NationStates Jolt Archive

This editorial appeared in my local university newspaper. Read it and give me your thoughts.

from: The New Hampshire, vol. 94, no. 32, Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Do Take Note
The Universal Myth of the "Good Guy"

by Whitney Williams
TNH Columnist

"Good Guys" in the patriarchy are harder to find than the Loch Ness monster in a desert. But according to many people I hear and talk to, "good guys" are everywhere. The propensity to acknowledge the shortcomings of men, overlook them even in obvious examples (such as gang-rape) and excuse their moral responsibility with the magic words, "but he is a good guy," is an epidemic phenomena at the very least. I am amazed continuously with the amount of forgiveness people are willing to grant men, as if the majority of rapes aren't committed by them, as if the majority of business aren't owned by them, as if they majority of pornography isn't consumed, produced, and profitable by them, and, as if they aren't somehow affected by the extreme privilege granted to their gender class.

Tuesday, I attended the Socratic Society's re-visitation of the issue of pornography as violence against women. I felt astounded repeatedly by many men's refusal to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of women, as if their lives thus far had been devoted to the liberation of women, as if they didn't benefit from male privilege because they didn't like the idea of having it and as if percieved non-participation in patriarchal institutions fulfills any and all moral obligations men could have. Though I believe the behavior of men in this Tuesday's "soc-soc" was much improved over the last one I recounted in my column, I still found an extreme lack of basic understanding of the issues of pornography, violence against women and oppression of women.

Though things were considerably more civil and orderly, often many of the men, the author of the fallacious op-ed "A Socratic Defense" included, spoke up in defense of each other when another man's comments or arguments were criticized. The common response was that the person, almost always female, confronting the argument put forth by one of the men, did not understand exactly what had been said or that she had somehow misconstrued the meaning. Almost consistently, several men would chime in together and defend the man in question, disguised and perhaps sincerely intended as an effort of "clarification," but very clearly embodying the concept of the "boys' club."

This is specifically not commentary on a percieved level of intelligence of any men or their arguments. Rather, it is on their easily assumed behavior of preserving their privilege by excluding women's intellectual contributions in rejecting and dismissing them collectively in an effort to protect their own patriarchy-sustaining ideologies. Unfortunately, this is not a remarkable occurance and is an incredibly effective methodology men learn as a function of their existence. By existing as men, men directly aid in the oppression of women. Every time a man uses pornography, beats his wife or coerces a woman or dismisses or laughs at her, he is simultaneously denouncing her humanity and reaffirming his own. He does not just do this to amuse himself; her subjugation is a vehicle necessary for his continued existence. That is why men accepting responsibility and acknowledging their complicity in women's oppression is so extremely uncommon. It is also why there is no such thing as a "good guy" in the patriarchy.

One man mentioned that he didn't do those "bad things," i.e. use pornography, rape women, etc. It was also mentioned at one point, perhaps by the same man, that he hoped there weren't men who had raped in this room, i.e. that all men who were present were basically "good guys." "Good guys" rape women and are responsible for harassing, beating, dismissing, objectifying, or laughing at women. Many women I know have been raped or sexually coerced by "good guys" like doctors, business men, fraternity boys, friends, fathers, brothers, husbands and lovers. "Good guys" use pornography, condone other's use of it or don't speak out against it. "Good guys" condescend us in the classroom and school paper and laugh at our feminist agenda. "Good guys" sit back and do nothing. "Good guys" feign political interest in feminism or deny its importance completely. "Good guys" teach us classes excluding women's intellectual work, favor male students incessantly and are complicit in the perpetuation of male supremacy through the patriarchal cultivation of their male academic progeny. "Good guys," their "good institutions" and "good power," are the PROBLEM.

In "Redefining Nonviolence," Andrea Dworkin writes,
Any man who is your comrade will know in his gut the indignity, the demeaning indignity, of systematic exclusion from the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Any man who is your true comrade will be committed to laying his body, his life, on the line so that you will be subjected to that indignity no longer. I ask you to look to your male comrades on the left, and to determine whether they have made that commitment to you. If they have not, then they do not take your lives seriously and as long as you work for and with them, you do not take their lives seriously either.

Does anyone else hear that tune, "We don't need the men, we don't need the men"?


I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Please leave the term "feminazi" at the door when you enter.

Is Whitney a man or a woman?

I'm a 'good guy'.

Is Whitney a man or a woman?

A woman, I would imagine.

A woman, I would imagine.

Yes, but that is not clear from the name however, is it? The rest of the article is similarly devoid of useful information. (Except, perhaps, that all men are wife beaters - even those who condemn pornography.)

I never rape women, but when I'm done with them they usually look abused. :)

Note taken...

... and promptly disposed of as being a part of the problem.

Equality, dammit!

I once heard a comedians response to a ladies statement that there were no good guys out there. His answer was that you meet them every day, and if you are having trouble picking them out - we're the ones you bitch to about the asshole you're dating.

Painting a whole gender with such a demeaning brush is unworthy. As is the notion that because some rapists might have been "nice guys", which she seems to equate to "respected professionals" that nice guys do not exist. If she is treated harshly by the men around her, perhaps it might have something to do with her attitude - which comes out loud and clear in her essay.

Perhaps I should pull out the statistics (more children are killed by their mothers than anyone else, abortions, spankings, cases of neglect etc.) and include some pointed examples (the Susan Smiths of the world) to paint the entire female gender as being brutal, infanticidal maniacs.

IT would be just as valid as this venomous diatribe.....

Yes, but that is not clear from the name however, is it? The rest of the article is similarly devoid of useful information. (Except, perhaps, that all men are wife beaters - even those who condemn pornography.)

It's pretty clear from the final sentence of the article, heh.

While I'm not disagreeing with some of the writer's comments, I will say that she, in my opinion, is taking it too far by stereotyping all men as would-be patriarchs who are simply looking to abuse women and keep them down. While not explicitly stated, that is at least the tone of the article as I read it. Again, the final sentence, "we don't need the men," has to be referring to the male gender as a whole. So, yeah, summary of what I think: semi-valid argument that a number of men are referred to as "good guys" when they aren't, but a completely exaggerated argument that this is the entire male population of the world.

EDIT: His answer was that you meet them every day, and if you are having trouble picking them out - we're the ones you bitch to about the asshole you're dating.

Funny but true...

I guess this is when I jump in and make things messier. :D

Despite the women's so called 'freedom' in the Western world, there are still a lot of problems. For example lack of respect and etc. Yet they want to liberate the Eastern women from their so called 'chains'. They say that in Islam, women are nothing more then a chattel. I disagree. Despite all the bad publicity, women in Islam is respected, a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole bushel. The freedom that they preach is nothing more then their inability to understand nor tolerate other people's culture. :headbang:

Look, I'm sorry that some women is mistreated. I'm sorry that there might be some men that feel threatened by them. But guys generally aren't like that at all. That is the reason why I don't subscribe to this whole feminism concept. just because some men are assholes doesn't mean that all of them are. I don't want to be their equal, I am their equal spritually and mentally, never physically. I expect people to treat each other as humans, not men or women. I don't believe in feminism, I believe in humanity. No man or woman can live without each other. No man or woman is an island.

FYI, I am female and Muslim. So there. :sniper:

she seems to be saying that if men dont agree with her, they cant be good guys. that they are in effect the problem no matter how they behave in their public and private lives

did you read it that way?

She (just guessing) has created an indefensable opposition. She has created an impossibility of being a good man, as simply being a man is irrevocably guilt in the patriarcy. It's devisive and works against the cause. If there is nothing I can do to be a 'good guy' since my penis makes me complicit in rape despite how I personally may feel about it, then why should I bother? Further, I should be concerned that if she got her way I would be placed underheel as a beast based soley on my gender, thus fueling a motive of opposition to her regardless of how I feel about the people she has painted me into the corner with.

Thing is, pornography is repressive, rape and abuse is wrong, and women's intellectual contribution is underrepresented. But it's a far more complex issue than "Raarrrrrr....Penis Bad...Grrr....rarrrrrrr." By being so reductionist in her argument she actually demeans the issue and detracts from the subject, doing the cause more harm than good.

As I understand it the article is complaining about how men don't realize that they are morally culpable for the fact that society gives them an advantage.

I think the idea that we are morally culpable just because women buy less porn is absurd. If someone kills someone in your name without you giving them any reason to I really cannot see how that makes you responsible for the death.

The article certainly doesn't take into acount things like this-The Good Vibrations Store (http://www.goodvibes.com/cgi-bin/sgdynamo.exe?CODIV=0102&UID=2005030217402867&HTNAME=about/pr/index.html) located in the bay area, which site boasts such things as:
Percentage of women/men employees: 78%/22%


Our Customers

Percentages of women/men, Good Vibrations stores: 60%/40%

Percentages of women/men/unspecified, mail order: 52%/40%/8%

States with the most Good Vibrations mail order customers: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL

Average age range of Good Vibrations store customers: 25 to 40

Average age of mail order customers: 25 to 45

and links to articles like This one (http://www.goodvibes.com/cgi-bin/sgdynamo.exe?CODIV=0102&UID=2005030217402867&HTNAME=about/pr/20040812-porn.html) about the consumption of pornography by women.

It's not an answer, it's just an indication that it is more complex than "Rarrar.....Must Crush Penis....Grrrrrr...graarrarrr"

It's pretty clear from the final sentence of the article, heh.


Actually it's not. One cannot read that 'article' and surmise that the author is female without making at least one assumption.

Actually it's not. One cannot read that 'article' and surmise that the author is female without making at least one assumption.

Well, she is a she. She's a regular contributor to the newspaper and her gender has come across in various articles in the past.

This person has some very serious issues, my best wishes go out to the author of the article finding peace in herself one day. There is a line between standing up for your rights and trampling on the rights of others. This article spits on said line and tap dances all the way accross. Its an ugly sight.

The very opening paragraph shows a decided confusion between the actions of the few and the actions of the whole. The very title "Good guys" is an unusual classification, probably a specialized term that I am not familiar with, because rather than look at induvidual actions, the author jumps into a series of denouncments.

"I am amazed continuously with the amount of forgiveness people are willing to grant me, as if the majority of rapes aren't owned by them, as if they majority of pornography isn't consumed, produced, and profitable by them, and, as if they aren't somehow affected by the extreme privilege granted to their gender class."

The phrase, "...the majority of rapes aren't owned by them" is very curious. Since when did someone "own" a rape? How is that even possible? Rape is a crime, not something you can own; this is a very confused sentance. This isn't even taking into account the rather dramatic assertion that Gang-Rape is a "Typical shortcoming." Does this skewed look at rape extend into other aspects of men? Lets see...

"I felt astounded repeatedly by many men's refusal to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of women, as if their lives thus far had been devoted to the liberation of women, as if they didn't benefit from male privilege because they didn't like the idea of having it and as if percieved non-participation in patriarchal institutions fulfills any and all moral obligations men could have."

This is also a curious statement. This author has taken the time to label these men as "oppressors of women" because they exist in a male dominated society, regardless over their own actions, feelings, or efforts. That's blaming all people, regardless of action or intent for the wrongdoings of the society at large. This is an extremist, and very flawed position. To put it simply; the author is behaving in a very unreasonable way.

Still, we trudge on through the increasing madness...

"Though things were considerably more civil and orderly, often many of the men, the author of the fallacious op-ed "A Socratic Defense" included, spoke up in defense of each other when another man's comments or arguments were criticized. The common response was that the person, almost always female, confronting the argument put forth by one of the men, did not understand exactly what had been said or that she had somehow misconstrued the meaning. Almost consistently, several men would chime in together and defend the man in question, disguised and perhaps sincerely intended as an effort of "clarification," but very clearly embodying the concept of the "boys' club." "

Right, let's go through this and look for interesting caveats to this horrific scene of oppression. "Often" "common" "Almost always, "Almost Consistently"
Even the argument itself takes into account that this is not by any means an assured occurance.

Further caveats include, "defend the man in question, DISGUISED and PERHAPS sincerely INTENDED as an effort of 'Clarification' but very clearly..."

So lemme get this straight; a woman says something that shows a slight misunderstanding of the point in question. You clarify the mistake to her.

You are evil because you are A) a man (almost always) and B) she is (usually) a female. This provides concrete evidence of...what? That someone slightly misconstrued an argument in a debate club and someone clarified the point? Obviously this practice must be stopped!

