It's about time...
It seems that a men's advocacy group has been started at the University of Chicago:
Any group for men or run by men is going to be said to be misogynistic--kind of like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. It's just part of a trend to shut anyone down who disagrees with the politically correct agenda and doesn't willingly submit to the socialist/radical feminist agenda. Luckily, young men like Steve Saltarelli who is president of the group is not listening. The tide is turning.
A group of University of Chicago students think it's time the campus focused more on its men.
A third-year student from Lake Bluff has formed Men in Power, a student organization that promises to help men get ahead professionally. But the group's emergence has been controversial, with some critics charging that its premise is misogynistic.
Others say it's about time men are championed, noting that recent job losses hit men harder and that women earn far more bachelor's and master's degrees than do men.
"It's an enormous disparity now," said Warren Farrell, author of "The Myth of Male Power"and former board member of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. He noted, among other things, an imbalance in government and private initiatives that advance the interests of women and girls.
Any group for men or run by men is going to be said to be misogynistic--kind of like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist. It's just part of a trend to shut anyone down who disagrees with the politically correct agenda and doesn't willingly submit to the socialist/radical feminist agenda. Luckily, young men like Steve Saltarelli who is president of the group is not listening. The tide is turning.
Labels: men's activism
posted by Helen at 12:29 AM
44 Comments:
"Any group for men or run by men is going to be said to be misogynistic--kind of like anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist."
Too true. Yet this sort of tactic, opposing the Left with its own weapons, can be unbelievably effective. That's why they do their best to suppress it.
The Left believes in its rhetorical and persuasive tactics. It has good reason; they've served it well. For which reason leftists are on permanent, hair-trigger alert to the possibility that they might "fall into the wrong hands."
I'd dearly love to see more of this: more "white power" and "men's power" societies; more "affirmative action bake sales;" more "proportional representation" lawsuits -- why aren't there more whites in the NBA? Isn't its concentration on basketball-playing ability a case of "disparate impact?" -- and more Francisco d'Anconia-like behavior that conforms to the Left's supposed norms and so demonstrates its foolishness and futility. The time for battle a outrance is upon us.
Francis W. Porretto,
"Yet this sort of tactic, opposing the Left with its own weapons, can be unbelievably effective"
Yes, which is why they hate the tea party protests so much. They don't own this stuff. All Americans do. We must fight back with everything that we have, and use their own tactics against them.
The Men's Advocacy group started at the University of Chicago is a good idea. Women are getting ahead. They go to college, then to graduate school and, because they are qualified, get the good jobs. As the economy has taken a dip, those without certifications and qualifications have lost jobs. So yes, more men find themselves out of work than women. It might be time to stress how the value of education helps with job security.
However, I doubt these men's support groups are going to get any support from anybody if one starts equating the challenges that face men as a war. Nor will it help to start referring to the socialist/radical feminist agenda, opposing the "left", tactics and fighting. My guess is that this perfectly altruistic endeavor to help young men succeed will be swiftly turned into political grandstanding and nothing good will come out of it. Too bad.
Cham,
Political grandstanding may upset people but it works if one is relentless. If men try to appease women, the university, etc. they will get no where. They have already done as you suggested, tried to act in altruistic ways--by supporting women (or just going along with their programs). The only place this has gotten men is turned into a group of patsys with fewer and fewer rights and less opportunity.
It is time to take real action and get other men to join their cause. Men are ready and willing to do so at this point as they have seen the opportunities for the average male diminish.
Well, I guess every group of people has the right to have self promoting groups. I do worry that any of thease groups could become an "us against them" sort of group if not tempered with some sense.
SuSuseriffic,
Were you worried about the women's centers on campus as they sprung up?
The idea of a "white power" group makes me physically uncomfortable. I despise the current black power organizations, as well as Latino power organizations as they are all racist. While I support the men's movement wholeheartedly, and if I knew of aspects of the feminist movement that were not misandry front groups I would support them, I just cannot get on board any kind of racial separtism.
