A few weeks ago, Caitlin Moran was part of a group debate organized by CBC in Canada on the subject of whether or not men are obsolete. Hanna Rosin’s book The End of Men was part of the premise. Rosin participated in the debate on the “yes they’re obsolete” team; Moran was on the “no they’re not” team.
A stream of the debate is posted at this url:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Ideas/ID/2419577032/
There was also a discussion between Hanna Rosin and Caitlin Moran in advance of the event. It was hosted by CBC’s Jian Ghomeshi.
Hanna Rosin restated what was in her book, and I thought it was generally clear. Moran’s point of view–not just about men ending, but towards feminism in general–is limited in scope.
Moran says she’s an “old fashioned Marxist,” not seeing things as “pro-woman or anti-men,” but “peasants vs. the ass-hats in private jets.” Her historical view is that the past has been “100% male” over a time-frame of 100,000 years.
In the video, she half-jokes: “We realized the patriarchy is ruling the… space because no woman would ever design a set with…stools for women to sit on.” Expectations for the Oscar awards were outlined in a similar way. Female celebrities agonize over their appearance and endure painful footwear.
The above gives a feel for the kind of lens Moran uses to define patriarchy in terms of oppressor and oppressed.
She’s attracted some negative PR for not being too intersectional. Over twitter, Moran “didn’t give a shit” about something race related. Her 2011 book How to Be A Woman likened belief in an afterlife to a “destabilizing mental illness” and used a term insensitive to trans people.
It’s kind of a personal brand of Marxist feminism.
For the closing statement of the debate, Moran said if men become obsolete, then “we will be doing everything.” This referred to women ‘retaining’ roles of “homemaking and child raising” while ‘triumphing’ in “work… education and policy.”
The prescience of this dilemma presupposes a certain set-up, e.g. a hetero nuclear family. Opting-out or not having access to either children or a domestic sphere isn’t in Moran’s spectrum.
Hanna Rosin said her team won the debate in 11/27’s Slate Double X Gabfest podcast.
- Caitlin Moran’s Feminism Box - December 14, 2013
- My Tweet to Lena Dunham, Re: Feminism, Ableism - December 4, 2013
- Recursion: SPLC Sourcing Manboobz, ABC Sourcing SPLC - October 23, 2013
by 
These people claim to be Marxists, yet they miss the fact that women act like they are a higher caste. They have the habits and mentallity of the aristocrat.
Also if she is a Marxist why doesn’t see speak out against higher levels of female consumer spending, aren’t they fueling the evil capitalist system?
The only problem I have with this utopia of female supremacy is that I will probably live long enough so that I have to watch it unfold. Couldn’t they have waited just a few more decades?
” the subject of whether or not men are obsolete.”
Gee, Dani, can we be any more obsolete than white women? After all, what real purpose do white women serve?
Hannah Rosin seems to have a bad habit of declaring victory wherever she goes, and declaring any and all cogent criticisms as ‘bullying’. It’s hard to take her as seriously as people do.
I thought Camille Paglia made some good points (in the stream of the debate). She came across as grounded in a traditional view, which I don’t think resonates too well with people.
It’s interesting that this hasn’t received more coverage.
(One correction: the quote at the end was in Moran’s opening, not the closing.)
Moran’s perspective seems to be that men are not obsolete solely because they may still be of some use to Marxist-leaning feminist women.
How does this constitute a ‘debate’ when both sides clearly devalue men, just using different words? Allies like Moran are something men definitely don’t need.
“It’s interesting that this hasn’t received more coverage. ”
Dani, that’s an interesting observation. Maybe people think the question is stupid and idle?
Actually the question may be but the debate, or rather the fact that there is a debate, isn’t idle. Because, as Copyleft points out:
“How does this constitute a ‘debate’ when both sides clearly devalue men, just using different words?”
This is whwere the debate is, male disposability. and male disposability is so foundational to the culture, to men’s sense of their own worth based on their utility to women, so foundational to women’s conceptions of men, that on the on hand people shy away for even addressing it and on the other when it comes it will rupture everything.