The inherant flaws in the argument should be obvious by now, but for the sake of complete and full disclosure, let us continue through the mire...

"By existing as men, men directly aid in the oppression of women. Every time a man uses pornography, beats his wife or coerces a woman or dismisses or laughs at her, he is simultaneously denouncing her humanity and reaffirming his own. "

Perhaps I'm new to this whole, "being a guy" thing, but I'm not sure I have time for all this porn usage, wife beating, woman coercing, and dismissing and laughing at women and still sit on top of a self-reaffirming patriarchy.

Seems porn is "bad" now...when did the self-sexual release lead to the supression of women? I understand the basic concept of "objectification"...but I thought it was pretty clear that there is a difference between turning someone into a sexual object and seeing someone as sexy.

I'll admit that there are rampant problems within our societies, all of mankind is in a "fixer-upper" condition. But I would definately caution all people against statements like this one, "By existing as men..." That's simply rediculous. By existing as men, they are men. No further than that; sometimes even less, genderqueer people are sometimes considered men, are they part of this problem too?

"That is why men accepting responsibility and acknowledging their complicity in women's oppression is so extremely uncommon. It is also why there is no such thing as a "good guy" in the patriarchy."

I'm starting a betting pool, how long do you think it would take to beat someone enough before they'll acknowledge their complicity in ANYTHING? Of course its uncommon for men to acknowledge that their very existance is an affront to this author's...particular notions of right and wrong. This author has created a second "original sin" just for the males of the species; how quaint.

"Good guys" rape women. "Good guys" harass, beat, dismiss, objectify, laugh at women. How does the author know? If these are "good guys" who are the "bad guys" ? Is anyone actually good in this author's eyes? Because even NOT doing any of those things doesn't make you any less of a problem in the author's eyes. LITERALLY, men are dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't.

There is no way to be "right" and "male" in this Author's mind. You can be right, or male. And since you can't choose to be male at birth; you've basically been born into sin. Your birth heralds a new wife beating, women in school laughing, co-worker harassing piece of dung into this world. Enjoy your stay.

In "Redefining Nonviolence," Andrea Dworkin told this author,

"Any man who is your comrade knows in his gut that you are the victim and he is your oppressor, and that he must pay for his impertinance. Any man who is your comrade will gladly throw away all that is his for your sake for no other reason than he is male and thus worth LESS. Look at people who you let be your friends; do they share this opinion? Are they convinced that they are worth less than you are? If yes, than treat them as badly as you feel women have been treated in the past; because after all, this cycle bears repeating. "

Lousy, rotten, dirty, stinking, piece of *%#@! Server.

A thousand times I curse you!

Lousy, rotten, dirty, stinking, piece of *%#@! Server.

A thousand times I curse you!

Wow, you really wanted to say that. :)

Lousy, rotten, dirty, stinking, piece of *%#@! Server.

A thousand times I curse you!
Well, judging by it's performance with your last post, I believe you actuall mean "Four thousand times I curse you!"
:D

Wow, you really wanted to say that. :)

;) Well, I wanted to say the page-long rant...once. 4 times was a bit much, leading to my mouth-frothed outburst.

I believe in humanity.

Aww, now that's funny.

Perhaps I should pull out the statistics (more children are killed by their mothers than anyone else, abortions, spankings, cases of neglect etc.) and include some pointed examples (the Susan Smiths of the world) to paint the entire female gender as being brutal, infanticidal maniacs.

IT would be just as valid as this venomous diatribe.....

Er..and the group of people most likely to be murdered are the pregnant.

[QUOTE=Du Lyoncourt]I I expect people to treat each other as humans, not men or women. I don't believe in feminism, I believe in humanity. No man or woman can live without each other. No man or woman is an island.QUOTE]

I like this quote and agree with most of what you say. As far as men and women not being able to live without each other, I don't necessarily agree with that. In the sense that the human race would become extinct, yes, but I think it has been proven that some men and some women live just fine without the other.

Well, she is a she. She's a regular contributor to the newspaper and her gender has come across in various articles in the past.

Yes. Like this one:

"For any of you who are unaware of the situation on this campus, I will explain. A feminist columnist named Whitney Williams speaks to the UNH community about how she feels. Without fail, she receives nasty letters and tips on how she could be a better feminist and at worst, she receives threats of violence. People on this campus don't want to be criticized and they attack Whitney Williams for her daring." (From "We are all Whitney Williams")

Actually, I didn't read the whole article posted here. Women like her make me mad because they are the same as men who treat women badly. Those men don't respect women and assume all are deserving of bad treatment. Women like WW seem to think that all men deserve to be treated badly and she definitely doesn't respect them.

By her way of thinking, if all men are responsible for the actions of the few because they do nothing to stop them, if I dislike the actions of some women and don't do anything to stop them, I am guilty as well. I can tell you for a fact that there are women I know of who behave badly towards men and kids and other women. How exactly should I stop them? Believe me, in observing these women, homocide has crossed my mind, but how many could I kill before I am stopped? Would that solve the problem?

I know, I am being extreme, but there will always be aberrations in our midst and you cannot blame all for the actions of a few.

OK, there's some truths and some things taken to extreme in this piece. The implication, no not implication, but direct accusation of men being in complicity with the oppression of women simply by being men is over the top. Blaming a freshfaced young man who has just left his mothers side for the sins of all men before him is stretching things.

But to be fair, those same freshfaced young men will do the most terrible things when grouped together in duress. One of the most memorable and true statements I ever heard came out of the Vietnam war. It went something like "There is nothing in this world crueler than a 19 year old man." When you take the statement in context you understand that it is not a condemnation of all 19 year olds in normal circumstances but an acknowledgment of the potential to do terrible things that normal people are capable of in unusual circumstances.

Now I'm not sure if I qualify as a good guy, I'm not sure I want to be thought of as such. But I do hold some beliefs that could cause me to be kicked out of any old boys club.

First is the recognition of the potential for cruelty in the most normal of men that I mentioned above. I also believe that the natural and most harmonious state for human society is not patriarchal, but matriarchal. I tend to believe that many of the institutions of society today are present to steal that rightful place from women. I've gone as far as to speculate that's the real reason for the oppression of women, to displace them and make them seem unworthy or unable to hold what I believe is their natural place in society, it's leaders. Religion is one of the tools I believe is used to accomplish this. Read through the dogma of all the major religions and it's not such a abstract idea.

Face it when men are left to their own devices, we tend to make a mess of things. Ironically by casting guilt upon us for being what we are, women are stealing a tactic that has been used against them for millenium.

It's an unfair tactic no matter which side uses it.

This is pretty venomous. She seems to be saying there is no way to be both male and a good person. It's unfair and certainly not helping her cause.

well, I'm very pleased to get some very positive feedback from this thread. You are all intelligent people, and I am proud to call you peers, though I am a man, and therefore, evil. To hell with genetics.

she seems to be saying that if men dont agree with her, they cant be good guys. that they are in effect the problem no matter how they behave in their public and private lives

did you read it that way?
i did. i need to add this, as this is what bothered me most about that. of all the teachers i've had, the only one's who were sexist to the point where it affected students grades were women.

well, I'm very pleased to get some very positive feedback from this thread. You are all intelligent people, and I am proud to call you peers, though I am a man, and therefore, evil. To hell with genetics.

This, for the record, is my roommate. He was the one who asked me to post the article. He wants to write a letter to the editor, but wanted to get some feedback from other people on the article first.

Does anyone else hear the tune "She's a crazy feminist bitch, she's a crazy feminist bitch"? (See I refrained from using the term femnazi :p )


Oookay, now that that's out of my system. What about those of us who would gladly give all those who are obvious wife abusers and rapists(although there would have to be sufficient DNA and/or video evidence for these) the short drop and sudden stop.(gah, I just typed that didn't I. I really need to quit watching PotC.)

Does anyone else hear the tune "She's a crazy feminist bitch, she's a crazy feminist bitch"? (See I refrained from using the term femnazi :p )


Oookay, now that that's out of my system. What about those of us who would gladly give all those who are obvious wife abusers and rapists(although there would have to be sufficient DNA and/or video evidence for these) the short drop and sudden stop.(gah, I just typed that didn't I. I really need to quit watching PotC.)

It would seem, from her editorial, that as long as men aren't actively working to stop the oppression of women, they are actively participating in said oppression.

It would seem, from her editorial, that as long as men aren't actively working to stop the oppression of women, they are actively participating in said oppression.

and i will burn if i ever get hanged for complacency and not piracy.
arrrrrr!

For any of you who are unaware of the situation on this campus, I will explain. A feminist columnist named Whitney Williams speaks to the UNH community about how she feels. Without fail, she receives nasty letters and tips on how she could be a better feminist and at worst, she receives threats of violence. People on this campus don't want to be criticized and they attack Whitney Williams for her daring." (From "We are all Whitney Williams")


yes people don't like to be challenged, thats why they write hate rhetoric that makes you wrong if you do, and wrong if you dont, like whitney williams. Anyway you argue with her you prove her point. That's not a challenge, thats propoganda. To be tastless, yet somewhat tactful, i reread the article, replacing every mention of the word man, men, male, etc., with jew and woman with aryan race, and i found myself in front of the furher.
No one should be allowed to print this stuff under the idea that its liberation. its once "race" trying to dominate and subjecgate another, plain and simple.

i reread the article, replacing every mention of the word man, men, male, etc., with jew and woman with aryan race, and i found myself in front of the furher.
:D
You know, you're right!

So you don't want people to use feminazi, eh? Is stupid, vapid **** still acceptable?

If someone can write this
By existing as men, men directly aid in the oppression of women.
and still take themselves seriously, I can't see a point debating with them. Last time I checked I never raped any women.

This editorial appeared in my local university newspaper. Read it and give me your thoughts.


I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Please leave the term "feminazi" at the door when you enter.


If you honestly and truly want my opinion, I'll give it to you.


That woman is a perfect example of what happens if you let your kids run wild at a young age, or perhaps she was beaten to severely at a young age, or even worse, beaten for no real reason at all. But at any rate, there is a discussion elsewhere going on, where it seems that a central issue is beating of kids, perhaps you'd like to join in? (Oh, and my opinion is that whoever that woman is, either her husband (I doubt she is married, since marriage is part of the "patriarchy" which "oppresses" women) or father isn't correcting her enough).

I have a question about this article; if the reason that all men are evil disciples of Satan is becuase they rape and oppress women, does it apply to gay men?

I still stand by my three line reply earlier; articles such as this, that are so venemous and hate-filled, are a part of the problem, not in any way a solution; it is this sort of diatribe that, in my experience, has prompted many males to dismiss "feminists" out of hand as "feminazis", and many females to actively avoid identifying as feminists, before doing the same thing as their male counterparts.

:D
You know, you're right!
In fact, I'm going to do it to the entire article:
"Good Jews" in the Jewish-run society are harder to find than the Loch Ness monster in a desert. But according to many people I hear and talk to, "good Jews" are everywhere. The propensity to acknowledge the shortcomings of Jews, overlook them even in obvious examples (such as gang-rape) and excuse their moral responsibility with the magic words, "but he is a good Jew," is an epidemic phenomena at the very least. I am amazed continuously with the amount of forgiveness people are willing to grant me, as if the majority of rapes aren't owned by them, as if they majority of pornography isn't consumed, produced, and profitable by them, and, as if they aren't somehow affected by the extreme privilege granted to their ethnic class.

Tuesday, I attended the Socratic Society's re-visitation of the issue of pornography as violence against the Aryan race. I felt astounded repeatedly by many Jews' refusal to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of the Aryan race, as if their lives thus far had been devoted to the liberation of the Aryan race, as if they didn't benefit from Jewish privilege because they didn't like the idea of having it and as if percieved non-participation in Jewish institutions fulfills any and all moral obligations Jews could have. Though I believe the behavior of Jews in this Tuesday's "soc-soc" was much improved over the last one I recounted in my column, I still found an extreme lack of basic understanding of the issues of pornography, violence against the Aryan race and oppression of the Aryan race.

Though things were considerably more civil and orderly, often many of the Jews, the author of the fallacious op-ed "A Socratic Defense" included, spoke up in defense of each other when another Jew's comments or arguments were criticized. The common response was that the person, almost always Aryan, confronting the argument put forth by one of the Jews, did not understand exactly what had been said or that she had somehow misconstrued the meaning. Almost consistently, several Jews would chime in together and defend the Jew in question, disguised and perhaps sincerely intended as an effort of "clarification," but very clearly embodying the concept of the "Jews' club."