Trey
Trey,
I don't like groups separating themselves along these lines either. That said, in respect to the men's advocacy group, I wholeheartedly support them. Men must fight fire with fire in these cases. If it means suing under Title IX or whatever they need to do, so be it. In order to change the culture and politics in this country in regards to men, they must do this. To do nothing or say that "I don't support separate groups etc" is to let those groups willing to organize and lobby etc. call ALL of the shots. Is that a good strategy?
No, head in the sand is not a good strategy. At my graduate school I started a men's group in 1994! It was more of an exploratory/mentoring type group than a political one. So I heartily support the men's movement.
I was responding more particularly to Francis' statements about wanting to see white power groups. That strikes me as divisive and bigoted. And I think there is a tendency in any focused group to err toward exclusion.
What I like about the group in the article is that it is an inclusive group that enjoys women members. I am hopeful and encouraged by the group in the article, but suspicious of Francis' eagerness for white power groups.
I think I see his point, that it would bring more attention to the divisive and racist policies of some, maybe most, racial advocacy groups. But I believe that there must be a better way to point out racism in minority power groups.
Trey
Trey,
I see, thanks for clarifying.
I blogged about this yesterday -- I think it's a fantastic step for men everywhere and for the men's rights movement.
The critical thing is that these young men (and women, as the article notes) simply stood up and did this. Sure the feminist groups are uncomfortable with it -- you'd expect them to be, because it represents a counterweight to their agenda. But these young men just stood up and did this ... and in doing so are providing an example to many.
I think we find ourselves at something of a crossroads. Several factors are impacting this: the disproportionate impact of the recession on men; the growth of web 2.0 internet communications which has lead to the broad dissemination of men's rights ideas, especially to young men; the realization of many young men that the current status quo is leaving them further and further behind and so on. Young men are starting to wake up, to take exception to the status quo ... and now to begin to do something about it.
Things like this are very, very important, and not just to men. It's easy to look at these issues from the "men v. women" perspective because feminism has trained everyone to look at the world this way, but in reality the relationship between men and women is symbiotic. If, for example, 65% of college grads are women (which is predicted by some to be the case in 10 years), this does not mean "women are winning the battle of the sexes and getting ahead". Rather it means that many women will have a very difficult time finding mates, more children will grow up without fathers than even is the case today, and the general social decline will be hastened. We have to stop seeing these issues as "men v. women". If we develop into a society where most of the men are underperforming, underachieving and underworking, all that means is that the lives of women and children will be made miserable by it. We have to stop looking at gender issues as a zero sum game -- that's what the feminist movement has done in practice despite its rhetoric, and it has led us into this mess.
This is why we must be very careful now, now that men's issues awareness is actually growing. We need to work to steer that awareness away from zero-sum thinking, or some kind of feminism in reverse. We need to involve women, because men's issues are really also women's and families issues at the end of the day, and we need to move everyone past that zero sum mentality that feminism has encouraged in fact, despite its rhetoric to the contrary.
But this is a good day and a great start. We need to support these young men and others like them in the months and years ahead.
The article notes there are "approximately nine women's advocacy groups on [University of Chicago's] campus". I wonder how often they were accused of misandry.
Of course the feminsts don't like it and play the race card as well as the gender card. "Ali Feenstra, a third-year student and a member of the Feminist Majority, questioned Men in Power's utility.
"It's like starting 'white men in business' -- there's not really any purpose," she said."
This such reaction to the men's group reminds me of this:
One afternoon in 1900 I listened while a young jewish Socialist was breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the rich. I had asked him just what it was that he proposed to do when he had got them all properly killed off. ‘We have been oppressed,’ he said, ‘and now we shall oppress.’ I thought he put the matter well, for I could see no other prospect. – Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943).
The notion that being opposed to Obama is racist is simply a rationalization and argument when in fact the Other party has thus far little or nothing to offer that the times desperately call for. Similarly, the conservatives said one could not make jobs about Obama because that would be racist or not PC. In fact, working comics said it was nearly impossible to make jokes about Obama because he was so funny himself, had so few things to make fun of, and was so good a person. But find some way to attack, the conservatives nonetheless did and continue to do. So too if there is an objection--I don't object--it may well be on grounds that argue that there ought not be such separate groups on campuses that claim to be diverse. That arguement is hardly socialist/radical feminist.