Men being disadvantaged is taboo. Introducing it with ‘ending’ and ‘obsolete’ makes it more friendly to a women’s interest POV.
One reason MRAs are gaining traction is because of what Rosin said about there not really being a space in the mainstream to talk about it.
Blogs are always trying to find things to make into news (like calling attention to R-Kelly, instead of ignoring). Four known writers/journalists meeting to discuss something sensational is hard to pretend didn’t happen.
My impression was: Rosin said things that someone could read on an MRA site. Moran and Dowd weren’t the best salespeople for feminism. Paglia was “too much reality” (the ultimate taboo subject).
The quotes from Moran show how there wasn’t anything anyone needs to be afraid of. It’s just that it doesn’t fit in with the media’s narratives on gender.
None of the four are types blogs seek to promote:
• Rosin was attacked for declaring patriarchy over
• Moran for not being intersectional
• Paglia doesn’t fit with left/right politics
• Dowd carries a negative stereotype
On top of this, attacking feminists for their choice of a feminist worldview isn’t done. It can’t be propped-up or torn-down… it has to just be ingored.
There was a duscussion (http://youtu.be/WmjKNGsQG7g) that was like a response to the premise from a men’s rights perspective. It didn’t engage what was said in the CBC debate, though.
@Copyleft
I would say Moran didn’t make a convincing case for the not obsolete side.
@Dani
I have to admit that Rosin generally has never bothered me when I’ve watched her talks and the similar. She tends to come down on a rather sensationalized but grounded position that men and women are far more equal than the narrative portrays and that while there are still “gender-based issues” that, especially in the workplace, women have made huge strides in the last decade beyond their wildest dreams.
And that, in my opinion, is the big Feminist Kryptonite (or at least a big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about).
There was an article a few years ago that posited that women under 30 are outearning men; there is still no real discussion of the generational aspects of things like the “wage gap”. The very idea that maybe-just-maybe a victory has been won is just… anathema. Excuse my language, but that just strikes me as irrational and insane.
Rosin really barrels into that very topic full-throttle, and that’s always seemed to be her main thrust: that in terms of career/wealth/power that there already has been a “revolution” that sees scales generally tipped in the favor of women who desire to advance. I’m not a scientific study, but my own experience in a lot of different career-focused organizations has been mostly in-line with that idea.
In fact, both Rosin and Moran “[do not] fit in with the media’s narratives on gender.”
That’s the real crime here, that since it doesn’t fit the narrative it’s ignored and disparaged. Rosin is so hated in some spheres because she… posits that women are doing far better than the narrative says? “Heresy! How dare you silence us and minimize our problems by suggesting that data shows things have changed in the kind of way we want! But what about our ANGER!!??”
And then we see the loop back around again. What is so awful about considering the idea that your side may be actually winning some of these battles that are so very important to you?
I wasn’t feeling well when I posted my comment last night. It’s not so organized.
Just now, I saw the pieces on Jezebel and Time (and AVFM) by/about Camille Paglia that mention the debate. So, I guess there isn’t a total media blackout. (http://bit.ly/1dlxwFB, http://ti.me/198Q3Iq, http://bit.ly/1cAzPD4)
@Crow
I agree about the reaction of minimizing anger and seeing the narrative loop back again.
Crow: And that, in my opinion, is the big Feminist Kryptonite (or at least a big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about)
Actually, when I talk about it as a FEMINIST GAIN, I usually get shot down by MRAs who say I am exaggerating, even when I tally up just the changes *I* have observed in the 56 years I have been alive. (the examples in that post, are stuff I remember personally… also, stuff I remember feminists complaining about in the 70s that have since been rectified.) Men have actually argued with me that the stuff in that post was NOT rectified “directly” by feminism. And I disagree… for instance, I remember not being allowed to wear pants to (public) school until I was 14. It was the general feminist atmosphere of the early 70s that allowed us to finally challenge that. That does NOT mean the majority of the girls who broke the no-pants-rule (we all did it at once, yay protests) were feminists, in fact, most were not. They just wanted to wear pants, especially in cold Midwestern winters. Period. The rule was simply unfair, and on the day we planned, virtually EVERY female wore pants, even the conservative girls.
