Monday, July 25, 2011

Misogyny, Misandry, And The Blended Penis.



UPDATE: I feel better, especially considering the hate that I have received from the "Men's Rights" movement, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has published a report on the hateful misogyny contained therein. When I wrote and posted this, all I was responding to was The Amazing Atheist. I wasn't even aware that this "movement" existed. Well, I'm sure as hell aware of it now, seeing as the group took a movement all over the comments section of my video. When something like the SPLC is on your side, you feel vindicated. /UPDATE

The amazing atheist recently posted a video attacking the CBS show The Talk, where they laugh over a man getting his penis cut off and thrown into a garbage disposal. First off, let's address the fact that their laughing about it is rather disturbing, especially being a man who is more that slightly attached to his penis.

That said, his response is wrong on one level, and at best misdirected on others.

First, he is flat-out wrong in his association of feminism with this. Men and women, who more than smack of misogyny, equate misandry, of which there is plenty in our society, with feminism. This is resolutely not the case.

I read Jezebel a lot. I also read lots of other blogs written by level-headed, intelligent people. Feministe, Feministing, and a variety of other sites that deal with gender and society. If these are representative of feminism in the world today, then he is wrong, and if he can't take feminism seriously, if he can't take the drive for absolute equality of women seriously, then he is nothing more than another stupid white guy who can't look past his own perspective.

Is there misandry? Of course. There's tons of it. Cosmo magazine is a great example, with its subtly misandristic portrayal of men as only animals in need of sexual placating. But all of the misandry in the world pales, PALES, in comparison to the amount of misogyny out there, especially in regards to the violent nature of the misogyny. If you feel that I need to make a list of examples of misogyny, you need to read more news.

For example, JUST as I was writing this, Kotaku, the gaming blog that is actually the sister website of Jezebel, wrote of a large LAN party celebrating the release of Battlefield 3, a video game. They banned women because their presence causes the men to act up. Put yourself in the shoes of the female gamers who wanted to attend, or those who attended the previous year, thus motivating this absurd regulation. You can appreciate the urge to portray men as chimpanzees.

He uses an example from Forensic Files where a woman killed her husband, but doesn't give us all of the details. The woman shot her husband in the head with a shotgun while he slept, and claimed that he had been beating her. Has he never seen Burning Bed? It's a viable defense. And it's not a viable defense for emotional reasons, there are reams of psychological research data describing the state of mind people can come to be in when living in an abusive household. He uses this as a counter example, but it fails.

He fails to take his OWN words into consideration when saying that women are treated differently. He talks about how every show is the husband killing the wife, and I watch the same shows, it's true, and then a episode is of the wife killing the husband. Doesn't that make any intelligent person think that, if all other cases are one way, and this one is another way, that there might be something different about it?

Especially considering that the episodes of that very show that involve women, which I've seen and I'm sure so as he, where the women's motivations are black as pitch, the women never do what he described. They poison, which is very popular, or they hire someone else.

Women do not physically abuse men. Even with recent research showing that female on male abuse is higher than originally thought, it is still a tiny fraction of the abuse of male on female.

He also mentions a case in Russia that may or may not be true of a woman who beat up a man who was trying to rob her store, cuffed him, and kept him as a sex slave for three days. He talks about the reaction to her behavior, with people creating her a Facebook fan page. Well, I have another case that is definitely true. The Russian “Black Widow.” A woman who was charged with drugging and raping ten men in 2009. I find the reaction of the men interesting. If this had been a man, the response from women would have been universal, “That is horrible. I can't imagine being in her shoes.”

But instead, the response from men was frequently “Why can't I find women like that?!” One of the men even refused to press charges because he liked it and only wished he hadn't been drugged. But even here, there were many obviously misadristic women nearly calling for the beatification of the Black Widow. Their words dripped with hatred. This is not feminism. Not in the very slightest. You would never hear these words from actual feminists like those on Jezebel. But EVEN THEN, the situation is not equal.

Misandry and misogyny are different. Absolutely. They are not different because one is right and the other wrong. They are both equally wrong. But they are different in the behaviors caused by them. The Amazing Atheist fails to notice that men raping women happens all of the time, but women raping men makes international news because it is so very rare.

That is not to say that female-male rape doesn't exist. Truly, women can be sexually aggressive as is found in statistics of sexual coercion between lesbians. But my likelihood of being raped by a woman, in ANY setting, is about as low as winning the lottery. My chances of being raped by another man, on the other hand, are much higher. This is probably the root of misandristic threads in gay culture and the fact that in your average gay club, every man in the building is watching their drink like a hawk.

The Amazing Atheist and the women on The Talk talk about cutting off the penis as identical to the breasts and clitoris. No. Wrong again. As my partner Danielle pointed out very succinctly, the penis can be a weapon, and it is a weapon that is widely used by millions of men every year when they rape. Women simply do not have a counterpart to the penis.

Even the very video to which the Amazing Atheist linked stands as a testament to misogyny, and this is again something that he doesn't discuss. It was posted by some absurd “Manhood Academy,” which references “getting your balls back.” Because in this blatantly, horribly sexist and misogynistic world, masculinity is something that women can take away, because masculinity exists only vis a vis women.

If a man is attacking you for being a bad person, even if you aren't, you call that person an asshole. Nothing else. He's just an asshole. But if women do it, you're being stripped of your masculinity. Because here, masculinity is a reciprocal construct that exists to put women in their place. If women are not in their place, masculinity has been “stripped.” Masculinity is directly associated with sex.

That “Manhood Academy's” website lists this, and I quote”Manhood Academy is the first worldwide male educational center specifically designed to train men like you in social competence. And best of all—our content is ABSOLUTELY FREE. Whether it's going on your first date, saving a troubled relationship, addressing your wife's 'bitch' behavior, making new friends, or standing up for yourself in this emasculating feminist environment, our goal is to teach you how to conduct satisfying social interactions.”