This is specifically not commentary on a percieved level of intelligence of any Jews or their arguments. Rather, it is on their easily assumed behavior of preserving their privilege by excluding the Aryan race's intellectual contributions in rejecting and dismissing them collectively in an effort to protect their own JEwish-superiority-sustaining ideologies. Unfortunately, this is not a remarkable occurance and is an incredibly effective methodology Jews learn as a function of their existence. By existing as Jews, Jews directly aid in the oppression of the Aryan race. Every time a Jew uses pornography, beats an Aryan or coerces an Aryan or dismisses or laughs at an Aryan, this Jew is simultaneously denouncing the Aryan's humanity and reaffirming the Jew's own. The Jew does not just do this to amuse himself; the Aryan's subjugation is a vehicle necessary for the Jew's continued existence. That is why jews accepting responsibility and acknowledging their complicity in the Aryan race's oppression is so extremely uncommon. It is also why there is no such thing as a "good Jew" in the Jewish-run society.

One Jew mentioned that he didn't do those "bad things," i.e. use pornography, rape Aryans, etc. It was also mentioned at one point, perhaps by the same Jew, that he hoped there weren't Jews who had raped in this room, i.e. that all Jews who were present were basically "good Jews." "Good Jews" rape Aryans and are responsible for harassing, beating, dismissing, objectifying, or laughing at Aryans. Many aryans I know have been raped or sexually coerced by "good Jews" like doctors, business men, fraternity Jews, friends, fathers, brothers, husbands and lovers. "Good Jews" use pornography, condone other's use of it or don't speak out against it. "Good Jews" condescend us in the classroom and school paper and laugh at our Aryan-supremacist agenda. "Good Jews" sit back and do nothing. "Good Jewa" feign political interest in Aryan supremacism or deny its importance completely. "Good Jews" teach us classes excluding Aryans' intellectual work, favor Jewish students incessantly and are complicit in the perpetuation of Jewish supremacy through the Jewish cultivation of their Jewish academic progeny. "Good Jews," their "good institutions" and "good power," are the PROBLEM.

In "Redefining Nonviolence," Andrea Dworkin writes,
Any Jew who is your comrade will know in his gut the indignity, the demeaning indignity, of systematic exclusion from the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Any Jew who is your true comrade will be committed to laying his body, his life, on the line so that you will be subjected to that indignity no longer. I ask you to look to your Jewish comrades on the left, and to determine whether they have made that commitment to you. If they have not, then they do not take your lives seriously and as long as you work for and with them, you do not take their lives seriously either.


Does anyone else hear that tune, "We don't need the Jews, we don't need the Jews"?
:p
That was too much fun.

I bet some guy made fun of her small boobs.

It seems that there are quite many "good guys" around here too. IMO Williams is too extreme but she also has a point. I don't think "good men" means all men. I believe she uses this term more like many of us use "nice guy". Good men are those men who think they are good and who are usually looked up in society (e.g. doctors, politicians), but who in real life are no good at all.

If a rapist is from an upper level of society than his victim, he rarely has to face any consequences. I know this is true in Sweden and in Finland. I hope other countries have better judges. There has been a case(s) where the rapist didn't have to go to jail because he had a good job. A good job proved that he's a good man and doesn't deserve a punishment. How sick is that? In Sweden three men where freed from charges because their victim was drunk. Also gang rape is a smaller crime than one single rape.

I've heard several good men defending men who beat their loved ones. Usually they start with 'Women beat their loved ones too! Why don't we talk about their violent behaviour?' Alright, that's a problem too, but a lot smaller than male violence (85% of the victims of domestic violence in USA are women). An example of the attitude towards domestic violence in UK

Most of us probably think that we don’t do these things. But when over 30% of us think that violence against women is OK, and when 50% of us think that domestic violence should be kept behind closed doors, and when more of us would report a dog being abused than a woman, it quickly becomes clear that we do.
from http://www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw/pwp/
British men were also shocked by the fact that 25% of women will be victims of violence in their lifetime (in Britain, 33% in the world)

There are also men who think they have to do something about male violence:
http://www.man-net.nu/engelsk/start.htm

edit: Why the real good men should do something about it (true equality) eventhough they are not the ones to blame:
You are the ones who can really make the difference. Show that e.g. violence is not right. Condemn such behaviour. You can change the public attitude.

bump

i guess what i really didnt like about the article was that she didnt give any examples, she just expected us to respect her opinion without anything to back it up.

so perhaps these men (who should have been "enlightened" if they were attending such a conference) were like the ones in post #40 where they defended any man no matter how badly he behaved or maybe they were just men who were not going to feel guilty for their very maleness.

theres no way to know if she is being extreme or honestly reporting how uncomprehending some men can be.

I didn't get past the second paragraph. The article generalises too much for my liking, such as the author's astonishment "by many men's refusal to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of women". Perhaps that's because it should not be assumed that they are all involved?

i guess what i really didnt like about the article was that she didnt give any examples, she just expected us to respect her opinion without anything to back it up.

so perhaps these men (who should have been "enlightened" if they were attending such a conference) were like the ones in post #40 where they defended any man no matter how badly he behaved or maybe they were just men who were not going to feel guilty for their very maleness.

theres no way to know if she is being extreme or honestly reporting how uncomprehending some men can be.

I doubt, no matter how uncomprehending those men might have been, that the statement, "By existing as men, men directly aid in the oppression of women," is really valid.

What a steaming crock of shit. Myopic, sensationalist, and full of self-righteousness.

Yeah, there are plenty of assholes out there.

There's also no shortage of bitches in the world.

This kind of broad-brush diatribe just makes her look like the latter.

Didn't read the whole thread, just the editorial at the beginning.

Ok, the writer seems to blame all men for the crimes of a few. Is that not sexism? The vast majority of men don't rape. Just like the vast majority of black people don't sell crack. How about some equal treatment here?

On pornography; The women in pornography aren't being forced to participate. They are being paid to do a job. If they don't want to do it, they can quit. I'd just like to address the blatantly sexist fact that women in porn are paid much more than men. It seems that pornography is reverse sexism. Why should we, as men, be paid less to produce a product that we consume?

This editorial appeared in my local university newspaper. Read it and give me your thoughts.

I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Please leave the term "feminazi" at the door when you enter.
Men and women are both necessary ( duh ), both have unique talents and abilities needed for the effective functioning of the family, community and society in which they live. Both sexes have members who are excellent ( however you wish to define the term ), who are average, and who are dreck.

When there are instances of unlawful discrimination based on sex, they should be addressed. Having said that, and after reading this polemic, I suspect that the author has a lot of free-floating resentment and anger which could probably be best served with long-term counseling.

The person is mistaking societally-accepted men with actually good men.

There are people who ACT good and are highly regarded, but they aren't GOOD behind closed doors, and thus aren't good.

Actual 'good' people in general are rare, and they're usually ignored by the largess, including, it seems, but the writer.

The article also had absolutely no useful arguments or evidence, merely claims.

As a feminist, I find this sort of thing to be why the problem folk can laugh away the cause of equality.

And porn is a bad example of gender-harming media. Men are in porn too. The issue with porn is more along the lines of how people are TREATED in the skanky side of the industry, et cetera, and, possibly on how it portrays sexuality as a WHOLE. Subject to taste and opinion.

It seems that there are quite many "good guys" around here too. IMO Williams is too extreme but she also has a point. I don't think "good men" means all men. I believe she uses this term more like many of us use "nice guy". Good men are those men who think they are good and who are usually looked up in society (e.g. doctors, politicians), but who in real life are no good at all.

If a rapist is from an upper level of society than his victim, he rarely has to face any consequences. I know this is true in Sweden and in Finland. I hope other countries have better judges. There has been a case(s) where the rapist didn't have to go to jail because he had a good job. A good job proved that he's a good man and doesn't deserve a punishment. How sick is that? In Sweden three men where freed from charges because their victim was drunk. Also gang rape is a smaller crime than one single rape.

I've heard several good men defending men who beat their loved ones. Usually they start with 'Women beat their loved ones too! Why don't we talk about their violent behaviour?' Alright, that's a problem too, but a lot smaller than male violence (85% of the victims of domestic violence in USA are women). An example of the attitude towards domestic violence in UK

from http://www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw/pwp/
British men were also shocked by the fact that 25% of women will be victims of violence in their lifetime (in Britain, 33% in the world)

There are also men who think they have to do something about male violence:
http://www.man-net.nu/engelsk/start.htm

edit: Why the real good men should do something about it (true equality) eventhough they are not the ones to blame:
You are the ones who can really make the difference. Show that e.g. violence is not right. Condemn such behaviour. You can change the public attitude.
You should get Whitney's job. This was clearer, had more to do with the subject and what is wrong. While it didn't include what I should be doing, it creates the neccisary awarness without locking me irrevocably on the 'outside.'

There is the problem of overwhelming...I have my life to live, do we all have to dedicate it to this cause? What about others? Do I have to volunteer for juries to ensure that jackass' are punished?

For the most part I can be as decent as I can and not make excuses for jackasses. Either way, this post is more effective than the column that prompted it.

I'm surprised this hasn't been on Oprah, since she hates men too.

While I agree that a lot of men do contribute to womens less than equal treatment without realizing it, I think the author has her panties in a bunch. Plenty of guys are willing to rethink things when you point out something insensitive they've done on accident. Since I'm not black/jewish/gay I may step on toes without meaning to. The same with guys. If he's genuinely an asshole, blow him off. Otherwise he's more than happy to consider your feelings.

While I agree that a lot of men do contribute to womens less than equal treatment without realizing it, I think the author has her panties in a bunch. Plenty of guys are willing to rethink things when you point out something insensitive they've done on accident. Since I'm not black/jewish/gay I may step on toes without meaning to. The same with guys. If he's genuinely an asshole, blow him off. Otherwise he's more than happy to consider your feelings.


Are you saying that gays/blacks/jews, never even accidentally offend, say, straight white Christians?

I've been called a "White devil cracka boy" to my face, was that a "slip of the tongue" not meant to offend me?

I'm sure the black kid didn't think for a second that a white boy might take offense to being called a "white devil cracka boy".

Are you saying that gays/blacks/jews, never even accidentally offend, say, straight white Christians?

I've been called a "White devil cracka boy" to my face, was that a "slip of the tongue" not meant to offend me?

I'm sure the black kid didn't think for a second that a white boy might take offense to being called a "white devil cracka boy".

She completely did not say that. She said that since she is not gay/black/jewish, that she might accidentally offend. Stop looking for things to be offended about where none exist.

She completely did not say that. She said that since she is not gay/black/jewish, that she might accidentally offend. Stop looking for things to be offended about where none exist.


Any race can offend any other race, there isn't some unwritten law of nature that blacks can't possibly be offensive to other races.

That's what I meant, I wasn't looking for things to be offended about, I was just stating that all races can, either on purpose or by accident, offend others.

Men and women are both necessary ( duh ), both have unique talents and abilities needed for the effective functioning of the family, community and society in which they live. Both sexes have members who are excellent ( however you wish to define the term ), who are average, and who are dreck.

When there are instances of unlawful discrimination based on sex, they should be addressed. Having said that, and after reading this polemic, I suspect that the author has a lot of free-floating resentment and anger which could probably be best served with long-term counseling.
dammit, old man! stop being reasonable and compassionate! this is not the place for that. If you don't have some ill thought out bile to spew, don't spew anything. :D

Any race can offend any other race, there isn't some unwritten law of nature that blacks can't possibly be offensive to other races.

That's what I meant, I wasn't looking for things to be offended about, I was just stating that all races can, either on purpose or by accident, offend others.

She didn't say that they couldn't. She simply said that she might offend different groups that she doesn't belong to without knowing. She said that instead of getting all angry at men, this Whitney Williams should instead talk to men about these things, and maybe they'll think differently as a result. No one said anything about black people not being able to offend white people. You're looking for an argument where none exists.

She didn't say that they couldn't. She simply said that she might offend different groups that she doesn't belong to without knowing. She said that instead of getting all angry at men, this Whitney Williams should instead talk to men about these things, and maybe they'll think differently as a result. No one said anything about black people not being able to offend white people. You're looking for an argument where none exists.


Ah, I see your point. NM then, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Slow down, VE. If you read it more carefully you'll get my meaning. You should know me well enough to realize I don't think any one group has the monopoly on being assholes.