If MRAs admit feminism has DONE GOOD THINGS, then I think the Kryptonite is up for discussion… but don’t try to say we haven’t done anything right and then in the next sentence say, “but its all been fixed! you don’t need feminism anymore!” Um… WHO fixed it, in that case?
*Addressing that to the general YOU, not to you personally Crow*.
I think NOT admitting that things have greatly changed, leaves us unable to process the lessons of history and decide which direction to go in now… at least, that has been the fallout I have witnessed.
Crow: Rosin is so hated in some spheres because she… posits that women are doing far better than the narrative says?
Crow, don’t forget when they lambasted her for the Ann Romney comments. (You might enjoy this post too.)
Background: An affluent suburban Democratic woman activist WALKED OUT on our radio show when I trashed Ann Romney and defended what Hannah Rosin had said about her. (that she didn’t work for a living) In fact, MEGA-RICH STAY-AT-HOME HOUSEWIVES DO NOT “WORK”, dammit, and I said so. She got SO mad she walked out and tried to get my other guests to walk out with her. (They stayed and she left). Then she trashed me on her (mostly unread) blog and Twitter. Then her Democratic-activist sidekick actually printed my whole name on his blog, effectively doxxing me. (Luckily, his blog has since been deleted since nobody gives a fuck about it.) She got really nasty and personal! (Class war, indeed.) This temper-tantrum happened because SHE was a rich stay-at-home, pampered wife, exactly like Romney. She actually called my producer when she saw on the radio blog that I would be discussing Rosin’s comments, and “warned” him that I’d better not defend Rosin. (And I guess you all know what that made me do… I doubled my allotted time for the topic, in that case.) She was coming on my show to talk about something else altogether, but felt SO entitled that she “tattled” on me and tried to control what I said! Do you believe that shit!? And interestingly, one of the things she kept repeating when trashing me (on blog and Twitter) is that I was “not a feminist” for trashing Romney. But calling my producer and trying to censor me is feminist behavior?! Doxxing a feminist who is threatened/frequently stalked by Bob Jones University fundies is feminist?!? Jesus Christ, these women are in Fantasy Land.
My producer: (insert sigh here) “Sorry, nobody can make Daisy do anything.”
🙂
I was upset that Rosin “apologized” (for what?) but I guess she felt like she had to do that for the sake of her career and book contracts. But Rosin endeared herself to me for telling the truth, even if she had to retract it.
After this incident, I became more convinced that ever that there is “working class feminism” that must be separated from the Romneys and the “Lean In” crowd; they do not speak to my life circumstances. And they would even chastise me and Rosin for telling the truth as WE see it.
Well fuck me… it was Hilary Rosen not Hannah Rosin. I confused them since Hannah got in trouble for the same thing on C-Span. It was the morning show, so I can’t find the link now– but Rosin backed up Rosen, and then they BOTH had to apologize.
Why are feminists apologizing for telling the truth? Are we supposed to always be “nice” to all women, even those we think are actively hurting the cause?
I think the Ann Romneys of the world make us all look ridiculous and frivolous.
Oh and this…
Crow: But what about our ANGER!!??
The woman who went after me for not kissing Romney’s ass, said more or less this same thing on her pissant blog: What makes a feminist? ANGER. BEING ANGRY. “I am angry, therefore I am” If a woman is “angry” and has the proper language supplied by feminism (i.e. “this is why” you’re angry), then that is supposed to be sufficient to explain everything, when of course, it explains nothing.
And that is true of MRAs too: “I am angry!” Well, so what? Take a number.
Just being pissed off, even THE MOST pissed off, doesn’t make you automatically correct.
I wish these cranked-up people would just give the righteous-anger-routine a rest and instead GET TO WORK.
One more comment, then I will stop serial commenting:
Crow and Dani, I very much enjoy what you say. You have a different perspective than I have encountered before.