Notice how in their list of things that they can help you do, of the five items that emasculate you, four are directly associated with women. Funny how that is. That is because in this view, women are not people. They are “women.” Something that is somehow fundamentally different and separate from men.

The content of the video is just that, but you cannot avoid recognizing that the people who saw fit to post this video online are just as bad as those they attack.

So why are people not getting up in arms, like the Amazing Atheist demands? Because women doing this is so damned rare. Rape of men is not a pestilence on society. Men might fear mugging, but women on the street fear abduction, rape, murder, AND mugging. It is a predatory world out there, and it is just plain stupid to argue otherwise. How many serial killers killed men? How often do women form gun-toting gangs? How often do women form small armies that are paid with the rape and pillage of wherever their leader sends them? Do you have any examples? I do not. I do have examples of the men doing it, like when the Red Army raped every German woman they came across during the fall of Berlin. Again, you can appreciate the urge to portray men as chimpanzees.

If I met any misandristic women, I would just as soon run for the hills from their toxic nonsense as I would from misogynistic men. They are equally large assholes in a purely intellectual sense. But something tells me that those same women would not go off and rape, beat, and molest. The men do. I do not feel threatened by misandry, but women do and should feel threatened by misogyny.

It's not that men don't have the right to get up in arms, it's that they have no reason. Sexism doesn't affect them systemically. Men, for all intents and purposes, rule the world. As women reach higher positions of power in the future, this will likely need addressing, and I may become to feel threatened by misandry, but it doesn't today.

Women and those damned angry feminists get up in arms precisely because the pissed off men who follow stupid shit like Manhood Academy are so ready to put women back into their “place.” The definition of manhood for these people is having women under control. Religion wants them back in the kitchen. Society wants them sexualized and put up for decoration.

Angry men the world over want those bitches down. Look at the scummy social underbelly of France that has been revealed with the Strauss-Kahn case in New York. Or the governmental representatives in Australia who keep meowing at female representatives. This is a seething, toxic undercurrent to our social zeitgeist. And because of that, misogyny and misandry are, and will remain for the perceivable future, different. Logically identical, but practically very, very, terribly, violently different.

UPDATE: Because of the direction that the comments on this site and YouTube have taken, I want to focus on a good example of what shows up on real feminist websites. Misandry is not feminism. Real, level-headed feminists write about gender in general, and freedom, and apple pie, and the American way, and all that good stuff!

Once Again, Men Can Be Raped Too (Jezebel.com)

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

Like most emo faggots, you were raised by a single mom to worship women. That's why you sound like such a misguided little bitch. Run along and put your tampon back in ma'am. lol

Aaron MC said...

Thank you for that insightful comment.

D.S. Chard said...

Wow. "Faggots" and "little bitch" all in one comment. Somebody sounds like they have a massive chip on their shoulder when it comes to women. Not to mention they also sound like a bigot. Sure you don't want to put in some racist slur, as well? Make it an angry little puerile hat-trick? Like most people who hide behind anonymity so they can freely spew forth garbage, you sound like an angry coward. Run along and hide in daddy's basement, maybe slap the girlfriend around a little, then go swill back some beer and polish your gun collection, little sir.

Samantha said...

As a victim of rape and other sexual assaults, and as a female Marine, I have experienced the dangers and threats of misogyny and I was very pleased to finally see a man be able to recognize the difference between misandry and misogyny. I am so relieved to hear a man say, "Logically identical, but practically very, very, terribly, violently different." Perhaps my extreme relief and surprise is due to a bit of misandry on my part in response to my experiences. However, this schemata I have regarding men is something I try to overcome regularly.
I'm struggling right now to compliment you without sounding like I want to suck you off, but since that appears to be a bit of a hardship for me, I hope explaining it is enough of a compliment.

Aaron MC said...

Hi Samantha,

I'm glad that I made an effective introduction to the world of men who aren't douche bags.

I'm very glad that I helped you with a bit of your misandry. I can appreciate your feelings very well. While I don't know what it feels like to be a woman in a sexist world, the amount of negativity that I've received from men online about posts like this has been eye-opening.

Your compliments are very appreciated, and I didn't feel like you wanted to suck me off at all! :D

Truly, it's unfortunate that men so frequently take any compliments as a come-on. I do not. But, again, I understand your concern.

I would recommend reading Jezebel. It's a fantastic blog that, while the comments sometimes have a misandristic vibe, those people are usually argued down. It's level-headed, inclusive, witty, and has a large male involvement.

Also, check out The Good Men Project. It's a good blog that talks about the rejection of negative masculine gender norms.

Oh, and Semper Fi, and all that. :)

ZimbaZumba said...

Jezebel, Feministing and Feminista seem reasonable to you as they reflect your World view. To suggest there is not a fair smattering of misandry in those 3 sites deifies comprehension. I think it might be case of you seeing what you like and not what you don't. People seem to see Misogyny every where but are congnatively disabled when Misandry is in front of their nose.

As for "The Good Men Project" it features articles by Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Schwyer, probably enough said. Addressing -ve male gender roles can sometimes be +ve and other times it's a thinly veiled euphemism for Misandry. I think the "The Good Men Project" people are a bit naive though well meaning and out of touch with men in general.

Amanda Marcotte, Amanda Hess, Melisa McEwan and Hugo Schwyer, Micheal Kimmel and Michael Flood are all well know bloggers, none are Misandric to varying degrees? Some in that list are monstrous.

The explain away the Female reaction and to minimize the Catherine Becker case sort of leaves me cold.

Aaron MC said...

ZimbaZumba,

There is certainly a smattering of misandry, which I talked about in the comment just before yours, and it usually gets knocked down in the comments.

