesome for caring about this and voicing their opinions. Personally, this stuff doesn't offend me because I have a thick skin.
If somebody wants to sell these shirts to make a buck, then go for it. It makes the stupid feminists and man-haters poorer, and when their wear these shirts and drink from their mugs, it helps us identify the ones who don't deserve us. Then we can focus on the nice women who dress with some class and who are kind and treat us how they want to be treated.
I didn't order the T-shirt that said,
"So you're a feminist? Isn't that cute"
perhaps i should have
JG--
Women ---typically ---seem to be incapable of abstract moral reasoning--its always utilitarian,ie, does it serve my self-interest as a woman ? ( which is the antithesis of moral reasoning).
This has been noted by virtually every major moral philosopher who ever lived-- Schopenhauer is devastating on it, as is the greatest moral philospher, Kant.
"Stop demeaning, abusing men, violating their rights, etc.. because it will hurt us women eventually, indirectly" ( its "gone too far'")---- assumes that
" How does this affect women?"
is the only important moral question and that women are the measure of all things.
Feminists unashamedly state that their ONLY measure of any social policy is
" Is it good for women"...
and normal women seem to share that criterion.
at "your mom's oppressed because she's been denied the impetus to be an economically productive part of the economy. She's a kept woman, imprisoned by benefits as sure as they were bars."
I'm sure some people would call her oppressed. If the genders were swapped, the same people would call him a freeloader.
Woman = inately good, never her fault (unless it's someone rational like Dr. Helen, then all bets are off)
Man = genetically bad, always his fault (unless it's someone like President Happy Hands, then its a vast right wing conspiracy and the intern is a bimbo and to blame)
Feminism, degrading women for half a century.
Dr. Helen,
I went and read Rachel's post on this, and I read most of the comments too. One astute observer commented that this male bashing wouldn't affect men ALREADY in relationships, but it WOULD deter those of us who aren't. You know what? He's right!
Here was my comment I left on the aforementioned post...
As a man, I WAS in the relationship market; that’s past tense, because I no longer am on the market. No, I didn’t get married-thank fucking goodness! I took myself off the market simply because of this misandrist zeitgeist, and how seemingly few women have spoken out against it. To me, that was prima facie evidence that most women AGREE with this misandry; to me, silence on this issue = assent; to me, it reflected women’s TRUE feelings about me as a man; finally, to me, I resolved to never get involved with someone who hates me, which is almost all women. TGIS (thank GOODNESS I’m single)!!!
Yeah, the bashing prompted me to wake up & smell the coffee, as it were. I'm off the market, and it's by MY OWN CHOICE. I made that choice because of this acceptable, misandrist zeitgeist. Thank you.
MarkyMark
@MarkyMark: "One astute observer commented that this male bashing wouldn't affect men ALREADY in relationships, but it WOULD deter those of us who aren't. You know what? He's right!"
Except the constant negatively against men gets pumped into wives constantly, who then treat their husbands with an almost unconscious, reflexive disdain. So, I would say it affects men already married. Probably makes them wish they weren't.
I've debated someone on reparations before, and used a simple argument to paste reparations as racist. "Basically, people who never owned slaves should be forced to pay reparations (solely because of their race) to people who were never slaves (soley because of their race)." Sounds racist to me.
The same logic can be used here. Basically, poeple who were never oppressed think that their gender entitles them to oppress people who never oppressed them due to their gender. Sounds very sexist to me. Under this logic, in the next generation, our sons will be entitled to oppress their daughters due to merchandise like this. Pretty nutty huh?
MarkyMark - One astute observer commented that this male bashing wouldn't affect men ALREADY in relationships, but it WOULD deter those of us who aren't. You know what? He's right!
No, he couldn't be more wrong. Relationships aren't static. If the female in the relationship starts buying into this stuff, the man will be very negatively affected. Indeed, the impact on the male already in a relationship might be much greater as he's made an emotional investment and possibly financial investment, shared living arrangements, etc. that may all fall apart.
Astute observer? No, just the opposite.
@dadvocate
I see your point and agree with it, but I think the overall context was talking about something different than you are. Certainly men are going to be affected if man-bashing poisons the mind of the women they are in relationships with.
I think the affect being mentioned here was on the attitudes of the men toward women. A man in a good relationship is going to use that as primary evidence and it is going to be more significant to him that some witch's coffee mug. However, as Marky Mark pointed out, without a personal reference point which is different, it is virtually impossible for a man to not eventually come to regard man-bashing sentiments as indicative of the real attitude of most women toward men - which quickly decreases their attractiveness as potential mates, and men's motivation to pursue them as such, to zero or below.