This editorial appeared in my local university newspaper. Read it and give me your thoughts.


I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. Please leave the term "feminazi" at the door when you enter.
What an asinine rant!

As for Dworkin, I'll let her own words hang her:

"[in her ideal world]...human and other-animal relationships would become more explicitly erotic, and that eroticism would not degenerate into abuse. Animals would be part of the tribe and, with us, respected, loved, and free "

"The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic because all human relationships are primarily erotic. The incest taboo is a particularized form of repression, one which functions as the bulwark of all other repressions. "

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

"The fact is that the process of killing - both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination,"

"All men benefit from rape"

"In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder."

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks,"

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love."

as a woman who enjoys pornography, i am pretty goddam sick of self-righteous "feminist" types telling me that pornography is repressive. just because they can't separate sexuality from self esteem doesn't mean that i have to suffer from their helplessness. i'm not threatened or demeened by somebody watching porno, nor am i in any way diminished if my boyfriend watches porno (which he does) or if i watch porno (which i do) or if we watch porno together (which we do).

my Self is not based on that which i have between my legs, nor is it grounded on my sexuality. my sexual identity is actually a very minor part of who i am, and my gender is only relavent to the person i am romantically involved with. professionally, i think of myself as "gender neutral," and conduct myself with that view point, and i find that people respond very well to this approach. my gender simply isn't an issue. my abilities and my performance are what i focus myself on, and i have found that people around me respond to that by treating me as a person, a mind, rather than a FEMALE.

On pornography; The women in pornography aren't being forced to participate. They are being paid to do a job. If they don't want to do it, they can quit.
Exactly. Having known a good number of self-respecting, intelligent, educated, wonderful women who worked in the sex trades, I am always a little offended on their behalf when I read such drivel - who are Dworkin et al to second-guess a grown woman's choice of career?

as a woman who enjoys pornography, i am pretty goddam sick of self-righteous "feminist" types telling me that pornography is repressive. just because they can't separate sexuality from self esteem doesn't mean that i have to suffer from their helplessness. i'm not threatened or demeened by somebody watching porno, nor am i in any way diminished if my boyfriend watches porno (which he does) or if i watch porno (which i do) or if we watch porno together (which we do).

my Self is not based on that which i have between my legs, nor is it grounded on my sexuality. my sexual identity is actually a very minor part of who i am, and my gender is only relavent to the person i am romantically involved with. professionally, i think of myself as "gender neutral," and conduct myself with that view point, and i find that people respond very well to this approach. my gender simply isn't an issue. my abilities and my performance are what i focus myself on, and i have found that people around me respond to that by treating me as a person, a mind, rather than a FEMALE.

Watch it Bottle. You're in serious danger of stereotyping. I'm a feminist and have no problem with porn other than spending too much time reading it.

I'm mentally undressing one my female co-workers in honor of this article.

And if I weren't at work, I would be looking at porn.

my abilities and my performance are what i focus myself on, and i have found that people around me respond to that by treating me as a person, a mind, rather than a FEMALE.

Bravo!

Though I must admit, from the male viewpoint, that to be treated equally it helps if you are either plain-looking or if you dress to de-emphasize your attractiveness. The best of us are distracted and affected by an appealing woman. I guess this isn't a gender specific issue though, I don't see many fat bald guys in advertisements aimed at women!

I'm mentally undressing one my female co-workers in honor of this article.

And if I weren't at work, I would be looking at porn.

Evil man. Doesn't that mean you're a rapist woman beater? :p

Watch it Bottle. You're in serious danger of stereotyping. I'm a feminist and have no problem with porn other than spending too much time reading it.
Maybe the word "feminist" has been ruined by idiots like Dworkin, Paige Mellon, etc. Maybe it's time for "equalist", or "decent, fair-minded person", or "non-sexist".

as a woman who enjoys pornography, i am pretty goddam sick of self-righteous "feminist" types telling me that pornography is repressive. just because they can't separate sexuality from self esteem doesn't mean that i have to suffer from their helplessness. i'm not threatened or demeened by somebody watching porno, nor am i in any way diminished if my boyfriend watches porno (which he does) or if i watch porno (which i do) or if we watch porno together (which we do).



I find pornographic pictures and video, well the mere thought of them (I've never actually looked at or watched any) to be disgusting. However I have been known to read a few risque stories and novels from time to time...

Evil man. Doesn't that mean you're a rapist woman beater? :p

Yes, I am an evil, mysogynist, wife-beating rapist, who owns 17 sex slaves.

Hmm. I've never coerced a woman into having sex. Never harassed one. Never joked about her body.

I have enjoyed porn - but I've met plenty of women who do as well, so I don't feel bad as long as we're watching it together.

As for:

Any man who is your comrade will know in his gut the indignity, the demeaning indignity, of systematic exclusion from the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Any man who is your true comrade will be committed to laying his body, his life, on the line so that you will be subjected to that indignity no longer. I ask you to look to your male comrades on the left, and to determine whether they have made that commitment to you. If they have not, then they do not take your lives seriously and as long as you work for and with them, you do not take their lives seriously either.

Sorry. I was in a house that was set afire by a woman's ex-husband because I helped her out of her domestic violence situation. My children and I escaped into the night as the house burned down. I've been injured defending her in a Ruby Tuesday restaurant.

That's my wife. She's not the only domestic violence victim I've helped - I'm making it a habit. My wife and I routinely hide women in our house because the local shelters won't keep a woman long enough for her to effectively get out on her own. I've been shot at by irate husbands. I've had my car torched.

So yes, that author can cram her opinion up there with her tampon. There are "good guys" out there, just as there are "depressed bitches who don't know a good guy from a tree stump".

I find pornographic pictures and video, well the mere thought of them (I've never actually looked at or watched any) to be disgusting. However I have been known to read a few risque stories and novels from time to time...

You rebel

Yes, I am an evil, mysogynist, wife-beating rapist, who owns 17 sex slaves.

That last part sounds fun. Does the slave market have any that look like Johnny Depp?

That last part sounds fun. Does the slave market have any that look like Johnny Depp?

My wife keeps looking for one that looks like Brad Pitt.

Be careful, Whisper, I knew a guy that was shot to death because he was dating a woman seperated from her abusive husband.

Why should we, as men, be paid less to produce a product that we consume?

Boy, if THIS isn't a statement that could be taken the wrong way.... :p

Be careful, Whisper, I knew a guy that was shot to death because he was dating a woman seperated from her abusive husband.

I dated this woman for two years (during which time we were both stalked and harassed and attacked). I can tell you that the law does not protect women from stalking. It doesn't do shit.

So I gave her a gun, helped her to get a carry permit, and taught her how to shoot. Because I can't always be home or at her work.

We both carry now. As for the first guy, he's well aware that we're armed - and since he has a record, he has trouble getting his hands on a gun (he's indigent and homeless now as well). He seems to know exactly where the line is drawn now - you don't fuck with your ex-wife.

But, I figure as long as there's one asshole waiting for me, I might as well take them all on. So we've had several women (one at a time, some with children) stay a few months at a time in our house. My wife makes the rules - but it's better than the typical women's shelter.

One woman at a time - just doing what we can.

I think that the problem here is that, in addition to painting with a very wide brush, the author doesn't understand the meaning of "good guy." I get that the author's point that some dudes circle the wagon to defend other dudes' bad behavior, but a few frat boys aren't a representative sample. To treat them as such is as hasty and inaccurate as me saying that all chicks cry patriarchy in order to blame dudes for their problems.

I think in regards to women, I'm a good guy. I'm not a rapist, gang-, date-, or otherwise. Not an oppressor. I've got nobody Jaggered under my thumb. Moreover, I'm perfectly aware that doing these things disqualify a guy from the international brotherhood of "good guys." Doing these things makes a guy into a "bad guy" and it's kind of a smear on the good name of the good guys out there to assume that we'd jump at the chance to defend the character of a bad guy just because like the "good guys," the "bad guy" is a guy.

Anyway, the author's got a little too much theory on the brain. I'll put an end to that by writing a letter to the paper asking some brain buster about master's tools and master's houses. It'll be like that Star Trek where they break the computer by asking whether infinity is even or odd.

I dated this woman for two years (during which time we were both stalked and harassed and attacked). I can tell you that the law does not protect women from stalking. It doesn't do shit.

So I gave her a gun, helped her to get a carry permit, and taught her how to shoot. Because I can't always be home or at her work.

We both carry now. As for the first guy, he's well aware that we're armed - and since he has a record, he has trouble getting his hands on a gun (he's indigent and homeless now as well). He seems to know exactly where the line is drawn now - you don't fuck with your ex-wife.

But, I figure as long as there's one asshole waiting for me, I might as well take them all on. So we've had several women (one at a time, some with children) stay a few months at a time in our house. My wife makes the rules - but it's better than the typical women's shelter.

One woman at a time - just doing what we can.

One at a time is great. If everyone helped somebody else out it would only take one at a time.

Note: I am responding to the author of the article. By the way, she's a pretty good writer. The problem seems to be that she oversimplifies complex issues and fails to allow men to feel that they can indeed be "good guys". The latter seems incredibly insensitive, don't you think? ;) The oversimplification could easily be due to the character limits that are imposed on the articles.

Do Take Note
The Universal Myth of the "Good Guy"

by Whitney Williams
TNH Columnist

I love the ambiguous name that could easily belong to either a male or female. It really lends a nice atmosphere to the article. :D Though I do think that the author is female.

"Good Guys" in the patriarchy are harder to find than the Loch Ness monster in a desert. But according to many people I hear and talk to, "good guys" are everywhere. The propensity to acknowledge the shortcomings of men, overlook them even in obvious examples (such as gang-rape) and excuse their moral responsibility with the magic words, "but he is a good guy," is an epidemic phenomena at the very least.

Ah, the shortcomings of men. Let's respond to the unfair and oppressive stereotyping of women with some generalization of men, eh? Honestly, all of us (humans) are flawed and foolish at times and some of us do horrible things. Granted, the males of the population tend to be much more oppressive to women in a physical way. It's also true that women tend to be much more oppressive of men in an emotional way. Wrongs are done on both sides. Try not to overlook the problems with the group you identify with. Take the damn log out of your own eye before helping someone else lift their log out. (Yes I'm aware of the fact that I'm using phallic imagery here. It amuses me to do so. No doubt it's a symbol of my rape mentality.) :D

I am amazed continuously with the amount of forgiveness people are willing to grant me[n], as if the majority of rapes aren't owned by them, as if they majority of pornography isn't consumed, produced, and profitable by them, and, as if they aren't somehow affected by the extreme privilege granted to their gender class.

Ah, the generalizations again. All you are doing with this sort of language is pissing off those "good guys" by including them with rapists. They may not be perfect, but don't group them in with rapists. And yes, most men benefit from the privilege of their class, as do women benefit from the privilege of their class. And yes, men consume the majority of pornography. And yes, most rapes are performed by men. Work on liberating women from the social stigma that follows them if they try to be overtly sexual or predatorial and you might well see that women are just as bad as men when it comes to pornography and rape. By the way, you do realize that most men are also oppressed when it comes to sex, right? You do know that we aren't allowed to refuse sex (under most circumstances in my culture) without serious social consequences?

Tuesday, I attended the Socratic Society's re-visitation of the issue of pornography as violence against women. I felt astounded repeatedly by many men's refusal to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of women, as if their lives thus far had been devoted to the liberation of women,

A couple of notes here.

1. Many men do refuse to acknowledge their complicity in the oppression of women. The vast majority are lying to themselves or others. However, that lie may simply be due to a lack of education on their part.

2. You're putting forth a false dilemma here. I do not need to devote myself to the liberation of women in order to absolve myself of oppressing (through passivity or activity on my part) women. All I need to do is avoid oppressing women and speak up when I see the oppression (and when I won't get my ass kicked for doing so).

as if they didn't benefit from male privilege because they didn't like the idea of having it and as if percieved non-participation in patriarchal institutions fulfills any and all moral obligations men could have.

This is indeed a problem.

Though I believe the behavior of men in this Tuesday's "soc-soc" was much improved over the last one I recounted in my column, I still found an extreme lack of basic understanding of the issues of pornography, violence against women and oppression of women.