Moreover, yes, they match my world view... my world view of level-headed discussion, rational argument, and research. I like them because they are reasonable.

The reasonableness of the blog is not personal preference any more than agreeing that evolution is correct and creationism is stupid is a personal preference. I see what I like and what I don't like. And, also, I comment on what I don't like. Responses to my comments are usually very positive and intelligent.

The comments about Marcotte and Schwyzer I simply don't get. Are you upset about Marcotte's support of the Duke Lacrosse thing?

And to say that The Good Men Project is out of touch with men is inaccurate. They aren't specifically trying. They are saying that "men" as a group is a misnomer, and it is wrong of society to argue that we need to be in touch with "men." This sort of categorization fosters a perception that men and women are fundamentally different, that they are somehow two separate tribes of people. They strive to be in touch with "people."

Finally, you have missed the point of my article. You seem to think that I am denying the existence of misandry in the world and in the blogosphere. I am simply not doing this. There is a lot of misandry out there.

I am saying that misandry doesn't receive attention because its social consequences are small. Society must deal with the practical reality of things, not the logical reality. Misogyny has been a systemic blight on society since the beginning of civilization. It has been at the root of, or associated with, rape, oppression, murder, and bigotry.

I am not explaining the female reaction to the Kieu Becker case. I am not minimizing the Kieu Becker case. I don't know where you got that impression.

I am explaining society's reaction to The Talk. No one cares about a bunch of idiot women talking about a penis on TV because that's all it is. It is not symptomatic of grand societal issues. Women will not use misandry as justification to rape and oppress. Well, except for Aileen Wuornos.

The history of oppression and continuing systemic bias against women, and continuing threads of sexism and misogyny in society today, evince the ever-present threat of renewed oppression. The likelihood of women ever oppressing men on a full-scale societal level is about as small as being killed in an alien invasion. The opposite is not true. The opposite continues to happen to this day. That is why society doesn't care. That is why women don't care. That is why I don't care.

Alkali said...

Women together with the juggernaut of their special interest lobby form by far the most powerful voting block the USA today. Misandry in women is not something to brush aside.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

You have a very skewed perspective on today's political landscape. The feminist movement is a rather unimportant voting block. Conservative women are significantly stronger, and they would not at all describe themselves as feminists.

And what lobby are you talking about? What organizations are so powerful?

Alkali said...

I was not talking of feminists I was talking of women in general. Read last paragraph here

http://grounds-strategy.com/files/gender-and-voting.pdf

Female support for Hilary over Obama was about 56:44, that is statistically significant. Are you suggesting that NOW and AAUW have not influenced politics? Over the last 20yrs VAWA and changes in Family and Sexual Assault Laws did not come from thin air or the good will of male politicians.

Far more women vote than men, and they tend to vote Democrat. Ignoring women is political suicide, demographically they have more political clout than men as a group. Female Misandry is not as benign as you suggest.

In principle I have no objection to block voting or lobby groups.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

I'm not arguing that women don't vote in large numbers, I'm arguing that saying "women" is a voting block is stupid. There are many types of women out there with vastly different values and ideas.

You are specifically referring to feminists in this context. Both organizations that you mentioned are explicitly feminist organizations. And the effects that they have had on society have had little to do with misandry. Their actions were concerned with immediate, quantifiable problems facing women in a sexist society. Truly, go to either organizations website and find something that is misandristic. There is nothing there.

Moreover, both NOW and the AAUW have of course influenced politics. But influence is very different from being a juggernaut. If they were this juggernaut of which you speak, we would not have near-constant threats to abortion rights and Planned Parenthood across the country, with many of the people on the other side ALSO being women.

Yes, more women vote than men. It's been that way for a long time. But "women" is a misnomer. If they were, we wouldn't have had only 56% to 44%. That is statistically significant, but not gigantic, either.

So while women might be a larger voting block than men as far as sex goes, to say that "women" are powerful is incorrect.

Finally, this example is poor. The bulk of politicians are still men. In the entire history of the American Senate, only 39 women have served. 17 of them are serving now, and this is an all-time high. Similar numbers exist for the House: 72 out of 435; governorships: 6 out of 50; and ambassadorships: 25-30 out of 176.

Men are still beating women in smaller races by the bucket-load across the country. In my own state of Rhode Island, a woman has run for governor every year for the past 30-some years and lost every time. Most of the time, her campaign hasn't even gotten beyond the local level. If misandry is affecting American politics, the effect is small.

Misandry is as benign as I say it is. It has not affected me. It has not affected any of my friends. There is no research to indicate that it is affecting anyone in large numbers. If you have research indicating otherwise, I would be very interested in reading it.

Alkali said...

To further clarify, my points are about women in general not feminists.

When a group that forms a majority of the votership and displays statistical voting bias, my link demonstates this, then the elected officials and their parties, ( whether they be man, woman or chimpanzee), have to pay significant attention to that group.

If that group historically has say demonstrated a degree of essentially unfettered sexism, racism, misogny or in this case misandry it bothers me and it should bother you.

Even simply the fact that the majority of the votership demonstrates misandry should bother you.

The point I am making is straight forward and pretty self evident. The sky might not quite be falling here, but to simply dismissing misandry as a matter of little concern seems odd ar best.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

-This part is tangential to my ultimate point, but I wanted to address your concerns of misandry in politics because I don't think it's something worth worrying about-

I agree that the group needs to be attended by politicians, and every election has some group of "fill-in-the-blank moms" as the key demographic to target. But that's the issue. Woman are usually a hugely diverse demographic. It's incorrect to look at women as a specific block, and while they move in more block-like patterns than men, that connection is weak and is fading with time.