@dadvocate: "No, he couldn't be more wrong. Relationships aren't static. If the female in the relationship starts buying into this stuff, the man will be very negatively affected. Indeed, the impact on the male already in a relationship might be much greater as he's made an emotional investment and possibly financial investment, shared living arrangements, etc. that may all fall apart."
I think you're right. The married man has it worse. He either stays with a woman being programmed to believe he's crap, or he leaves the house and his children (but keeps on paying for them).
Loved your 8:22 A.M post, trust. Mind if I borrow it should the need arise in a conversation?
@br549
Thanks. Borrow away.
You know, speaking of that post, I'm a big fan of capitalism. I think its allowed more people to escape poverty and live happier lives than any other doctrine. That said, I see it has its drawbacks--evidently, there is a great deal of money to be made from the wreckage of society.
It irks me that this sort of commercialized misandry is viewed as humor. Heaven forbid someone come out with something misogynistic like this:
Behind every successful man...is a woman with her claws in his chest and fangs in his neck.
Or:
A woman without a forked tongue just hasn't ruined her first man yet.
I could be much more venomous (believe me, bantering with my ex-stepsister was practice; I used to judge my success by how long she would lock herself in her room, giving me peace and quiet.), but, contrary to misandristic opinion, I have grown up and moved past that shallow crap. The above are merely references similar to what other people have posted.
Personally, I don't condone that approach, either.
I get along quite well with women, so long as I'm not romantically interested in them, and they don't man-bash within earshot. I haven't the faintest idea how to deal with them on the intimate level, which really pisses me off at times.
"I get along quite well with women, so long as I'm not romantically interested in them" [or they with me].
That about sums it up for me as well, masculist. Seems it's about the best one can hope for.
I remember a couple years back in this blog there were discussions going on about the line being crossed, where things change drastically. The line, of course, being where a friendship becomes an intimate relationship and all that comes with it - or rather,is brought forth by it.
Was it ever a friendship at all? That question bothers me most.
"The line, of course, being where a friendship becomes an intimate relationship and all that comes with it - or rather,is brought forth by it."
That rings with the loudest truth I have ever heard. So many times a man with a close female friend begins to develop and express romantic interest in said friend, only to be told that she "doesn't want to ruin the friendship"
Regardless of this being a problem I largely encounter in my own sex, there are women who, no doubt, experience the same problem, so I seek to educate both with this post
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario:
One of your close friends has called you, and has something to say, but is having difficulty summoning up the courage to say it. Finally expressing romantic interest in you, your friend is embarrassed, nervous, and shaking. Your friend starts to black out from the sheer anxiety of the whole situation, and is ripped back to reality by your statement of romantic disinterest. Your friend is devastated, and remains devastated for a long time.
Now you ask if the two of you can remain friends. Your friend fights down crippling emotional pain, but agrees. Now, you have a situation on your hands, especially if you are in a relationship. You have a friend around your significant other, who you know has romantic interest in you.
It is entirely plausible that your significant other sees said interest, having experienced the same scenario. More likely, however, is that your significant other knows because, in the spirit of honesty, you told him/her.
Now, your partner decides that being in the presence of your friend is too awkward, and forces you to choose. Now, you have to weigh the value you place on the relationship against the guilt of writing off a close friend. You cannot win.
Not only does the guilt arise, but what if the two meet and discuss things, only to have it escalate into a fight, be it verbal or physical? Now, you must consciously avoid one to spend time with the other, and risk dissolving either the friendship, relationship, or both. You cannot win.
Now, put yourself in the position of the friend:
You call a friend whom you have known for a while, intent on expressing your romantic interest. Your friend picks up the phone, and your courage disappears as you hear the voice on the other end. You tell your friend "I have something to tell you."
You falter. Your entire body shakes. Your hands sweat. Your heart races. You become dizzy. You black out. Through it all, you still manage to blurt out your interest. You have to sit. By now, the pressure has taken its toll.
You are jerked sharply back to reality with a statement that haunts you for possibly years to come: a statement that that interest is not reciprocated.
Your friend asks to remain such, and you agree, clinging to the desperate assumption that having this person in your life as a friend is better than not at all. You cannot bring yourself to ever discuss it again, for fear of awkwardness.
Here is where you must snap back to reality.
The above scenarios beg the question that no one wants to ask:
"Were we ever really friends to begin with, if we can discuss only subjects which do not cause awkwardness?" Should not friends be able to discuss anything they please, knowing that they will remain friends, regardless of the outcome of the conversation?
"Was it ever a friendship at all? That question bothers me most."
It is a bothersome question, but one that shouldn't be asked solely inside your psyche. It should , no, must be asked directly to the friend in whom the interest has been developed, or the question is already answered.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊ggo0401 影音視訊美女聊天室gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo
Post a Comment
<< Home