Cham --
I seem to recall vociferous marches with placards, shaken fists and bra burnings. Not advantageous to framing it as a war? Worked for women.
Fred --
That was only during election. Comedians seem to be finding funny stuff now.
------
The group has women members. That will exert a balance in its approach to whatever.
the conservatives said one could not make jobs about ObamaIf we can't make jobs about Obama, can we make jokes about him?
he was so funny himself,...was so good a person.Yes, I laugh everytime he, with a straight face, tries to explain his absurd economic policy. He is a good person. I'm impressed with how he sacrificed to helped his half-brother in Kenya.
You should write a book about this stuff, Fred.
Oligonicella --
I agree with Cham that using war rhetoric won't work for men. It worked reasonably well for feminism during the revolutionary period -- not so much today when calls for gender war are met with eye rolls from most women.
I think men need to work differently, and also in collaboration with women, which is why it's good to see women involved in this group, too.
Fred --
That argument may be made, but then you'd have to get rid of the nine women's groups that UofC has, wouldn't you? And we know that won't happen. That's why I expect the attack will come based on the substance. A read a tweet yesterday from a woman who described groups like this one as being like health clinics that are only open for people who are not sick at all --> that is, the attack will be that because men are privileged, these groups should not exist/are not needed, whereas women, who outnumber men on campuses now almost 60/40 and earn more advanced degrees as well, are underprivileged relative to men and need their groups to boost their performance so they can catch up with their male counterparts ... oh wait ...
Rather it means that many women will have a very difficult time finding matesIt should make no difference in finding mates, if women give up the idea that they must marry up. If they don't, any difficulty is self-imposed.
The group has women members. That will exert a balance in its approach to whatever.Balance? No, expect the female membership to destroy it. "Destruction from within" is a classic leftist tactic. That men are culturally indoctrinated into acceding to anything women demand, along with competition for the favor of the individual women, will make it that much easier.
I agree that "war rhetoric" is not going to work for men, although it may have worked for women.
If a woman gets a big vein in her forehead and starts screaming, the usual reaction is to assume that someone did something bad to her, to find the culprit, to placate and appease her and to try to give her stuff to calm her down.
That's usually how it works on the personal level.
The reaction to a man doing the same thing is to call 911 and have the cops beat the living crap out of him. And no one cares about "why" he had his temper tantrum, the only issue is to discipline him so that he will not do it again.
That's the dispararity between men and women, maybe it's inherent or in our genes, in any case it is not going to change much in the near future.
I personally think that the most gains will come from a hard-core attack on the chivalrous men in positions of power who simultaneously hold other men down and are in bed with feminists. If you want an example, Joe Biden is a great place to start.
'preciate yr support on this, Helen
ray
I saw this article and thought Helen would probably picked it up.
And this struck me too, DADvocate:
Ali Feenstra, a third-year student and a member of the Feminist Majority, questioned Men in Power's utility.
"It's like starting 'white men in business' -- there's not really any purpose," she said.Seriously. Did Ali go out and poll a bunch of men to make sure they thought there was a purpose to the Feminist Majority before she ventured to join it? If feminists are in fact a majority, a man (or woman) might convincingly argue that there's not really any purpose.
And why would you offer an opinion on the usefulness of a group that is not about you? I bet if a man had questioned the usefulness of the Feminist Majority she would have invited him to butt out.
randian --
That would depend on the women involved. One shouldn't presume they're leftist in nature.
To anyone thinking my statement meant marches and screaming - no. The "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", etc. don't do that either. That was facetiousness, which I should have indicated.
Using the idea that we should declare war on the idiocy of considering all men in a superior position has some merit. Depends on the approach.
JG - Biden is not chivalrous, he's a sycophant.
We probably will not need groups to support the rights of white people just as soon as the NAACP and La Raza start supporting white rights. Until that time, it looks like it will be up to white folks to look out for themselves with their own groups.