Women voting for Hillary by such a margin was something of a fluke because she was a woman. Just as blacks voted for Obama because he was black. It indicates nothing but a sense of kinship, not a specific hatred for the opponent. In the following election, Women voted primarily for Obama even though McCain had Palin. Obviously, McCain was hoping to capitalize on female voters, but the connection isn't as strong as Hillary's data made it seem. This same error was made during the 1984 election.

This disconnect will likely grow as we continue into the future and women spread out into the wide world ever more. Previously, women were much more focused in what they did because of societal restrictions. Fifty years ago, a politician could appeal to women by appealing to education, since most educators were women and/or had children. This correlation is fading.

My point is that misandry has had no effect politically insofar as politicians are being elected or not elected based on misandry. Misogyny, on the other hand, has been an element in many political races. Even the article that you linked talks about the "credibility factor," with women being seen as less intelligent and capable than male counterparts. I know of no studies to contradict any of this.

Moreover, I don't think the majority of the voting populace has demonstrated misandry. I think they have demonstrated sexist ideas about what is "masculine" and "feminine," and these ideas affect their behaviors and values.

It is here where studies have been done, and those studies overwhelmingly show strongly misogynistic ideology, not misandristic. So then, even if you want to address misandry, it seems like a small point in the grand scheme of gender-normative social issues which certainly do need addressing, and that energy would be better spent on overall gender equality in all ways. Ya know, except for pregnancy, which I'm assuming men will never be able to do.

-This is the end of the point about politics. Thank you for flying ACITD Airlines-

Aaron MC said...

My ultimate point is that there is no study showing misandry having a negative effect on any man's life. I have never experienced it, certainly. Since there is so little chance of it happening, I feel no need to worry. I am a while male, and I am more likely to experience racism, which I have, than misandry. Yet I'm not worried about racism.

I think that the problems in our society regarding misogyny are so much stronger that if I am going to get self-righteous about anything, it should be that. I have many female friends, and the thought that they would ever be denied employment, harassed, or otherwise made uncomfortable simply because they are female is highly upsetting to me. It is upsetting because I know that it happens, and this is widespread. As a man, excepting Hooters, I will never be denied employment for my sex. This reality gives me comfort.

Alkali said...

Reaching agreement here is probably not going to happen. But my final comment is that I feel you are woefully unaware of the problems facing your gender, some of which have their roots in Misandry. Here are a few non MRA links you might find informative.

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men


Here are a couple of sites that give another perspective as well. They are not extremists, they are pretty thoughtful people.

http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/enews/enews.php
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/

Even MRA sites, if you apply a big fat filter, have things to say. I read as diverse a set of opinions as I can on a subject. Especially those that are odds with my view.

an unamused consumer said...

Misandry is not a blight in today's modern society? I highly disagree, good sir! It has taken years of therapy for me to step outside my trailer and see the light of day again.

A heinous act of misandry took my father away from me. He was on the side of the highway trying to fix a flat tire when a minivan slowed alongside our car. The female driver could see he was having trouble loosening the lug nuts. To chide him, she shouted out the window "Come on! Put some oomph into it, be a man!" Then she drove away. My father turned bright red as he tried with futility once again. Unable to be a man, he sniffled a little, and as a tear ran down his face, he wandered into traffic and got creamed by a big rig. He took it like a man. I saw the whole thing.

These feminists are monsters who emasculated my dad to death with their horrible misandry! Is there no justice? I can never love a woman again, for under that soft skin runs nothing but cold blood and venom. Venom, I say!

You sir have suckled the sweet teat of feminism too long! Wake up and listen to your penis again!

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

Thanks for the links, I read them with great interest. I am not denying the existence of men's issues. They certainly exist and I am not ignoring them. In fact, some of them piss me off as much as women's issues. For example, the retarded man as portrayed in any advertisement for a product to be used around the house. No. I'm sorry. I can do my own laundry without setting myself on fire.

That said, the rape of men issue deals exclusively with men who are raped by other men. This subject is frightening but not covered by my issues with female misandry.

The End Of Men is a ridiculous article that was lambasted on a number of websites, most notably for me, Jezebel:

http://jezebel.com/5559491/the-end-of-men-not-so-much

I am reading the other two blogs currently. I see much of what I am already aware.

Problems and biases might be faced by me, but they are minor in comparison to women. They are also much less systemic than women. I could become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The likelihood of a woman doing the same is fleetingly small.

Finally, while we might never agree, I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Insight only comes when two opposing views clash, and much of my blog is a monologue.

Anonymous said...

Hi Aaron, For a interesting read try the biggest MRA site http://antimisandry.com/forums/
btw Male Rape article above shows how UN and NGO's have ignored men, for political purposes.

~Toby~

Aaron MC said...

Toby,

Thanks for the link. I read the site over and found lots of what I am railing against, namely they equate feminism with misandry. This is incorrect. The very first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on feminism talks about equality and freedom from gender norms for men as part of feminism, since it's actually all of society that is hampered by gender-normative expectations.

Feminism is not misandry.

Moreover, the article about rape was much more complex than aid organizations ignoring male rape. There's a huge goulash of social expectations that prevents the men from even coming forward. The first half of the article discussed the horrible climate in Africa, where men can be arrested for being raped. This isn't misandry, it's a barbaric culture.

And while the aid organizations aren't doing what's right, it's not misandristic. They think that violence against women is a bigger problem and they're trying to find ways to allocate highly limited resources.

I also suspect that some of the other organizations are simply ignorant. Is this correct? No, obviously not. These men are victims just like the women. Moreover, the plight of these men should be championed. But the root of this behavior is not misandristic.