Well clearly that is a grave sin on their part. How dare they be ignorant of something that is so vitally important for you? :rolleyes:

Don't playa-hate, educate. ;)

Though things were considerably more civil and orderly, often many of the men, the author of the fallacious op-ed "A Socratic Defense" included, spoke up in defense of each other when another man's comments or arguments were criticized. The common response was that the person, almost always female, confronting the argument put forth by one of the men, did not understand exactly what had been said or that she had somehow misconstrued the meaning. Almost consistently, several men would chime in together and defend the man in question, disguised and perhaps sincerely intended as an effort of "clarification," but very clearly embodying the concept of the "boys' club."

So? Clearly there is a problem when people group together to defend themselves from a perceived attack in a stereotypical manner. :rolleyes:

This is specifically not commentary on a percieved level of intelligence of any men or their arguments. Rather, it is on their easily assumed behavior of preserving their privilege by excluding women's intellectual contributions in rejecting and dismissing them collectively in an effort to protect their own patriarchy-sustaining ideologies. Unfortunately, this is not a remarkable occurance and is an incredibly effective methodology men learn as a function of their existence.

Correct.

By existing as men, men directly aid in the oppression of women.

Unsubstantiated bullshit. You really need to think critically when you hear things like this from other people, Whitney.

Every time a man uses pornography, beats his wife or coerces a woman or dismisses or laughs at her, he is simultaneously denouncing her humanity and reaffirming his own.

Correct.

He does not just do this to amuse himself; her subjugation is a vehicle necessary for his continued existence.

That may well be his perception. Her subjugation is not truly necessary. Don't buy into the patriarchal lie that it's necessary for a man to have power over others to be a true man.

That is why men accepting responsibility and acknowledging their complicity in women's oppression is so extremely uncommon. It is also why there is no such thing as a "good guy" in the patriarchy.

Actually, the feminist movement has had a positive effect in that it is now shameful to admit being oppressive to women. That is why men don't want to admit complicity.

One man mentioned that he didn't do those "bad things," i.e. use pornography, rape women, etc. It was also mentioned at one point, perhaps by the same man, that he hoped there weren't men who had raped in this room, i.e. that all men who were present were basically "good guys."

That is certainly a hopeful sign, is it not? A rather conscientious fellow spoke up and showed the other men that it was possible not to be oppressive to women.

"Good guys" rape women and are responsible for harassing, beating, dismissing, objectifying, or laughing at women. Many women I know have been raped or sexually coerced by "good guys" like doctors, business men, fraternity boys, friends, fathers, brothers, husbands and lovers. "Good guys" use pornography, condone other's use of it or don't speak out against it. "Good guys" condescend us in the classroom and school paper and laugh at our feminist agenda. "Good guys" sit back and do nothing. "Good guys" feign political interest in feminism or deny its importance completely. "Good guys" teach us classes excluding women's intellectual work, favor male students incessantly and are complicit in the perpetuation of male supremacy through the patriarchal cultivation of their male academic progeny. "Good guys," their "good institutions" and "good power," are the PROBLEM.

Either you have a very odd definition of "good," or you're false painting a picture of all men as oppressors.

In "Redefining Nonviolence," Andrea Dworkin writes,

Quote:
Any man who is your comrade will know in his gut the indignity, the demeaning indignity, of systematic exclusion from the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Any man who is your true comrade will be committed to laying his body, his life, on the line so that you will be subjected to that indignity no longer. I ask you to look to your male comrades on the left, and to determine whether they have made that commitment to you. If they have not, then they do not take your lives seriously and as long as you work for and with them, you do not take their lives seriously either.

I'm dedicating my entire life to education in an effort to relieve the ignorance that causes the problem you have mentioned and many other problems. Is that enough, or should I slice off my genitalia? :rolleyes:

Does anyone else hear that tune, "We don't need the men, we don't need the men"?

Not really. I'm sure it rings quite true, though. With the technology we have now and the sperm banks, women really don't need men. However, would it really be right to exclude men and degrade them by saying so? Another example of a lack of sensitivity on your part, Whitney.

If she is treated harshly by the men around her, perhaps it might have something to do with her attitude - which comes out loud and clear in her essay.

Ahhh, I just love this argument. "Oh, men treat you badly? Must be because you're such a bitch." The classic male response to feminism: blame the victim.

Exactly. Having known a good number of self-respecting, intelligent, educated, wonderful women who worked in the sex trades, I am always a little offended on their behalf when I read such drivel - who are Dworkin et al to second-guess a grown woman's choice of career?


No self-respecting woman would be in the sex industry, sorry, I'm not going to believe it just because you say so. Most psychologists agree women that are promiscuous could quite likely suffer from "Histrionic Personality Disorder", thus they're not emotionally stable and often lack self-respect.

She has created an impossibility of being a good man, as simply being a man is irrevocably guilt in the patriarcy.

It is true. As men we cannot escape our guilt. But there are two responses to guilt:

1. Do everything you can to make things right. You can never erase your guilt, but you can try to make it mean something. You may even contribute to a world in which the men who come after us will have nothing about which to be guilty.

2. Denial, which is really to embrace shame. Some of us are so ashamed of ourselves that we cannot even admit our culpability to ourselves. This does not help anyone... and it usually has a way of coming back to bite us, in one way or another.

If there is nothing I can do to be a 'good guy' since my penis makes me complicit in rape despite how I personally may feel about it, then why should I bother?

You have it the wrong way around. What most of the men in this thread seem to be saying is, "Since I am already a good guy, why should I have to contribute to feminist causes? Why should I have to put my neck on the line to defend women's rights? I'm not the problem." But the fact of the matter is that we cannot so easily escape our guilt. To do nothing, even to treat women "well" in our personal lives, is to accept the status quo. The only ethically viable answer to guilt is action to make up for it.

Further, I should be concerned that if she got her way I would be placed underheel as a beast based soley on my gender

Why? She doesn't say anything that remotely implies such a conclusion..

Thing is, pornography is repressive, rape and abuse is wrong, and women's intellectual contribution is underrepresented.

Yes, yes and yes. Although people seem to be misunderstanding the rape issue. Her point is a valid one: most, if not all, men are rapists in a very important sense. Those of us who think "we are not the problem" are almost certainly doomed to be rapists.

Why? Because when you think you are not the problem, you think that in your relationships, patriarchal power is "not an issue." "I don't coerce my partners into sex. I don't force them," we think. But that just obscures the issue. When we make sexual advances, a whole throng of patriarchal social forces go to work in a woman's head. When she accepts, even when she seems excited... we are guilty of throwing around the accumulated sexual coercion of manhood. When we meet a girl at a party, and we are both having fun, and we wind up having sex... we are responsible for a host of social forces that define whether or not she "should," what it means to be "free," how her sense of self, and attractiveness, and desirability is bound up in the sexual act.

Even when we think we have a truly "feminist" woman, who would "never" succumb to such forces, we can never be sure. Indeed, this very statement reveals the intractability of our situation: We consider ourselves "blameless" because we rely in strong women to resist patriarchal norms on their own. We expect them to resist us, so that if they don't... well, that means they are truly willing.

There is no easy solution. For either of us, men and women who are -- most of us -- just trying to find love in the world. Neither of us can completely trust our own emotions, because they have been severely warped by the world in which we live.

For men, I recommend easing off on your advances. Even try a period in which you will not let yourself ask for sex, or make a sexual advance... let her have true freedom, by only having sex when she comes to you. Even this isn't perfect... and for most of us, it can't last forever. Besides, no one wants to always be the one making the advance.

So complicated!! But what else can we do? To refuse to try is to accept defeat.

It is true. As men we cannot escape our guilt. But there are two responses to guilt:

1. Do everything you can to make things right. You can never erase your guilt, but you can try to make it mean something. You may even contribute to a world in which the men who come after us will have nothing about which to be guilty.

2. Denial, which is really to embrace shame. Some of us are so ashamed of ourselves that we cannot even admit our culpability to ourselves. This does not help anyone... and it usually has a way of coming back to bite us, in one way or another.



You have it the wrong way around. What most of the men in this thread seem to be saying is, "Since I am already a good guy, why should I have to contribute to feminist causes? Why should I have to put my neck on the line to defend women's rights? I'm not the problem." But the fact of the matter is that we cannot so easily escape our guilt. To do nothing, even to treat women "well" in our personal lives, is to accept the status quo. The only ethically viable answer to guilt is action to make up for it.



Why? She doesn't say anything that remotely implies such a conclusion..



Yes, yes and yes. Although people seem to be misunderstanding the rape issue. Her point is a valid one: most, if not all, men are rapists in a very important sense. Those of us who think "we are not the problem" are almost certainly doomed to be rapists.

Why? Because when you think you are not the problem, you think that in your relationships, patriarchal power is "not an issue." "I don't coerce my partners into sex. I don't force them," we think. But that just obscures the issue. When we make sexual advances, a whole throng of patriarchal social forces go to work in a woman's head. When she accepts, even when she seems excited... we are guilty of throwing around the accumulated sexual coercion of manhood. When we meet a girl at a party, and we are both having fun, and we wind up having sex... we are responsible for a host of social forces that define whether or not she "should," what it means to be "free," how her sense of self, and attractiveness, and desirability is bound up in the sexual act.

Even when we think we have a truly "feminist" woman, who would "never" succumb to such forces, we can never be sure. Indeed, this very statement reveals the intractability of our situation: We consider ourselves "blameless" because we rely in strong women to resist patriarchal norms on their own. We expect them to resist us, so that if they don't... well, that means they are truly willing.

There is no easy solution. For either of us, men and women who are -- most of us -- just trying to find love in the world. Neither of us can completely trust our own emotions, because they have been severely warped by the world in which we live.

For men, I recommend easing off on your advances. Even try a period in which you will not let yourself ask for sex, or make a sexual advance... let her have true freedom, by only having sex when she comes to you. Even this isn't perfect... and for most of us, it can't last forever. Besides, no one wants to always be the one making the advance.

So complicated!! But what else can we do? To refuse to try is to accept defeat.


Two questions,

1) Are you a man?

2) Are you a straight man?

Well actually a third question, 3) Can you get on AOL later so some friends of mine can talk to you, they're not going to believe this unless they hear it in RT chat.

Thank you in advance for answering, and I do look forward to seeing you on AOL.

What that author needs is a really good lay. The kind where your legs are too weak to stand for the rest of the day. Where noises come out of your mouth sounding like animals you never heard of. Then she'll know what a 'good man' really is.

Wow. Seems like somebody is under a lot of stress.

I've seen similar articles from similar personalities. It's definately nothing new to me --- but what strikes me about this one is the banter against "Nice Guys".

What the fuck? Seriously, now. I would never treat anybody badly for being the opposite sex. I want complete equality for both sexes. I want more laws against spousal abuse.

For the most part, in my experiences, I'd usually rather be friends with most females than with most males. Many guys I've known are complete assholes, who would put their wives in shackles as soon as they got married, if given half a chance. Although I guess that's to be expected, being in Texas and all.

Anyway, I'm a genuine "Nice Guy", although not the kind to be used as a Human rug. And this "Whitney" clearly has some issues that need to be worked out.

This person has some very serious issues, my best wishes go out to the author of the article finding peace in herself one day.

Ahh, another classic response to feminism: "These women have 'serious issues.' There is something wrong with them."

There is a line between standing up for your rights and trampling on the rights of others.

And whose rights did she trample on? What right did she propose we deny to men?

The very title "Good guys" is an unusual classification, probably a specialized term that I am not familiar with, because rather than look at induvidual actions, the author jumps into a series of denouncments.

Am I really the only one who knows where she gets this term? "Good guy" is a specific expression, almost invariably used as an excuse. When a guy does something wrong, his friends will say things like, "Yeah, that was stupid. But he's a good guy." Or, "He's a little confused about women. But he's a good guy." No one else has ever heard "But deep down he's a good guy"???

It seems utterly preposterous that I am the only one here who understands the excuse of patriarchy latent in that expression.

The phrase, "...the majority of rapes aren't owned by them" is very curious. Since when did someone "own" a rape?

"To own" also has the meaning "to accept responsibility for," as in "to own up to one's mistakes."

This is also a curious statement. This author has taken the time to label these men as "oppressors of women" because they exist in a male dominated society, regardless over their own actions, feelings, or efforts. That's blaming all people, regardless of action or intent for the wrongdoings of the society at large.

Not all people, all men. And she is quite right to do so. Unless you are actively fighting to oppose the status quo, we can only assume that you accept it. And either way, you are guilty. Just like me.

Further caveats include, "defend the man in question, DISGUISED and PERHAPS sincerely INTENDED as an effort of 'Clarification' but very clearly..."