🙂
“Actually, when I talk about it as a FEMINIST GAIN, I usually get shot down by MRAs who say I am exaggerating, even when I tally up just the changes *I* have observed in the 56 years I have been alive. (the examples in that post, are stuff I remember personally… also, stuff I remember feminists complaining about in the 70s that have since been rectified.) ”
There’s a whole lot here. Thank yet one more time, Daisy.
First – A lot of MRAs are just reactive . Some are as emotionalist about the subject of feminism as any Tumblerfem ever was. Ignore their reactions as a simply human failing.
Second, I too remember the days before 2WF and I know what it has done for me as a man, mostly in the areas of fatherhood and family income.
Third, I am also aware f how feminists *currently* advocate against men -advocate for policies that advantage women over men, that actively disadvantage men and boys, spread cultural memes that demonize men and boys – and that this represents a betrayal of 2WF, a reversion to traditionalist norms defining gender relations.
Fourth, it seems clear to me that 2WF held the seeds of this betrayal in itself, because it interpreted gender equality as advocacy for women, so whatever was good for women was feminism and whatever wasn’t was patriarchy. This ignored the substantial female privilege/benevolent sexism under patriarchy. This was ignored because 2WF failed to critically assess patriarchal femininity, concentrating only on the parts they perceived as deleterious to women, in line with their interpretation of gender equality.
So they just went with the femininity they knew, the one they had inherited from their patriarchal upbringing, and that femininity was toxic. It was based on hypoagency and victimhood was a defining feature of that femininity.
And so anything that discounted or controverted that victimhood, even the successes of their own movement, was an attack on their gender identity. That’s the pushback you are getting.
Yeah, and the concept that disliking “femininity” is tantamount to disliking women/sexism/misogyny. It isn’t. If we can criticize some aspects of masculinity as toxic, obviously there will be corresponding elements of femininity that are toxic as well. i.e. if unwarranted aggression is toxic, then so is unwarranted passivity. But you aren’t allowed to say that. It is supposed to be understood that femininity is sacrosanct. That was the deal Second Wavers made with the women’s mags and daytime talk shows: “okay, we won’t trash femininity, will you let us in now?”–since in many real ways, femininity (makeup, hair, fashion, etc) was paying the bills in the form of advertising revenue. I think this was seen as ‘making a deal with the devil’ for the greater good …. and it turned into a monster. As a result, we lost the critique of femininity, it was relegated to the radical fringe.
Its funny you mention Tumblr, because I was ceremoniously roasted alive on Tumblr last week… the roasters got like 160 “likes”–so I guess I was officially beat up.
I was accused of ABUSING people, by, you know, posting an opinion. I got furious and wrote this long-ass post about victim chic, and well… let the games begin. I put on my asbestos party dress! Burned alive!
I haven’t been on Tumblr long and mostly post pics of baby goats. 🙂 (yes I loooove me some baby goats, okay?) I am pretty flabbergasted by the place. I haven’t seen so many messed-up people in one place since the 1979 Ramones tour.
And at least we had Quaaludes back then to calm em down. Now? Forgettaboutit.
Besides, as I said, they *enjoy *all that fury. It has become their whole identity. And I don’t mean just the feminists. The whole hyper-SJW crowd seems rather berserk.
DDH, thanks for writing half of a post. You’re a real resource.
“I was accused of ABUSING people, by, you know, posting an opinion.”
and
“Besides, as I said, they *enjoy *all that fury. It has become their whole identity. ”
Are you seeing the pattern here? If YOU say something they don’t like and they are all wounded, you’re a beats. They get all ragey and that’s all just empowerment and righteousness.
Spoiled brats.
MRAs complain about this kind of spoiled brat double standard, but these little shits treat everyone like this, not just MRAs.
Something else too. Do you see how the more hyper-sensitive they get, the bloodier their fantasies? This isn’t just them; it’s a feature of the specific popular culture they come out of. Someone recently made this very insightful observation about all the schools shooters – aside from fatherlessness, the one thing they share is backgrounds in hyper-sanitized, absolutely safe and non-violent suburban settings. Their violent fantasies and actual violence balances that.
Gingko: Are you seeing the pattern here? If YOU say something they don’t like and they are all wounded, you’re a beats. They get all ragey and that’s all just empowerment and righteousness.