Alkali said...

reposting in case other post got lost

After reading your above post, in particular your penultimate paragraph above, I felt the need to respond. (so the above was not my last word :)

The argument that Aid organizations are highlighting Women rather than Men for fiscal/utilitarian reasons leaves me dumb founded. The first principle of doing Good is that you do no Harm. Highlighting Women's distress alone minimizes and exacerbates Men's. I very much doubt this was there reasoning anyway.

My main beef with your view point is the ease with which you dismiss Misandry. The very same argumentative style can be used to dismiss Misogyny (ie hatred/dislike of women).

Are there any present day examples of Misogyny that effect women in general in a substantially negative way? I am sure Misogny exists but as with Misandry it could be argued it is essentially benign or isolated.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

I didn't mean to indicate that I felt that the aid organizations were correct. They are obviously wrong. I'm just saying that the root of their choice is not based in misandry. It might be based in any number of other bad things: stupidity, ignorance, poor management; but it's not based on misandry.

My arguments could be used that way if they weren't backed by research and history.

For historical references, how many men are "honor" killed every year? How many men have acid thrown in their face because they are pretty? How many cultures treat men as property? How many men have been the victims of serial killers?

Sexism and hatred of females is in every religion. Women are not allowed to be preachers, pastors, or elders. In many religions the belief that women are tainted and fundamentally inferior to, and subservient to, men is a tenet of the ideological structure.

Look at the minor controversy surrounding Michelle Bachmann. She subscribes to a religion that explicitly dictates that women must be below men, yet she would be president.

There is absolutely no religion on Earth where men are explicitly beneath women.

Look at the board rooms of major corporations. 95% male, I think is the number. People can argue the wage gap all day long, but that number is undeniable.

Misogyny also, as I mentioned above, manifests in different ways from misandry. Women might think me scum, but they rarely get violent with male hatred. That's not to say they don't get violent, they certainly do, but it's not because someone is male. It's because the woman is an asshole.

Males get violent. Males gang rape. Males gang up and harass. The sheer number of aggressive scenes from bars and nightclubs that I've seen with a man coming on to a woman, she repeatedly rejects him, and he responds by getting abusive and violent. Just me, has seen this happen about a dozen times.

Every woman I know has a story like that. While they were likely not about to raped or anything like that, the responses were undeniably aggressive and abusive.

Think about the recent gym shooting in Pennsylvania. In 2009, George Sodini went on a shooting spree because he couldn't get laid. How many women go on shooting sprees because they hate men? I feel safe in saying that the answer is zero.

I don't even think I need to get into a discussion of rap music and the surrounding hip-hop culture. It stands as a testament to the culture that keeps poverty-level black women down.

Alkali said...

Q.
"For historical references, how many men are "honor" killed every year? How many men have acid thrown in their face because they are pretty? How many cultures treat men as property? How many men have been the victims of serial killers?"


A.
I must admit at first reading this I found it convincing, and that my challenge was ill advised. I did however check a few things.

In the West it seems woman have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than an Honor/Serial Killing or having acid being thrown in her face. In the USA I found no instances of honor killing in the last year. I found one example of a facial acid attack, it was a self inflicted hoax for attention seeking purposes. These seem to be incredibly rare events.

Serial killers are also incredibly rare by all accounts and they also sometimes kill men. They are more mentally insane than anything else according to most sources. The chances of a women being the victim of a serial killer let alone one who is motivated purely by Misogyny seems to be miniscule.

Internationally honor killing is still a very rare event and is more a tradition of barbarism than Misogyny from what I can see. Acid attacks are also extremely rare, the few from India are amongst a massive poulation of 1.3 billion. Most people argue they are an isolated matter of personal enmity at being sperned. I suppose people aren't in the habit of courting that which they hate/dislike. The other concentration of acid attacks I found are in Cambodia/Vietnam and are of women disfiguring their husbands lovers.

Concerning women as property I am not entirely sure what you mean here. I am certainly not aware of anything remotely close to this being common in the USA. There may be some obscure sects, I'll check. I am not aware of this idea being a core idea in any culture I found. Unless you are talking of the sex slave trade? This is a more a matter of criminal greed and disregard for your fellow human beings, there are in fact more men traded as forced labor according to UN statistics. These practices are certainly abhorrent and everything should be done to stop them but I don't see Misogyny being their primary motivating reason.

Many of the things you brought up are of course disturbing and troubling but Misogyny does not seem to be the overwhelming reason for them, though in the odd case I sure they are . I think with everything we tend to remember the unusual, especially if it affects those dear to us. I don't think these issues are a matter of everyday concern to the average American women.

If you know of any other research let me know.



Recipe:- It pretty easy isnt it. It a mixture of fake concern and objectivity (concern trolling), minimising or ignoring contrary points, emphesising supporting points, making plausible stuff up, setting impossible standards of evidence, frame switching and every other rhetorical device in the book. I even threw in a "Me No Comprende" + misdirection for fun. All followed by a platitudinous final paragraph of 'wisdom' to tie things off. I couldn't resist the final old chesnut of a sentence.

I was pretty good here I addressed every point you brought up. The other technique is to simply ignore things you can't answer, the point will soon be forgotten. A must for the tool box of every forum poster.

I can write the same pile of crap for the rest of your points, (I might do later for fun). It is this style I feel you use on occasion, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The problem with using words is that we react emotionally to them and critical analysis of argument is freeking difficult. That is why we can't agree on squat on this planet.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

To address your closing section first-

What points of yours did I not address?

If you feel that we aren't making headway, then we will simply rely on bullet points.

Fake concern? Fake objectivity? What the hell are you talking about? I have made NOTHING up. Impossible standards of evidence? For what point?

I have done no frame switching. The argument has been slightly rambling, I'll admit, but we've stayed decently on point.

Moreover, I have done nothing as a platitude. My request for research was genuine and I'm insulted that you are attacking me for it. Or was it me thanking you for your arguments? I meant that. The Socratic dialectic is the most important philosophical concept to me. No insight can be had without it. If a show of respect is necessarily a platitude, you need better friends.