That would depend on the women involved. One shouldn't presume they're leftist in nature.I'm sure there will be women there who are genuinely supportive of the cause, but my bet is (a) they will be outnumbered by saboteurs posing as supporters, and (b) they will be aggressively and publicly shamed by their leftist "sisters". The left cannot and will not allow women to leave the plantation or give up female groupthink.
Until that time, it looks like it will be up to white folks to look out for themselves with their own groups.That's probably true, which is incredibly sad. We were once a united nation, but the groupthink and tribalism promoted by the left is destroying us. We are well on the road to becoming another third world country, where tribal groups aggressively fight each other because they don't trust their neighbors to treat them well when they're in power.
Novaseeker wrote: "in reality the relationship between men and women is symbiotic."
When it works right, it sure is!
Trey
"The left cannot and will not allow women to leave the plantation or give up female groupthink."
Um, if I'm on a plantation or engaging in female groupthink I am utterly unaware of it. I'm also unaware of any attempts by the left to keep me on a plantation or make me think in groups.
I think you way overestimate the power of the left.
"We were once a united nation, but the groupthink and tribalism promoted by the left is destroying us. We are well on the road to becoming another third world country, where tribal groups aggressively fight each other because they don't trust their neighbors to treat them well when they're in power."
We were once a predominately white nation with a unified culture. We have allowed that situation to be destroyed by the Leftist thinking of the Enlightenment to the destruction of our national unity and our civilization. We have been so willing to be "open" that we have accepted within our body politic that which is completely foreign and wills to destroy us. Now it is necessary to become defensive if we are to survive at all.
In Alabama earlier this month I saw some hats in a convenience store with charming slogans like "God created drunks so ugly women could get laid."
There was one hat with a rebel flag that read "A White Southern America."
I thought, you should have thought of that before you started importing Africans who didn't want to be here. They would have thanked you for it.
Laura, quite likely they would have preferred not to come to the US. However, the fact that they were brought to the US against their will has been the greatest possible benefit for their descendants. How many American Blacks do you know who honestly want to go live in Africa? There are some who talk about it, but how many really want to do it? I have never been able to find even one!
Bringing Black people to the US was a great mistake, but it has been a huge benefit to their heirs, despite their endless complaining. It would be just wonderful if they would get serious about going back to that utopia in Africa they talk about so much.
I don't know.
I've had lots of black friends over the years. Most were happy to be Americans. None complained all the time or said a word about wanting to go live in Africa.
I just think it's kind of dumb for Southern white folks to complain about the presence of black people.
I do think that some of this is needed, if for no other reason than to get people thinking.
I was on a tour of colleges last year, and got in trouble with the high schooler I was with by asking the tour guide why all the genders study profs were women. Shouldn't there be as many men to balance out the department?
But the bigger problem is probably racial. When that high schooler was applying to college, other, less qualified, but more affluent, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics got into schools that this kid didn't. They had both lower grades and lower SATs. I can almost understand Blacks and Hispanics. But the Asians? Come on. These kids lived in million dollar houses and had been in private school since kindergarten.
I laughed when I read the article and saw that that the women saying that the mens' group was unnecessary were members of Feminist Majority and Women In Business. Myopic much? It's just become so common for women to have a group to support and empower every hiccup that they don't see that one sex on campus is catered to, the other virtually ignored.
When I read that article, I was struck by the photograph. Did you notice the guy who the story's about is way off to the side? Balanced by a girl on the other side of the photo?
I thought it very odd.
Perhaps the photographer, if not the author or both, perceive the group as another battle between the sexes, Karen. The problem is the white male. Let's not lose focus on that.
If women finally gain absolute power, they will then turn on themselves, and the final prejudice, beauty, will be attacked. I have seen NOW meetings on TV, in news blurbs, etc. The one behind the pulpit is usually attractive to one degree or another. The fascia. When the camera pans the audience, however..........
Take Sarah Palin, for instance. Place her on the other side, imagine her as a full blown feminist. Imagine her as Obama's running mate instead of McCain's.
She'd have been worshipped. She'd have stolen all his limelight. It would have been a landslide.