Absolutely!
Another interesting new thing: Trans women radfems who openly say they hate men. Never thought I’d see the day. I’ve run into several now. (Check out the Tumblr of someone named Ocassis –one of my zealous roasters!– who has a message on her Tumblr that warns you outright that she is a lesbian separatist that hates men, so go away.)
They do not seem to see the irony in this one iota, that lesbian separatists historically hated trans women.
Down the rabbit hole, people.
“Someone recently made this very insightful observation about all the schools shooters – aside from fatherlessness, the one thing they share is backgrounds in hyper-sanitized, absolutely safe and non-violent suburban settings. Their violent fantasies and actual violence balances that.”
Ever read the book ‘Going Postal’ by Mark Ames? It’s very worthwhile.
Aych, whereya bin???? Welcome back ! And thanks for that tip.
Daisy,
“They do not seem to see the irony in this one iota, that lesbian separatists historically hated trans women.
Down the rabbit hole, people.”
Ha! Did you see the Chapelle sketch on the black blind man who wanted to join the KKK because he hated black people so much?
“Aych, whereya bin???? Welcome back !”
Thanks. Basically, I think contentious discussions about gender politics have turned me into a depressed and bitter person so I spend a great deal of time trying to avoid the subject.
I still come here from time to time just to see someone who is talking-back to all the nonsense, though.
I am noticing the same effect on me. stick around because you might find some rest here. Daisy in particular is a breath of fresh air/devastating hurricane/new broom sweeps clean. A big part of that is her core-feminist belief in gender equality and her willingness to call out privileged rich girls pimping their supposed victimhood.
Well I certainly agree that a significant slice of Tumblr SJW people are unhinged.
I have no intention of watching the debate, because I am currently trying very hard to avoid going back on any kind of antidepressant, but I just want to say that I find the premise mildly absurd. For something to be ‘obsolete,’ it has to perform only a very specific function, and then something else has to show up that performs that function more efficiently. It’s language primarily used to describe tools, systems, and other artificial devices because it simply doesn’t translate well to living creatures. Before one can say ‘men are obsolete,’ one must first argue that men are ‘for’ something. So, what the hell are the ‘men’ these people are debating? (This last is an actual question, because, as I said, I have no intention of finding out any time soon.)
Daisy:
This question of anger is something that honestly confuses me. I was very angry myself when I first came to these issues (you may recall something of that from our first conversations here) because I was in the middle of one of my worst spirals of depression and my understanding of society and of my own past experiences had been suddenly turned on its head and was in a state of tremendous flux. But when I had time to stop and get my bearings, I realized how useless shouting in anger was, how little it really achieved for myself or for anyone else, and how foolish arguments between angry people look from the perspective of a less emotional third party. Since that time, I have made an effort to excise the language of anger from my discourse and to hold my tongue when piqued, and I have seen that this does much to enhance the success of my communications with others. Reflecting on my childhood, I now see that any expression of anger, even justified, nonviolent anger, was merely an unnecessary vulnerability, an invitation for others to ignore the content of my expression and take action against the form. Failure to recognize this seems to me a failure of basic pattern recognition, and yet I see it repeated on such a broad scale. I wonder why. It seems to me that many are unable to come to terms with the fact that their feelings are, in the manner of all feelings, true, but that the truth of feeling is no sure reflection of an external reality or proper guide for action.
Still, it is true that I have not solved the problem of what to do with anger, so I suppose I should not be too hasty to judge. Meditation exercises have availed me of a false calm with which to confront problems, but the emotion itself remains. I sometimes feel this deferred anger, rendered indistinct by separation from its direct causes, growing upon me, and I am troubled by it, but I find no release I can deem safe, reasonable and reliable. It is my speculation that crying might serve this purpose, but I am as yet unable to test this theory as I have not been able to cry in many years (although perhaps the number would seem less significant from your perspective), though I have often wanted to, and can find no explanation as to the cause of this deficiency on my part. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject, as you are someone who appears to live fairly well with anger.
“I too remember the days before 2WF”
You remember the days before two-weapon fighting?