- I included honor killings not to specifically condemn the US, where this essentially never happens, but to bring up misogynistic practices all over the world.

Honor killings are rare, but I think it is because women rarely step out of line. And they also aren't as rare as they seem, with the majority of them likely never being reported. And to believe that women specifically deserve to die for whatever reason seems as misogynistic as possible, even though it is a primarily barbarous practice.

- For my usage of serial killers, it was an example in extremis to illustrate underlying emotions with men, which may nor may not be inherent. The example of George Sodini was the same thing. Sodini is incredibly rare, but when it happens, it's always men. And while serial killers have killed men, there have even been a few female serial killers, the very large majority of them are men killing women.

To check, I looked at the list of serial killers on Wikipedia and counted them all up.

The US had 198 confirmed. I didn't include anything unconfirmed, even if it was a known streak of murdered women. The list also included people who killed repeatedly for money and I was initially going to filter them out, but it would have taken forever.

So instead, I took out all of the women, 19, and checked their M-O's in comparison to a random sampling of the men. I didn't include women who killed in collaboration with a man. There was a financial element in 16 of 17 women. There was a financial element in 1 of 17 men, and 17 out of 17 men killed exclusively women.

Aileen Wournos is the only one who killed because she simply wanted to kill men. In fact, that's the reason why she is famous.

Aaron MC said...

- By property I mean as the man OWNS the woman, just as a man would own a dog. The Bible uses the same terms to describe women as it does slaves. As does the Koran and the Torah. Women as property is an underlying theme in ALL Western religions. 90% of Americans follow a religion of some sort. Less liberal interpretations of the Bible even say that it is impossible for a man to rape a wife. This is taught! This is a toxic and persistent undercurrent to our zeitgeist.

If 90% of Americans follow a religion that believes on at least some level that women are fundamentally subservient to men, and any woman who doesn't do this is a sinner, and we all know what happens to sinners.

Eve was the cause of the fall from grace. Lilith was kicked out of the Garden of Eden for having sex on top. Women are fundamentally tainted. I'd call that misogyny. I'd also call that a real, social threat to female equality and female rights. Again, this does not exist for men.

- Here is the reasearch that you requested:

- http://www.livescience.com/2005-study-sexist-humor-joke.html
- http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-09-22-sexist-insults-female-politicians_N.htm
- http://www.livescience.com/4969-strange-role-sex-hillary-failed-run.html
- http://www.livescience.com/13654-victim-blaming-sexual-harassment.html
- The above article is interesting since those with traditional views are more likely to be harassers, and the below study shows that those with traditional views are also more likely to earn more money, and earn MUCH more money than their wife.
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/apa-sps091808.php
-http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/uom-rsa111209.php
- The above study is cool because it comes up with different terms than sexism and misandry/misogyny. It calls the two hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. But is shows that women who reject societal norms are the ones who go from receiving BS to HS. It also shows that the majority of HS is coming from men.
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/s-cad031810.php
- The above study shows that male sexism breeds female sexism and misandry, but the point of that article is that sexism hurts everyone.
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uok-cah051408.php
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uog-wa012011.php
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-11/UoIa-Hcsa-011199.php
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/uog-ata040810.php
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/smu-ggs022211.php
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoo-mwh021207.php
- The above study is the doozy and it applies very well to my attack on the Amazing Atheist. Men who haven't experienced it, don't get it, and thus don't believe it happened. A MASSIVE rational failing for a group of people who claim to be rational.

I also found a study that contradicts my view, at least it seems that way. Except that men still rule the roost, so this misandry that he's worried about can't be so terrible. They earn more, run more companies, and make up the majority of politicians.

- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-12/cu-tia121310.php

All of that said, there is more research on male-on-female sexism and misogyny than the reverse. But again, where are the effects? Where are the effects of sexism and misandry against males?

I can think of one: reproductive rights. I consider that a major problem for men. And this most definitely has a misandristic element to it. Namely, men are horny scum and deserve to support any child that comes from their seed.

But that's it. Compare that to the laundry list of problems for women.

Alkali said...

Aaron:- My post was not meant as an insult to you, I apologize if I left that impression. It was to highlight how easy it is to make a superficially convincing case for or against just about anything.

I actually do think some of yours post regarding Misandry have to some extent have taken this form, although my example is a caricature. And as I said " on occasion, either intentionally or unintentionally". Which surprises me as you clearly think very astutely on other issues. My post was more of a meta discussion

My answer to the posed question was essentially vacuous but difficult to counter.

Also I think most forum posts on the Web take the form I have described or a variant of it. Probably including mine from time to time, especially on issues I am close to. Which is why I am seriously questioning why I post on forums.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

I'm sorry I took insult. None was meant, and I shouldn't have been so quick to retort.

I think that it's a necessary aspect of internet writing and commentary. We have a fast discussion going on, limited time, and limited attentions spans with the average reader. It's just the nature of the beast.

I'm sure that many of my posts have been overly simplistic and follow what you exemplified, but I try my best to balance simplicity and terseness with a full account of whatever I'm trying to address. Even this post, which I thought was pretty good, had a number of argumentational issues which wouldn't have been made apparent to me if you hadn't be aggressive.

Alkali said...

I know exactly what you mean, I do the same frequently. The structure of human communication is that we can predict roughly what is to following our utterances. It makes it very efficient. Sometimes of course a spanner gets thrown in the works, which is why humor works.

Discussing issues with rational people who hold different views is important else we drift off into irrational extremism. That's why I passed by here and have had my perspecptive tweaked and poked a bit as well.

Aaron MC said...