"If women finally gain absolute power"
You realize that's kind of a "sound of one hand clapping" there. "Women" encompasses not only gender feminists but women like me and Cham and Pockosmom and Karen and Helen and Mary and Sarah Palin and a whole bunch of other folk. We are just as authentically 100% female American women as they are. All women won't agree with each other enough to have a monolithic power structure. If nothing else, abortion would split us, but there's a whole bunch of other stuff too.
Missing the point, Laura. As with anything, if "Women" gain power, it will be the extremists in charge. Replace "women" with anything else, and then the light will come on.
If Atheists gain power, it won't be people like me who don't give a fuck if you have your little creche or open a meeting with a prayer - I'll still think you're no different from some prancing savage with rattles worshipping a tree or something - it'll be the rabid, foaming at the mouth, evangelical Anti-Theists who hate ya'll, and would like to take away your children and deprive you of your right to vote, etc. I'll have no say, and if I speak up, I'll be branded a collaborator.
If "women" gain power - you'll have no say, either.
Laura(southernxyl) --
"I just think it's kind of dumb for Southern white folks to complain about the presence of black people."
Having contracted in north, south and middle, I can assure you that the loudest and most vile complaining about the presence of black people that I have ever heard was in New York and Rhode Island and it was pretty much endemic.
Pete --
And I (and hopefully you) will have my arms ready to fight those rabid dictators to the death. But you do have a say at this point. Just speak up every time some jackass overboard atheist spouts that crap.
Pete, I'm not missing any point.
If what you're talking about happens, it won't be "women" in power it'll be socialists, or left-wingers, or whatever, and there'll be men in on it too. Let's not destroy the English language by reassigning meanings to words. "Women" means adult female humans, period. It doesn't mean paleofeminists, housewives, child murderers, golddiggers, whatever, any more than "men" means rapists or anything else. Yes, I know a lot of people on the other side reason that way. There's a reason why I'm not on the other side (well, there are a lot of reasons). I hope people on my side have a little more on the ball.
"When I read that article, I was struck by the photograph. Did you notice the guy who the story's about is way off to the side? Balanced by a girl on the other side of the photo?
I thought it very odd."
Karen --
I studied the photo as well. I don't think it was happenstance that the young woman was over on the other side, and out of focus. It was trying to tell a story about the article, and was quite a politically composed photo, I think.
The uproar surrounding the establishment of this group ALONE is enough of a demonstration for its need.
The sheer number of people opposed to or offended by this group is ample evidence of massive societal and systemic bias.
Plain and simple...but not PC. Which will win I wonder?
Him: Foreground, looking up, in focus, and staring out of frame (at a bright future perhaps?).
Her: Holding a book limply in her hand, in the background, out of focus, looking down, and toward his back...
Nope, no message being conveyed there....
:)
This part struck my eye (one posted noted it above as well): "Jessica Pan, president of Women in Business and a fourth-year student, questioned whether Men in Power's goals were being met by existing student groups. 'I'm not sure we really need another student organization that focuses on pre-professional development for men,' Pan said, noting that, in just the area of business, there were five or six students groups that were gender-neutral."
_________
Is she so indoctrinated as to not see her own bias?
Imagine this news item: At the university, Jan DaMom has started a group called 'Mom's are Important' to promote awareness as of mother's issues. Dan DaMan, President of the universities group 'Father's are Important' believes the group is unnecessary since there is another group on campus that is gender-neutral.
Soooo, basically, women need a safe, male-free zone. But men are only allowed to participate in gender-neutral groups. I guess the sexist, errr, I mean President Jessica thinks that women need freedom but men must have female influence.
It would be laughable if it wasn't a symptom of the plague that is destroying our civilization.
"Is she so indoctrinated as to not see her own bias?"
Probably.
Critical thinking is a beautiful thing. Kids don't learn it if their teachers who talk about politics are all in lock-step and their parents don't ever talk to them about current events at all.
Laura wrote: "I just think it's kind of dumb for Southern white folks to complain about the presence of black people."
Amen sister. Kinda dumb and totally racist.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home