So lemme get this straight; a woman says something that shows a slight misunderstanding of the point in question. You clarify the mistake to her.

Here she is right, too. It does not take much experience with men in such situations to see it. No matter what the feminist argument is, men almost invariably resort to the escapist "you just don't understand." It is not much different than, "No, not ME!" It may be that men actually believe themselves to be misunderstood... but this is just evidence of the fact that they really have not been listening. They are "confused" about why women could be so hostile when they "haven't done anything wrong." The problem is that what we do is wrong, we're just too thick and/or ashamed to let ourselves see it.

It would be different if every once in a while men found themselves having to correct an error in communication, and likewise women making corrections, too. But don't you think we should be suspicious of the pattern that men so frequently jump to, "Well, let me just try to explain this better." Men are always trying to explain sexism away, rather than fighting it.

This author has created a second "original sin" just for the males of the species; how quaint.

Good for her. Considering that the first original sin was aimed pretty squarely at women, I would say we deserve it. Moreover, it is essentially true. Men are born into guilt. The only way to change that is to defeat patriarchy. Any man who hates his own guilt has to be a feminist. Any man who denies his own guilt is a sexist.

There is no way to be "right" and "male" in this Author's mind.

Sure there is. She is quite explicit about it: you have to actively fight patriarchy and sexism. Passive resistance will not do... because simply by being a man, you embody the full weight of sexist language and patriarchal practice. You cannot escape it. It exists in the way our society understands "maleness" and "femaleness." If you are a man, you partake in maleness, whether you like it or not. If you hate what maleness is, then the only answer is to change it.

Actually, I didn't read the whole article posted here. Women like her make me mad because they are the same as men who treat women badly.

Ahh, another typical anti-feminist response. "So we abuse you, mistreat you, rape you, exclude you. We don't listen to you, or we don't care what you say. .... But if you compain about it, you are just as bad."

Women like WW seem to think that all men deserve to be treated badly and she definitely doesn't respect them.

Well, she does not respect them, and she is right because they are cowards. But where does she say they should be treated badly?

By her way of thinking, if all men are responsible for the actions of the few because they do nothing to stop them, if I dislike the actions of some women and don't do anything to stop them, I am guilty as well.

Are you not? You are only more guilty of patriarchy because you cannot help but participate in it. It is coded into our society, and neither men nor women can escape it by retreating into a "private" life that they believe to be free of oppression. One cannot escape it. One has to change it. And if one is not actively fighting to change it, one amplifies one's guilt.

Wow. Seems like somebody is under a lot of stress.

I've seen similar articles from similar personalities. It's definately nothing new to me --- but what strikes me about this one is the banter against "Nice Guys".

What the fuck? Seriously, now. I would never treat anybody badly for being the opposite sex. I want complete equality for both sexes. I want more laws against spousal abuse.

For the most part, in my experiences, I'd usually rather be friends with most females than with most males. Many guys I've known are complete assholes, who would put their wives in shackles as soon as they got married, if given half a chance. Although I guess that's to be expected, being in Texas and all.

Anyway, I'm a genuine "Nice Guy", although not the kind to be used as a Human rug. And this "Whitney" clearly has some issues that need to be worked out.



My mother could have used a few good beatings, she really needed it sometimes, but my dad was too weak-willed and lacked the ambition to give it to her like she wanted it.

Her behavior (repeated adultery, running around at all hours of the night, causing scenes in public, throwing things at him, slapping at him) she was crying out to be beaten. Whether she admits it or not, she wanted him, in the worst way, to take hold of her and slap her around, let her know who was in charge, give her the attention she wanted.


She was used to being beaten by her father, and she probably was perplexed and confused when her rotten behavior failed to get attention from my dad (he just stopped caring after a while, and then they got divorced)

I think he could have saved his marriage if he beat her. That's my honest opinion, as much as I'd be against beating, she wanted it, she needed it, he ought to have given it to her.

I think he should have just beaten her, and the law ought to have backed him up and allowed for it. (The law ought not to be so cut and dry, black and white, there are expections to everything, and ought to be exceptions to somethings)

Blaming a freshfaced young man who has just left his mothers side for the sins of all men before him is stretching things.

No, it's not. Because he is already a participant in patriarchal, sexist culture. Change it, or be it. Those are your options.

Now I'm not sure if I qualify as a good guy, I'm not sure I want to be thought of as such. But I do hold some beliefs that could cause me to be kicked out of any old boys club.

Good! So do I... It doesn't make me any the less guilty. It just means that I am doing something with my guilt... and the more you do, the more your guilt will be redeemed. Someday, there may be no cause for guilt. But not today.

Two questions,

1) Are you a man?

2) Are you a straight man?

Well actually a third question, 3) Can you get on AOL later so some friends of mine can talk to you, they're not going to believe this unless they hear it in RT chat.

Thank you in advance for answering, and I do look forward to seeing you on AOL.

I am a straight man. And I am on AOL now... Screenname AnarchyeL.

Sure there is. She is quite explicit about it: you have to actively fight patriarchy and sexism. Passive resistance will not do... because simply by being a man, you embody the full weight of sexist language and patriarchal practice. You cannot escape it. It exists in the way our society understands "maleness" and "femaleness." If you are a man, you partake in maleness, whether you like it or not. If you hate what maleness is, then the only answer is to change it.

So I must ask you then: what about the millions and millions of women out there who do not hold such fervor about the fight for women's rights? What is their culpability in this whole ordeal? Are they to be treated like collaborators, aiding and comforting the enemy?

My mother could have used a few good beatings, she really needed it sometimes, but my dad was too weak-willed and lacked the ambition to give it to her like she wanted it.

Her behavior (repeated adultery, running around at all hours of the night, causing scenes in public, throwing things at him, slapping at him) she was crying out to be beaten. Whether she admits it or not, she wanted him, in the worst way, to take hold of her and slap her around, let her know who was in charge, give her the attention she wanted.


She was used to being beaten by her father, and she probably was perplexed and confused when her rotten behavior failed to get attention from my dad (he just stopped caring after a while, and then they got divorced)

I think he could have saved his marriage if he beat her. That's my honest opinion, as much as I'd be against beating, she wanted it, she needed it, he ought to have given it to her.

I think he should have just beaten her, and the law ought to have backed him up and allowed for it. (The law ought not to be so cut and dry, black and white, there are expections to everything, and ought to be exceptions to somethings)


That is sad, and very, very fucked up. Kudos to your Dad for doing the right thing.

It would seem, from her editorial, that as long as men aren't actively working to stop the oppression of women, they are actively participating in said oppression.

That is correct.

No self-respecting woman would be in the sex industry, sorry, I'm not going to believe it just because you say so. Most psychologists agree women that are promiscuous could quite likely suffer from "Histrionic Personality Disorder", thus they're not emotionally stable and often lack self-respect.
Your ignorance and explicit insult to people I respect and love really does nothing but make me think you're an asshole. The logical fallacies found in your short little sentence may qualify for some kind of record, though.

That is sad, and very, very fucked up. Kudos to your Dad for doing the right thing.


Meh, he said he wasn't going to hit anybody, man or woman, especially woman. Anyway, he just didn't care anymore.

See, I think she needed a beating, and it would have done her some good. A pastor once said, "A good left hook, makes for a right fine wife." I typically disagree with that in almost all cases, but knowing my mother as well as I do, that would have held true and probably worked.

I bet some guy made fun of her small boobs.

Ah, nice to meet another sexist.

That is correct.

So, even though I do not personally actively oppress women in any fashion, I am just as guilty as someone who actively rapes and beats women? Simply because I was unwittingly borne into the system? Punish the son for the sins of the father.

Alan Alda is a very good example of somebody who male children should look up to. He's very intelligent, very liberal, and for complete equality between Men and Women.

I'm going to do whatever I can to further this cause --- however, It will have to wait a few years. I'm really unable to get out much.

Meh, he said he wasn't going to hit anybody, man or woman, especially woman. Anyway, he just didn't care anymore.

See, I think she needed a beating, and it would have done her some good. A pastor once said, "A good left hook, makes for a right fine wife." I typically disagree with that in almost all cases, but knowing my mother as well as I do, that would have held true and probably worked.

So may I beat the shit out of you because I think you deserve it?

Meh, he said he wasn't going to hit anybody, man or woman, especially woman. Anyway, he just didn't care anymore.

See, I think she needed a beating, and it would have done her some good. A pastor once said, "A good left hook, makes for a right fine wife." I typically disagree with that in almost all cases, but knowing my mother as well as I do, that would have held true and probably worked.


Yeah it probably would have. It still doesn't mean that it's right. I wouldn't do it anyway.

Meh, he said he wasn't going to hit anybody, man or woman, especially woman. Anyway, he just didn't care anymore.

See, I think she needed a beating, and it would have done her some good. A pastor once said, "A good left hook, makes for a right fine wife." I typically disagree with that in almost all cases, but knowing my mother as well as I do, that would have held true and probably worked.
I think you're crying out for something yourself...ask a shrink what s/he thinks about a kid who fantasizes about his mother being beat up, too.

While I agree that a lot of men do contribute to womens less than equal treatment without realizing it, I think the author has her panties in a bunch.

Ahh, and so you prove your own culpability. It's so easy to discount a woman, isn't it? All you have to say is "panties in a bunch," and her whole argument goes out the window.

So may I beat the shit out of you because I think you deserve it?


If I was your wife, and having affairs with a dozen plus guys, often in your very house, while your son is at home, and I throw things at you, never make your dinner, never are around when you get home, then and only then, can you beat the crap out of me.

I am an upstanding Christian male, and I will follow the bible to the letter, so I will never do anything to warrant a beating.

Ahh, and so you prove your own culpability. It's so easy to discount a woman, isn't it? All you have to say is "panties in a bunch," and her whole argument goes out the window.

Ah, but Bitchkitten is a woman. Is she as guilty of participating in the patriarchal society as I am?

I'm mentally undressing one my female co-workers in honor of this article.

I have just lost some of my respect for you.

I think you're crying out for something yourself...ask a shrink what s/he thinks about a kid who fantasizes about his mother being beat up, too.


I even told my mother, many times, "Dad should have clocked you good, you could have used it."

If I was your wife, and having affairs with a dozen plus guys, often in your very house, while your son is at home, and I throw things at you, never make your dinner, never are around when you get home, then and only then, can you beat the crap out of me.

I am an upstanding Christian male, and I will follow the bible to the letter, so I will never do anything to warrant a beating.

You didn't say that. You said she needed beatings because you thought she deserved it. Who are you to decide when someone "deserves" a beating?

I have just lost some of my respect for you.


I really do hate how people objectify women, but women don't do much to help this, too many dress in horrible manners that utterly and completely lack modesty.

Most "Women's rights" men, will never stop objectifying women when the women aren't around.

See, for me, sex isn't really a big issue, I could care less if I have to wait 10-15 more years to meet the right woman, I'm not going to fornicate, period.

You didn't say that. You said she needed beatings because you thought she deserved it. Who are you to decide when someone "deserves" a beating?

Some people do though. But it's a very fact intensive analysis.

I even told my mother, many times, "Dad should have clocked you good, you could have used it."

So you are an upstanding and moral male Christian? What ever happened to honor your father and mother? Or do you just skip anything that doesn't justify your world view?

So you are an upstanding and moral male Christian? What ever happened to honor your father and mother? Or do you just skip anything that doesn't justify your world view?


I've always honored my father. As for my mother, we're not meant to honor reprobate adultresses who insult, mock, slap around, beat, and in other ways, torment us.

Nobody is entitled to my respect, my father earned it, and he received 110% respect, at least I tried to do so.

My mother earned nothing, and so I can barely stand talking to her (she often hangs up on me after I refuse to tolerate her swearing, then she demands I apologize to her)

So I must ask you then: what about the millions and millions of women out there who do not hold such fervor about the fight for women's rights? What is their culpability in this whole ordeal? Are they to be treated like collaborators, aiding and comforting the enemy?

Yes.

Though obviously their guilt is nowhere near comparable to men's. And it is possible to excuse many of them either because they have been deluded by men, or are fearful of them.

But those who know, and do nothing? Especially those of the upper classes who enjoy a reasonably pleasant life? They are guilty.

I've always honored my father. As for my mother, we're not meant to honor reprobate adultresses who insult, mock, slap around, beat, and in other ways, torment us.