Aych: Well I certainly agree that a significant slice of Tumblr SJW people are unhinged.
Any idea WTF happened over there? Is it just mob rule? What I don’t understand about Tumblr SJWs is that they don’t seem to actually DO anything but vent and play victim. Okay, you’re a victim, whatcha gonna do about it?
Almost everybody over there claims to be 1) trans or “genderqueer” and 2) autistic or nebulously “disabled”. Its ubiquitous. It defies reason and statistics that they ALL could be. I call bullshit. (which is one thing that got me roasted alive) But I realized from interacting HERE (yes, pat yourselves on the back!) thatthese two identities are popular because they are perceived as being the most victimized. The holder of these identities can therefore attack at will and not be held accountable. If you hold them accountable you are “transmisogynist” (their new favorite word, courtesy of Julia Serano) or “ableist”… if you ask what they have actually DONE for either group (yes, I have a resume, thank you), then that is a (sobbbbs!!!) a “transmisogynist” and “ableist” thing to even aaaaaaask! (more sobs) Um, how so? I want to know if you are serious, thats all.
Time to quote that touchstone Western patriarchal text:
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Book of James, Chapter 2.
In short, SJWs, fuck you.
And Gingko, it was my involvement *here* that made me realize I am an old red/socialist at heart, even if a libertarian socialist, and I have no time for “Lean In” and that bullshit. My allegiance is to people of my class first. I had not really articulated this before, at least not since I was actively hanging with the reds … one reason I was alienated was the sexism of leftist men in the 70s/80s. Well, that seems to have been addressed, and now I am back in the fold. Things are not perfect, Occupy had rapists, etc, but the difference for an older person like me, is like night and day.
I am having another awakening, and I blame Tumblr. 🙂 I don’t think it was the result they intended.
Hiding: I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject, as you are someone who appears to live fairly well with anger.
Hiding, did you ever see “Billy Jack”? I wrote an obit for Tom Laughlin. Watch the video, unless it is just too hippie-dippy for you to tolerate rationally, LOL. But watch the (pretty benign) violence, and then understand that he allowed himself to be arrested and went voluntarily, it is like 2 diff people. (Laughlin’s daughter said the character, written by her father, WAS her father. I never doubted it.)
The lesson of the movie was that he finally learned to “sacrifice his anger” for the greater good. (That is also one of the meanings of the “Hanged Man” tarot card.) I don’t think we can learn to control anger just for ourselves. But we can if we dedicate ourselves to something (anything) greater/bigger/better than us.
When I keep the *big picture* in mind, I can keep cool. When I devolve to me me me me and my ego, there is simply no way I can control it. I am off to the races in a minute.
The task is then to figure out what that “big picture” is and what you want to make your cause, your greater good. It can be more than one thing, but you have to have something to sacrifice it to, IMHO.
Catholics used to call it “offering it up to the souls in purgatory”… that is now rather out of fashion. But still, that is the concept: you are not the *only* angry person, the *only* suffering person, sacrifice it to those others. Buddhists call it meditating on the suffering of all sentient beings.
I haven’t found any other way, because I go off in a shot. Reading Stephen Pinker and that whole crowd, I have decided this is inherited. And I therefore no longer “blame myself” for my fiery personality, which is pretty much a xerox of my father, who once had his finger bitten off in a bar fight. (really) My mother once broke down a door after her 4th husband locked her out of their bedroom, so of course, could be her too. (LOL)
“Going off in a shot” also has good aspects; I have spontaneity and can do some fast-talking, etc, and that is probably all parts of the whole. Buddhism has taught me that with the good comes the bad, and vice versa. Figuring out what the good and bad ARE and when to utilize/jettison them, is part of the journey.
Accepting that we are the product of our genetics and not necessarily our BAD SELVES has been a real boon to me. I also recommend Robert Sapolsky’s videos on Youtube. He is really brilliant and he is enjoyable to listen to, if you have the time to spare.
I just loved his book “A primate’s memoir”–and to realize that baboons act (more or less) just like we do, is humbling in the extreme.