Alkali,

Again, I thank you very much for your comments. You have no idea how nice it is to have an actual argument instead of deleting comments that are the vein of "fcuking tool1!"

Alkali said...

..and thanks to you as well, I have enjoyed our exchange. Cya around.

Alkali :-)

Slothy said...

"If these are representative of feminism in the world today, then he is wrong."

You're kind of proving his point. Neither Feministe or Feministing mentioned this incident with the talk at all. It's a safe bet that if the genders were reversed they'd complain about it. So yeah their hypocrisy makes it hard to take them seriously.

"if he can't take the drive for absolute equality of women seriously,"

Stop acting like the only way to be for equality for women is to embrace every aspect of the feminist movement. Seriously it's a false dichotomy.

Oh and kindly don't drag race into this. It's irrelevant.

Slothy said...

"Women do not physically abuse men. Even with recent research showing that female on male abuse is higher than originally thought, it is still a tiny fraction of the abuse of male on female."

I think you set a new record for self contradiction.

And to say "oh it happens to women more often therefore it doesn't matter when it happens to men" is really stupid.

If there are 500 men abused by women out there they don't suddenly become irrelevant if there are 2000 women abused by men. And you definitely cannot pretend they don't exist.

Fuck you were talking about a clear as day case of abuse of a man by a woman and then you want to say it doesn't happen? Or that this case of mutilation is irrelevant because of what happens to other unrelated women?

You're a pig.

Slothy said...

"So why are people not getting up in arms, like the Amazing Atheist demands? Because women doing this is so damned rare."

So is a child being killed by a stranger. Yet people get up in arms at that all time.

But what kind of a weak excuse is that? Rarity doesn't make it less evil.

Aaron MC said...

Slothy,

Feministe and Feministing didn't mention the show, but the lack of a mention doesn't then prove the existence of a double-standard, nor does it prove misandry.

Moreover, feminism IS the embracing of equality for women. It is not a false dichotomy at all. Feminism equals equality. It's a very simple thing. If you believe in equality for women, congratulations, you believe in everything that feminism is.

And I think that race does have something to do with it. Anti-feminist clap-trap flows from Fox News on a near-daily basis, which has a nearly 100% white audience.

Moreover, a white man is the very definition of someone who doesn't know how shitty it is to be someone else. They don't understand racism or sexism.

My self contradiction wasn't meant that way. It was meant to say that, effectively, women do not abuse men. Yes, it DOES happen, but in such small numbers as to be unimportant from an overarching social perspective.

Thank you for entirely misunderstanding what I was saying. I am not saying that men abused by women don't matter. I'm saying that the reason why society is not getting up in arms over the commentary is because woman-on-man violence is rare, and thus is not a social disease worthy of great consideration.

A man being mutilated is not irrelevant. His wife will go to jail as she damn-well should. But when those events are rare, it's not something society needs to get all worked up over. Because it's rare! Society must focus on problems that are widespread and persistent.

Stranger danger is a bad example because that is a case of society fearing a boogeyman that doesn't exist. Society SHOULDN'T be getting up in arms, even though they do.

And, again, I'm not saying that it's less evil. I'm saying that society can't get up in arms over rare events.

Finally, the otherwise horrible nature of The Talk's commentary has not gone unmolested. There have been dozens of articles discussing the show, just not that particular episode.

Anonymous said...

So basically you're cocksucking faggot pretending to be a man. No wonder you hate yourself so much. Any fucking faggot who references man-hating menstruation rags like Jezebel is a complete fucking pussy.

go put your tampon back in faggot. You are an embarrassment to your own gender.

Aaron MC said...

@Anonymous: I don't know if that was trolling, but I certainly hope not.

Hanh said...

THANK YOU. I have gotten into a long argument on Facebook under a friend's link to this video. She and (so far) three of her male friends ganged up in opposition of me. THANK YOU for showing me there are people out there with sense and compassion.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Hanh,

Thank you for the kind words and I'm very glad you enjoyed my video and post. I know how you feel. My video on YouTube has received lots of hate. A few positive posts make it all worth it, though.

Mike said...

You are the typical example of a mangina. Misandry does exist, women get away with killing their husbands while pretending to do it in self defense (mary winkler), feminists DID CHEER FOR LORENA BOBBIT, and yes feminism does equal misandry. You can get your house that lots of feminists would be defending catherine becker while the man will suffer for the rest of his life.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Mike,

You are doing your argument no justice. You sound like a petulant prick.

Misandry does exist. I am not arguing against that. I am saying that it isn't a social pestilence and the data backs me up 100%.

If you want to argue otherwise, show me the data. Send me links to the studies supporting your statement.

Women do not "get away" with killing their husbands. Again, show me the sociological data saying otherwise. You gave me a single example.

Feminists did not "cheer" for Bobbitt. They cheered for the attention being paid to spousal rape. They cheered for her in the sense that she was a broken person and deserved support. None of them cheered for the actual act.

And no one, except for the loons on "The Talk," responded with joy in the Kieu Becker case. You are living in a fantasy world where women are out to get you. They are not. And if you believe otherwise, show me the data.

Paul Harasiwka said...

Really good post, helped me to further refine my thoughts on these issues, I happen to be a straight white cis male and as such I have a whole heap of privilege to wade through. In my life I have never been discriminated against because society has no issues with me, because of this I forget at times other people don't have such an easy time (I'd like to think I forget less and less) considering this is the case I completely agree that misandry isn't worth concerning ourselves with where as misogyny certainly is.

I also wish you hadn't mentioned manhood academy simply because it sounded so much like satire I had to go and look, I made the mistake of watching a couple of their videos and just wow, it's frightening to think that some people honestly believe things like that.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Paul,

Thanks for the kind words. As you can see, I didn't get much of them.