Nobody is entitled to my respect, my father earned it, and he received 110% respect, at least I tried to do so.

My mother earned nothing, and so I can barely stand talking to her (she often hangs up on me after I refuse to tolerate her swearing, then she demands I apologize to her)

Notice the lack of response to the last question. You claim to be an upright Christian but Jesus often preaches about forgiveness and the Golden Law is love others as you love yourself. You probably know all about self love though.

So, even though I do not personally actively oppress women in any fashion, I am just as guilty as someone who actively rapes and beats women?

Did I ever say "just" as guilty? No. Obviously their guilt is far more profound, and their actions far more despicable than your inaction (or unknowing action).

But having "not as much" guilt does not excuse you. You are still guilty. As am I.

Simply because I was unwittingly borne into the system? Punish the son for the sins of the father.

Who said anything about "punishment"? I am not saying that men should be punished for their complicity in a system they did not create. But we should feel guilty about our participation in it, whether we willed it or not.

Did I ever say "just" as guilty? No. Obviously their guilt is far more profound, and their actions far more despicable than your inaction (or unknowing action).

But having "not as much" guilt does not excuse you. You are still guilty. As am I.



Who said anything about "punishment"? I am not saying that men should be punished for their complicity in a system they did not create. But we should feel guilty about our participation in it, whether we willed it or not.

So what you are saying is all men are at fault, and only men can change this sad circumstance?

Ah, but Bitchkitten is a woman. Is she as guilty of participating in the patriarchal society as I am?

Not as guilty, because presumably she gets no benefit out of it. (Although there are women who benefit from spouting anti-feminist rhetoric.) But guilty? Yes.

Did I ever say "just" as guilty? No. Obviously their guilt is far more profound, and their actions far more despicable than your inaction (or unknowing action).

But having "not as much" guilt does not excuse you. You are still guilty. As am I.



Who said anything about "punishment"? I am not saying that men should be punished for their complicity in a system they did not create. But we should feel guilty about our participation in it, whether we willed it or not.

Hey! A good eighty percent of my friends are male, and there is nothing wrong with them. They roughhouse with me the same way I do with them. They don't treat me any differently than they treat each other. I am privelaged to have friends as caring and sweet as they are. I take offense that you should lump all men into that stereotype and think it makes you little better.

Notice the lack of response to the last question. You claim to be an upright Christian but Jesus often preaches about forgiveness and the Golden Law is love others as you love yourself.

I agree but being human and not perfect I feel some of the things that VoteEarly described, although my father only committed adultery.

Did I ever say "just" as guilty? No. Obviously their guilt is far more profound, and their actions far more despicable than your inaction (or unknowing action).

But having "not as much" guilt does not excuse you. You are still guilty. As am I.



Who said anything about "punishment"? I am not saying that men should be punished for their complicity in a system they did not create. But we should feel guilty about our participation in it, whether we willed it or not.

So you believe we should feel guilty about something we have no control over?

I agree but being human and not perfect I feel some of the things that VoteEarly described, although my father only committed adultery.

Feeling that way is one thing. The direct disrespect of another person is another. Seeing as I came from a home where spousal abuse was present, I find that it isn't as easy as some people make out. There was adultery in my home as well, and it did not warrent any abuse. Talking is one thing, violence is another

Hey! A good eighty percent of my friends are male, and there is nothing wrong with them. They roughhouse with me the same way I do with them. They don't treat me any differently than they treat each other. I am privelaged to have friends as caring and sweet as they are. I take offense that you should lump all men into that stereotype and think it makes you little better.

Your preternatural ability to live a happy well adjusted life despite the machinations of the patriarchal phallocracy and its cocomitant control over individual self determination through subtle manipulation of social mores and societal expectations/aspirations, clearly brands you as a gender traitor. ;)

Better a gender traitor than a bigot I guess.

Did I ever say "just" as guilty? No. Obviously their guilt is far more profound, and their actions far more despicable than your inaction (or unknowing action).

But having "not as much" guilt does not excuse you. You are still guilty. As am I.



Who said anything about "punishment"? I am not saying that men should be punished for their complicity in a system they did not create. But we should feel guilty about our participation in it, whether we willed it or not.

Feel guilty about something I can't control (my gender) because it makes me somehow a bad person? Sod that off. It sounds just like the English telling the Irish that they were bad because they were Catholic or Irish, or the Germans saying that to the gypsies and Jews, or the white slavers saying that to the blacks. And saying that a certain is all guilty even if they don't do actively participate is like accusing some impoverished white potato farmer in the back end of Ireland of actively supporting the slave trade in blacks simply because s/he's white.

I don't treat my female friends any different from my male ones; in fact, unless I'm looking to hook up (and therefore obeying a hardwired biological impulse to procreate) your gender is completely irrelevant to me. I say it again (to quote an issue from the game); "Everyone is equal, dammit!"

(and Keelar; I think Lacadaemon was joking. I have several female friends who have the same attitude you do; they just want to be treated equally, not like they are "special")

Hey! A good eighty percent of my friends are male, and there is nothing wrong with them. They roughhouse with me the same way I do with them. They don't treat me any differently than they treat each other. I am privelaged to have friends as caring and sweet as they are.

Okay. I won't go into my suspicions that there is more going on here, either more than you will tell or more than you can see. (Maybe we should look at their relations with girls they want to or are dating.) Besides that... good for them! But being "good" in private does not negate one's guilt.

I take offense that you should lump all men into that stereotype and think it makes you little better.

Have you not been reading? I am guilty, too, especially in that I do not do enough to combat sexism. (I am also guilty on a number of other charges, for the same reason, e.g. not doing enough to oppose racism.)

So you believe we should feel guilty about something we have no control over?

We don't have control over its being there. But we can and should do something to get rid of it.

Have you never, in all your life, seen people do something bad and done nothing? Maybe picking on someone? Maybe stealing? Maybe worse?

Have you not felt guilty later?

We don't have control over it's being there. But we can and should do something to get rid of it.

Have you never, in all your life, seen people do something bad and done nothing? Maybe picking on someone? Maybe stealing? Maybe worse?

Have you not felt guilty later?

Yes, I have, and I felt guilty. But I do not feel guilty for the gender I was born with, nor my race, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. I refuse to apologize based simply on who I am.

Feel guilty about something I can't control (my gender) because it makes me somehow a bad person?

I didn't say it makes you a bad person. Being guilty and being a bad person are two entirely different things.

It sounds just like the English telling the Irish that they were bad because they were Catholic or Irish, or the Germans saying that to the gypsies and Jews, or the white slavers saying that to the blacks.

No, it doesn't sound "just like" any of that. The primary difference is that in this case we have a privileged, powerful group. Guilt and power are inherently bound. And you are powerful even if you do not actively use your power. You are given privileges even if you do not seek them out. People put more stock in your words because you are male. They may (in fact, they are likely to) pay you more as a professional because you are male.

And yes, you should feel guilty about it. You have no control over it, and you should be guilty. And you should fight it with every effort you can make.

And saying that a certain is all guilty even if they don't do actively participate is like accusing some impoverished white potato farmer in the back end of Ireland of actively supporting the slave trade in blacks simply because s/he's white.

No, it isn't. But the differences are obvious. (And if he is a participant in racism, and he can do something to fight it, then there is no difference... except one of degree, because the powerful and the well-off are always more guilty than the poor and powerless, for the simple reason that there is more they can do to fight, and they get more benefit from not fighting.)

I don't treat my female friends any different from my male ones; in fact, unless I'm looking to hook up (and therefore obeying a hardwired biological impulse to procreate) your gender is completely irrelevant to me.

You may think so. And maybe it is true, but I doubt it. Most men talk more in meetings than women. If a woman makes a good point, no one pays attention to it until a man makes the same point later. Very VERY few men realize they are doing this. And even once they realize it, it can be very difficult to stop.

If you are not paying attention to sexism, you are probably a sexist. It is just too deeply imbedded in the culture.

Yes, I have, and I felt guilty. But I do not feel guilty for the gender I was born with, nor my race, hair color, sexual orientation, etc.

I would never ask you to. But unfortunately, you live in a culture in which your sex is used in a certain way. It means something more than "just" biology. And until that has ended, everyone is guilty who does not fight it. It is like standing by and watching a crime.

Men are just more guilty because, whether we want to be or not, we are the beneficiaries of the situation. And, more often than not, we participate in it without realizing it. None of us is innocent.

I would never ask you to. But unfortunately, you live in a culture in which your sex is used in a certain way. It means something more than "just" biology. And until that has ended, everyone is guilty who does not fight it. It is like standing by and watching a crime.

Men are just more guilty because, whether we want to be or not, we are the beneficiaries of the situation. And, more often than not, we participate in it without realizing it. None of us is innocent.

Then I imagine the same could be said for white people, Christians, heterosexuals, and so on, right?

Then I imagine the same could be said for white people, Christians, heterosexuals, and so on, right?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Why? They have no control over any of those things.

Look, I have a feeling that a lot of the problem here is rooted in the fact that people no longer know how to distinguish between guilt and shame.

I am not ashamed of being a man, or white, or heterosexual. To be ashamed would mean that I think there is something "wrong" with me, something that I would like to hide away.

Racists want other people to be ashamed of who they are. I would never want that.

But I am guilty. I feel guilty because I receive more recognition than female colleagues who are just as deserving or more so. I feel guilty because of the many privileges I receive that I never ask for. And I also feel guilty for all the ways in which, knowingly or unknowingly, I have contributed to the sense of male superiority over the years.

I will feel guilty as long as a state of inequality exists. And my guilt is profoundly compounded by the fact that this inequality puts me on top.

But guilt is not like shame. Guilt does not want to hide... it wants to be redeemed. We may fight it, but there it is. That is why criminals return to the scene of the crime. That is why when you have sinned, it helps to confess. That is why therapy works: it relieves guilt by letting it out.

But some guilt is bigger than words. It requires action.

snipped for length, and i think I quoted the wrong response

No matter how we adjust it, there is a 'recieving end' to sex.

I understand what you are saying, however-

I haven't made an advance on a woman pretty much ever because I'm a little shy and a lot a coward. That's really neither here nor there, but...

I only get so much time-I can fight for the women, for the minorities, for the hungry and homeless, for the enviroment, for the whales, for the...

If you add up all the time we have to contribute to the solution to all the problems there wouldn't be enough time in the day and none to live anything that's left of my life.

It'd be fantastic if we all could step down and make sure everyone feels safe and etc. But there is only so much you can ask of people, and you need to give them a realistic goal. And we can't diminish the argument into 'penis bad rarrrrrr.' (okay, I like saying that, I'll cop to that)

Look, women are underrepresented and paid less than men. That's a much bigger thing to topple than whether or not their position in the mating dance is demeaning. Somethings are hardwired, peacocks have feathers we have our pose-down. And really, it's not as cut and dry as your making it.

If it weren't for women that where forward themselves (in both asking out and asking for sex) I wouldn't have gotten anything, so it's really not a black and white good and bad thing.

I once heard a comedians response to a ladies statement that there were no good guys out there. His answer was that you meet them every day, and if you are having trouble picking them out - we're the ones you bitch to about the asshole you're dating.

Painting a whole gender with such a demeaning brush is unworthy. As is the notion that because some rapists might have been "nice guys", which she seems to equate to "respected professionals" that nice guys do not exist. If she is treated harshly by the men around her, perhaps it might have something to do with her attitude - which comes out loud and clear in her essay.

Perhaps I should pull out the statistics (more children are killed by their mothers than anyone else, abortions, spankings, cases of neglect etc.) and include some pointed examples (the Susan Smiths of the world) to paint the entire female gender as being brutal, infanticidal maniacs.

IT would be just as valid as this venomous diatribe.....

Here, here! I can't remember the guy's name, either, but he was damn funny!

I guess this is when I jump in and make things messier. :D

Despite the women's so called 'freedom' in the Western world, there are still a lot of problems. For example lack of respect and etc. Yet they want to liberate the Eastern women from their so called 'chains'. They say that in Islam, women are nothing more then a chattel. I disagree. Despite all the bad publicity, women in Islam is respected, a few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole bushel. The freedom that they preach is nothing more then their inability to understand nor tolerate other people's culture. :headbang:

Look, I'm sorry that some women is mistreated. I'm sorry that there might be some men that feel threatened by them. But guys generally aren't like that at all. That is the reason why I don't subscribe to this whole feminism concept. just because some men are assholes doesn't mean that all of them are. I don't want to be their equal, I am their equal spritually and mentally, never physically. I expect people to treat each other as humans, not men or women. I don't believe in feminism, I believe in humanity. No man or woman can live without each other. No man or woman is an island.