Daisy:
Thank you very much. I will certainly try reading those books and watching those films (I actually knew the song, but had no idea what it was from).
I like the sound of ‘offering it up to the souls in purgatory,’ even though I’m not really religious. Working to keep things in perspective in my head has certainly helped me to make strides in keeping my cool while discussing issues with people who don’t keep theirs.
What worries me most is that I DON’T go off like a shot. My losing control and snapping would likely be less ‘bar fight’ and more ‘Cask of Amontillado.’ I feel like I’ve at least begun to get a handle on the world, but when it comes to more personal questions of emotion, I’m still completely at a loss. On both fronts, I remain very much afraid (although at least in the former case, this may be the only sane response).
PS: I highly recommend the Sapolsky book to everyone here… yall will enjoy it.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/reviews/010401.01nixont.html
From the review:
But the adventures that Sapolsky recreates in ”A Primate’s Memoir” are undergirded by a serious scientific intent: a study of male stress. Years of baboon observation prompt him to challenge the prevailing view that ”testosterone plus aggression equals social dominance.” Instead, he deduces that in a stable hierarchy, low-ranking males — the ones who fight most frequently over status — exhibit higher testosterone levels (and are more prone to stress-related disease) than the dominant baboons. Moreover, regardless of rank, the lowest stress hormone levels among males appear among those that engage regularly in social grooming and other nonaggressive contact with troop members.
” Instead, he deduces that in a stable hierarchy, low-ranking males — the ones who fight most frequently over status — exhibit higher testosterone levels (and are more prone to stress-related disease) than the dominant baboons.”
No fucking shit sherlock, yet your beloved hate movement has A) bent over backwards to defend reprehensible men like Hugo Scumbag and B) gone out of it’s way to shit on low status men such as myself….
also, Paul Elam, a male feminist from my point of view is obsessed with status and shit all over me personally. AVfM is a sewer and fake men’s rights…
Daisy,
“And Gingko, it was my involvement *here* that made me realize I am an old red/socialist at heart, even if a libertarian socialist, and I have no time for “Lean In” and that bullshit. My allegiance is to people of my class first. I had not really articulated this before, at least not since I was actively hanging with the reds … one reason I was alienated was the sexism of leftist men in the 70s/80s.”
The sexism of the New Left and then also the fact that almost all of them were bourgeois parasites posing as being ” in solidarity with the working masses” when every word out of their mouths was a sneer at common people.
Fashionable feminists of that era were no better. I remember how I gagged when I saw one of them use the expression “speak bitterness” in some sophomoric article in a magazine.
Anger: It is botha vulnerability and a steength, the same as in another form of attack. When you lunge to strike, you expose oyur flanks. They key is to strike efectually enough that it doesn’t matter that you flanks are exposed.
Illustration: Patton and Montgomery laothed each other and one of the points of loathing was Montgomery’s concern of covering his flanks and Patton’s impatience withe the resulting slow pace of his advance. He stormed that if you were killing enough out ahead of you, there wouldn’t be enough left to hit your flanks anyway.
Anger is an instrument and the key if to use your tools rather than letting them use you. Using them imposes a cost and the trick is to keep that cost in mind.
teh Bastard, ha. If it was “my” movement (speaking of socialism), I would have had some major purges and things would be going MY way, or at least MORE my way. I have no time for third wave careerists and Sex in the City feminists. We can arguably say they have done more harm than good. Here is my feminism, which I am damn proud of. Without it, Typhon would not be free to give her opinion on what MEN do, she’d still be in the back of the shul or the cathedral. Women were not supposed to question what ANY men did, at any time, it was considered grossly-out-of-line for a woman to talk about such things. She doesn’t realize this, since she is from the generation largely freed from those bonds, BY US. In her new piece, I was shocked (but not really) to learn I am a mere 6 years younger than her father. No wonder we don’t see eye to eye. I am of the generation that was forbidden to learn to fix cars and play drums, a reality thankfully now relegated to the past. But please don’t tell me that we did nothing good. Only a young person who wasn’t there, could say that.