I was just like you. I knew that privilege existed. I knew that sexism was real. I had no idea that there was a virulent and hate-filled social underbelly specifically fueled by misogyny. It was really quite shocking.

After the initial shock wore off, I came to be more at ease with it, especially after the SPLC article. The mens-righters are, heavily although not entirely, very similar to neo-Nazis and other hate groups. When I grouped them into that sort of category, I stopped caring about what they thought. When I considered them rational people, I actually did care about their opinions.

And to think, it only took my being called a mangina 3,000 times to dissuade me of that view.

Anonymous said...

I think this pretty much covers your problem: http://youtu.be/H4zSRkBMPng

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Anonymous,

I thought I made clear my opinion of Manhood Academy, both in my article and video, but also multiple times in the comments. I didn't bother watching your video, because if it at all lines up with their website, it is complete and total hogwash.

Anonymous said...

Women do rape men, if you properly define rape. According to the latest CDC (US government) survey, 4.8% of all men have been "made to penetrate" and 79.2% of the perpetrators were women. Examples of "made to penetrate" are: a woman who has sex with a man who is passed-out drunk, or a woman who forces a man to have sex with her through violence or threats of violence. There is some confusion due to the fact that their definition of rape excluded "made to penetrate" and only included men who had been penetrated. That was far less common (1.4% of men) and was mostly perpetrated by men. However, if you include "made to penetrate" as rape, which you should, since it is forced sex, women are a significant percentage of rapists, and the majority of male rape victims were raped by women. You can read the report at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Here are direct quotes from the report:
"Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime"

"For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%)."

The above, lifetime stats do show a lower percentage of male victims (up to 6.2% of all men) than female victims (18.3% of all women) although this is far more than commonly believed. However, if you look at the report's stats for the past 12 months, just as many number of men have been "forced to penetrate" as women were raped, meaning that if you properly define "made to penetrate" as rape, men were raped as often as women.

Here are some stories from male victims: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/v73r4/men_who_have_been_raped_by_women_can_you_tell_us/

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Anonymous,

Thank you very much for the data. I had been made aware of this study a couple of months ago and had been meaning to write about it.

There are some complexities in the study, and a good overview of them is available here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/19/1048317/-Rape-by-Proxy-What-the-New-CDC-Study-Tells-Us-about-the-Male-Experience-of-Sexual-Violence

The most important detail is that women do not directly rape men, but can use a man as a tool to rape someone else, who may be either male or female. That's what the "forced to penetrate" classification meant in the context of the study.

I actually find that bit of data even more unsettling than a discovery of any rape. Forcing someone else onto a third person is a type of rape that I hadn't even considered. We have some truly twisted women out there if these data are accurate.

And while I am uncomfortable rejecting stories, Reddit has long since abdicated any possible credibility. I usually ignore links to the website.

Anonymous said...

Aaron, I've read the Daily Kos thread, and you are wrong. The study refers to women who rape men directly, not "rape by proxy." That's why, according to the study, 79.2% of "made to penetrate" victims reported only female perpetrators.

The author of the Daily Kos post misinterpreted part of the definition, "It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen."

She thought this meant women didn't rape men, but that's wrong; it means the study includes attempted "made to penetrate", like it includes attempted rape. That is, the definition of "Made to Penetrate" includes:
1) Women who were successful in forcing men to penetrate them (it did happen)
2) Attempted "made to penetrate" where the woman was unsuccessful (it did not happen).

"Did not happen" comes from the following question in the survey: "How many people have ever used physical force or threats of physical harm to {if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?"

As for the reddit thread, it's just one of the many places on the web where many, many men have started discussing their experiences of being raped by women.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Anonymous,

Thank you very much for the analysis, but I'm not sure that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I'm right, either. I read the Appendix and the part in question is worded very strangely. Still, if we go with the interpretation that seems most apparent, I believe that your version is most likely to be correct. I apologize for the likely error.

I hope that the CDC releases a breakdown of their data.

Still, whether this study found women directly raping men or not is immaterial, since we know that they do it in some non-zero amount.

The interesting element of the study is the apparent propensity of women to rape by proxy, which is something I had never even thought of.

And importantly, this doesn't negate the ultimate point of my video/article: people are not up in arms because women behaving badly, as it were, represent a small fraction of the cases, with the vast majority of the infractions done by men. And when women behave badly, the magnitude of their actions is categorically smaller than that of men.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Oh, and about Reddit.

It's very unfortunate that Reddit's borderline-hilarious level of misogyny and anger has killed it as a potential avenue for actual dialog, because I'm sure that many of the people on there are hurt, frightened, and scarred. Rape victims have something taken away from them.

The fact remains though that everything that is written on Reddit is dubious at best.

Anonymous said...

Women do have a counterpart to the penis as a weapon, and that is their tongue by which they can get men in all sorts of nasty legal trouble and more by employing false accusations and and emotionally based rhetoric.

Anon said...

So because it's rare for a woman to rape a man, cut his penis off, that makes it acceptable and hilarious.

By that standard, since the Josef Fritzl case was rare, that's a grade-A comedy act as well?

What an asinine article, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Aaron Martin-Colby said...

Oh for fuck's sake.

Do you people actually READ articles before spewing nonsense? And by read, I mean take in the words, process them, and come to some conclusion that makes sense with your knowledge of all other words?

Or do you just come in with your self-righteous fire and predetermined conclusion and shoot off a comment that reveals you to be a blithering moron?

I really can't take it. Ever since I posted this, a parade of you nincompoops have filled my comments with irrefutable proof that you have a hard time with basic English.

AT NO TIME DID I SAY IT WAS OK! Not once. I didn't even get close to it. Nor did I say that the behavior of "The Talk" hosts was ok.

My article was to explain the lack of outrage about the comments of the women on the show. It had very little to do with the nature of the crime.