FYI, I am female and Muslim. So there. :sniper:


Wow! See, here's the question that's been on my mind for awhile...doesn't it say in the Qu'ran to treat women practically like gold? Correct me, of course, but I'm just curious...

I didn't say it makes you a bad person. Being guilty and being a bad person are two entirely different things.



No, it doesn't sound "just like" any of that. The primary difference is that in this case we have a privileged, powerful group. Guilt and power are inherently bound. And you are powerful even if you do not actively use your power. You are given privileges even if you do not seek them out. People put more stock in your words because you are male. They may (in fact, they are likely to) pay you more as a professional because you are male.

And yes, you should feel guilty about it. You have no control over it, and you should be guilty. And you should fight it with every effort you can make.


If you are not paying attention to sexism, you are probably a sexist. It is just too deeply imbedded in the culture.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey46.htm

Well, she does not respect them, and she is right because they are cowards. But where does she say they should be treated badly?

She doesn't have to say that they should be treated badly, because she treats them badly and excuses herself by implying that they deserve it by painting all men as guilty of the sins of the few.



Are you not? You are only more guilty of patriarchy because you cannot help but participate in it. It is coded into our society, and neither men nor women can escape it by retreating into a "private" life that they believe to be free of oppression. One cannot escape it. One has to change it. And if one is not actively fighting to change it, one amplifies one's guilt.

I was not refering to patriarchy, but rather the bad behavior of some women. Being a woman, if I don't make an active effort to prevent those women from mistreating men, I am also guilty of mens' mistreatment, no? Yet, how do I go about preventing others from committing the actions they do? Lobby the lawmakers to hange the laws? Call the cops? Attack those women? Exactly how do I go about this, seeing as, at the moment, there ARE no laws that take the man's side? So, while there are no methods for me to stop the mistreatment, I must simply stand by and take the blame?

Are you not? You are only more guilty of patriarchy because you cannot help but participate in it. It is coded into our society, and neither men nor women can escape it by retreating into a "private" life that they believe to be free of oppression. One cannot escape it. One has to change it. And if one is not actively fighting to change it, one amplifies one's guilt.

I find it very curious that you believe that we can be guilty for circumstances that we never consented to enter into. Would you blame a woman (who was raped) for her circumstances though she never consented to them?

I never consented to be born and raised in a sexist society, anymore than a woman consents to rape. As such, I feel neither guilt nor shame for my circumstances. I only feel sadness for all of us who find ourselves stuck in a situation where we are all less than we could be.

I find it very curious that you believe that we can be guilty for circumstances that we never consented to enter into. Would you blame a woman (who was raped) for her circumstances though she never consented to them?

I never consented to be born and raised in a sexist society, anymore than a woman consents to rape. As such, I feel neither guilt nor shame for my circumstances. I only feel sadness for all of us who find ourselves stuck in a situation where we are all less than we could be.


TH, that guy you replied to, he sounds like a broken record version of my Sociology book. That about sums it up.

TH, that guy you replied to, he sounds like a broken record version of my Sociology book. That about sums it up.

You must have had a sucky Sociology book. I hate Liberal-biased textbooks. *spits*

But I am guilty. I feel guilty because I receive more recognition than female colleagues who are just as deserving or more so. I feel guilty because of the many privileges I receive that I never ask for. And I also feel guilty for all the ways in which, knowingly or unknowingly, I have contributed to the sense of male superiority over the years.

I will feel guilty as long as a state of inequality exists. And my guilt is profoundly compounded by the fact that this inequality puts me on top.

You feel guilty about whatever state of inequality that you feel exists. Tell you what. Whether things are equal or not is irrelevant. Fighting for equality is pure BS. Spend your time fighting for equity.

But guilt is not like shame. Guilt does not want to hide... it wants to be redeemed. We may fight it, but there it is. That is why criminals return to the scene of the crime. That is why when you have sinned, it helps to confess. That is why therapy works: it relieves guilt by letting it out.

But some guilt is bigger than words. It requires action.

Can you give a specific list of what men, all men, are guilty of? And "the patriarchal society" is not a specific list. Why don't you list some of these privileges you receive simply for being a man. You brought up the wage gap in professionals between men and women earlier. You failed to bring up the time worked, average experience and goal gaps between men and women. Of course knowing that women actually work less hours and take more time off.... eh never mind. Go read this months (March) edition of the Harvard Business Review. There is a very good article about the differences between men and women in the professional world that should hopefully enlighten you somewhat.

I didn't say it makes you a bad person. Being guilty and being a bad person are two entirely different things.

I'd say that being guilty of something as abhorrent as you claim this practice all males allegedly engage in is does make you a bad person; by implication this is what you are saying. If it isn't, then perhaps you should phrase things more carefully so that such assumptions aren't made.


No, it doesn't sound "just like" any of that. The primary difference is that in this case we have a privileged, powerful group. Guilt and power are inherently bound. And you are powerful even if you do not actively use your power. You are given privileges even if you do not seek them out. People put more stock in your words because you are male. They may (in fact, they are likely to) pay you more as a professional because you are male.
So a poor white person living out the back end of beyond in the USA c. 1860 would guilty of perpetuating the slave trade? or an poor Irish immigrant fresh off the boat is also guilty of perpetuating the slave trade? Even though both people, while being white, don't own or have the means to own slaves? They were (are) members of a privileged, powerful, group (whites), they were given privileges (like not being sold down the river), people put more stock in their words then in those of a slave, etc., etc.
But even if the Irishman might feel as though the whole practice is evil due to his (her) religion, and would be far more concerned with the next meal (therefore unable to do anything), according to your logic s/he is still guilty of perpetuating the slave trade unless s/he becomes an active abolitionist.
The argument is, no offence, poppycock.


And yes, you should feel guilty about it. You have no control over it, and you should be guilty. And you should fight it with every effort you can make.

I see no reason as to why I should feel guilty about it; I was born into a western country and don't feel guilty about the situation of those in the Third World. Like my gender, it is something that I cannot help, that I cannot change or affect. The situation is wrong and objectionable (and should be corrected), but feeling guilty isn't going to do anything except make me depressed, and life is just too short for that.


No, it isn't. But the differences are obvious. (And if he is a participant in racism, and he can do something to fight it, then there is no difference... except one of degree, because the powerful and the well-off are always more guilty than the poor and powerless, for the simple reason that there is more they can do to fight, and they get more benefit from not fighting.)

I think I have addressed this further up, but let me put forward another point for the sake of argument (keeping in mind that this is purely academic); if what you (and the unbalanced person who wrote the original article) say is true then why should males be motivated to change it? It's in their interests to maintain the imbalance, and quite a few (I won't name names) believe that the imbalance is right.


You may think so. And maybe it is true, but I doubt it. Most men talk more in meetings than women. If a woman makes a good point, no one pays attention to it until a man makes the same point later. Very VERY few men realize they are doing this. And even once they realize it, it can be very difficult to stop.

You've obviously never met most of the women I know.
It takes two to tango, (trite, but true); if a woman chooses not to make a contribution to a debate, then she only has herself to blame. The same applied to a man, or one of the lobster people from the planet Neptune. We are not going to hold the other person's hand in an argument/debate/whatever.


If you are not paying attention to sexism, you are probably a sexist. It is just too deeply imbedded in the culture.
Sexism, directed against males or females, is wrong. It doesn't matter which way it is going, it is still wrong.

I never consented to be born and raised in a sexist society, anymore than a woman consents to rape. As such, I feel neither guilt nor shame for my circumstances. I only feel sadness for all of us who find ourselves stuck in a situation where we are all less than we could be.

In that spirit I can tell you, AnarchyeL, that you are fighting a lost battle if you are trying to convince me I should feel guilty about who and what I am; far better debaters, people I actually know, people whose opinions I actually care about, have tried and failed on a very, very, broad range of aspects of myself.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[COLOR=Purple]I was not refering to patriarchy, but rather the bad behavior of some women. Being a woman, if I don't make an active effort to prevent those women from mistreating men, I am also guilty of mens' mistreatment, no?

If you are in a position to prevent those particular women, then yes. Otherwise, it is not something systematic in which you participate whether you like it or not. For men, patriarchy is something in which we participate, no matter how we feel about it. And we are all -- to varying degrees -- in a position to do something about it.

I find it very curious that you believe that we can be guilty for circumstances that we never consented to enter into. Would you blame a woman (who was raped) for her circumstances though she never consented to them?

Nice try. She is obviously a victim. I would never blame the victim. But men are not the victims of sexism. We are the beneficiaries. Whether we like it or not.

I never consented to be born and raised in a sexist society

Yes, and a young tyrant does not consent to be born into authoritarian privilege. Yet if he is a humane being, he should feel guilty about it and seek to alter the situation.

I agree with a lot of what AnarchyeL says, but I don't feel guilt for being born with certain privileges. Undeservedly lucky perhaps. Being white and from an upper middle class family living in a wealthy country has given me certain advantages. I do feel it obliges me to do what I can to help, or at least not hinder, people who aren't so lucky.

I agree with a lot of what AnarchyeL says, but I don't feel guilt for being born with certain privileges. Undeservedly lucky perhaps. Being white and from an upper middle class family living in a wealthy country has given me certain advantages. I do feel it obliges me to do what I can to help, or at least not hinder, people who aren't so lucky.


Same here.

my Self is not based on that which i have between my legs, nor is it grounded on my sexuality. my sexual identity is actually a very minor part of who i am, and my gender is only relavent to the person i am romantically involved with.

If that's true, that's HUGE. Humanity's sense of identity is grounded in gender; look at the tradition and history we've built up over the millenia. For a human being to not base his or her identity in gender is gigantic, psychologically speaking.

Oh! I despise the article, by the way. But I've never had much patience for modern feminism.

In modern countries occupation is far more important than gender in the identitity of 'self'.

As proof, just ask any man or woman you meet "What are you?"

The will not often reply 'man' or 'woman' but instead identify their occupation;
banker, baker, teacher, etc.

The ghost of sexism still haunts us as the spirits of irrelevant guilt and undeserved entitlement.

You use guilt as some would say "responsibility" AnarchyeL. You would be wise to use a more proper term. The prince of an authoritarian government carries NO guilt whatsoever. He is GUILTY of nothing, but he bears the awesome responsibility of making things right. There is a tremendous difference in termonology.

Guilt is culpability, proof of wrongdoing, the state of being GUILTY of a crime. The prince, like those of us who have fallen into your definition of "original sin" is NOT guilty of any wrongdoing. But all of us are RESPONSIBLE for our own actions, of being as good as possible to our fellow humans.

In our judicial system we are innocent until proven guilty, in our society we are innocent unless our RESPONSIBILITY to the society is left undone, in which case we are guilty of failing to do the right thing. Unless you wish to honestly challange the entire basis of our legal and moral system of defining guilt and innocence; in which case yes, I do dismiss you as a disturbed person and listen no further to your arugments.

All of your myriad examples make this same mistake. All of them describe guilt that isn't guilt at all. You are misusing, indeed abusing the word "guilt." Try replacing all of your uses of the word "guilt" with responsibility and look at the result...

The rest of us too, I've been getting increasingly offended by this presumption of "guilt" that I thought I was seeing. When I realised this key difference in termonology, I suddenly saw a much more viable argument.

Watch it Bottle. You're in serious danger of stereotyping. I'm a feminist and have no problem with porn other than spending too much time reading it.
notice how i put "feminist" in quotes in my original post, Bitchkitten. true feminism is the belief in the social and political equality of the sexes, not the disgusting whimpering that most modern females have reduced it to.

You feel guilty about whatever state of inequality that you feel exists. Tell you what. Whether things are equal or not is irrelevant. Fighting for equality is pure BS. Spend your time fighting for equity.
My sentiments exactly - as far as I'm concerned, inequalities between humans, for whatever reason, will just arise naturally.

[rhetorical question and sarcasm]And once AnarcheyL fixes the gender inequality, what's he/she gonna do about inequalities between being beautiful, intelligent, or physically strong?[/rhetorical question and sarcasm] That'll put us smack dab in the world of Harrison Bergeron! (a short story by Kurt Vonnegut about equality gone mad).

AnarcheyL, I really don't understand taking apologist viewpoints like such.