I have written at length about when and where I think feminism went off the rails, and how. I think I probably know more about that than you do, but hey, whatever. I now call myself a feminist primarily to upset the Baptist teabaggers, who run the county I live in. They still melodramatically hyperventilate over feminism, and I am glad to help them do so, since they say all kinds of amusing stuff while they are hyperventilating, which I then play on my radio show. 🙂
And if you want my nuanced take on Hugo, here it is. This comes from an AA perspective, which I thought was sorely needed and missing from all the other fulminating. I am sure you will find it tl:dr but in the interests of fairness, I am offering it. I didn’t like the attacks on Hugo from all the same victim-feminists who fetishize depression and ADHD as “mental illness” and love to call themselves “disabled” online (but they sure don’t when they are trying to get dates on Craigslist! Now, what’s up with THAT?) … but apparently, Hugo’s OBVIOUS mental illness and disability don’t count. I think they do.
This is the kind of hypocrisy that has driven me from much of online feminism, and why I am interested in alternatives and listening to what people are saying. For this, I was recently attacked on livejournal as “cozying up to MRAs”… doncha love the sexism inherent in their word choice “cozying”? The idea that I might actually learn something seems impossible to them.
For instance, read this comment on my blog. (trigger warning for the whole thread; it gets pretty nasty, people) This person Sophia (I am told this is Canadian trans activist Sophia Banks, can not verify that of course) writes:
And I think “IF YOU THINK THIS BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE, IT MAKES IT OKAY WHEN IT HAPPENS TO TRANS PEOPLE TOO” is frankly an absurd statement, akin to saying “if there’s a feminist movement it must be OK to have a masculist movement too.”
Well, there you go then. That is considered a reasonable response!
Okay, sorry for going on so long. But yeah I have thought A LOT about this stuff.
Ah. Donna L from Feministe. That explains a lot. She’s a professional victim who loves to call any criticism of MGM anti-Semitic and has pretty completley weaponized her victimhood.
Just consider the source. Just fucking consider the source of those comments.
She has no interst in being reasonable because that would be like granting you equal moral status, and she would much rather sit in judgment from on high.
You and she are working off of completley dfifferent and utterly incompatible moral frameworks, so you two can have no real moral dialog. The difference is that yours is moral.
Daisy, here’s something for you:
http://tlgmagazine.com/jezebel-wrong-approach-feminism/
Why Jezebel Has the Wrong Approach to Feminism, Period.
GREAT ARTICLE, Gingko, will have to link it.
I used to fall for that anti-semitism argument, and then I realized fighting MGM is no more “anti semitic” than fighting other religious abuses such as Quiverfull or FLDS-style forced polygamy… or FEMALE circumcision, for that matter. But I had to get some distance from the Bible (haha) before I fully understood that.
In THIS follow up about MWMF, Donna L. comes sniffing around policing me again. (trigger warnings! trigger warnings! etc etc) Hers are (of course) the anonymous comments informing me nobody from Feministe likes me anymore. (((sobs))) The snotty New Yorker remark about how Michfest won’t have decent bagels, is hers.
Speaking of which, on Donna’s recommendation, I emailed Jill one more time after this thread, asking her where all my 2008 Feministe posts went, who deleted them and why. She replied, said she would look into it. (That was August. No further word from her. I think I’ll probably be waiting a very long time.)
One comment expressed the belief Donna L was a moderator at Feministe (which I confess, I thought she was too!)…and Donna replies:
If you’re really familiar with Feministe, you know perfectly well that I’m not a moderator. (And wouldn’t be one if I were asked to be, under any circumstances; life is too short.) And nobody “defers” to me. Like it or not, if people tend to agree with me, it’s because they can see that what I say usually makes sense.
Church Lady voice: We think a lot of ourselves, don’t we Donna?
“Church Lady voice: We think a lot of ourselves, don’t we Donna?”
Do you remember my toxic femininity post form a while ago? A Swedish woman, Ninna Tokan, is quoted for her discussion of the Moral Guardian, an aspect of the traditional female role – and Swedish culture is just sick unto death with it at the moment – and asks what good is a feminism that does not examine feminity.