HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Myth of Male Power - ...

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:37 PM

 

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

&feature=context-gfa

Best-selling author and men's rights activist, Warren Farrell, gives an interview about his book, The Myth of Male Power.

A former director of the National Organisation for Women, Warren argues that society has been mislead by the feminist movement into perceiving women as victims of male oppression. He believes that the reverse is true; women have most of the rights and privileges whilst men are treated like 2nd-class citizens.

This is a very powerful interview that would change your whole perspective about male and female relationship. I usually would post a thread like this in gender and orientation but this too important to be stashed away in the dark dungeon. So please Mods, let this one slide if only to balance the so many anti male posts that have gotten through to video and M and even general discussion (e.g the father abuse post that was posted on father's day).

Please watch it with an open mind and share with friends and family. It turns out that our fathers weren't monsters after all.

308 replies, 111754 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 308 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell (Original post)
Dokkie Jul 2012 OP
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #1
CreekDog Jul 2012 #23
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #42
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #43
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #79
CreekDog Jul 2012 #88
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #91
CreekDog Jul 2012 #93
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #95
CreekDog Jul 2012 #97
EOTE Jul 2012 #150
CreekDog Jul 2012 #166
pipoman Jul 2012 #178
Coexist Jul 2012 #250
CreekDog Jul 2012 #254
redqueen Jul 2012 #263
ceile Jul 2012 #278
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #305
Post removed Jul 2012 #68
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #121
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #41
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #66
cyberswede Jul 2012 #109
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #2
Honeycombe8 Jul 2012 #3
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #7
Fawke Em Jul 2012 #22
elleng Jul 2012 #28
99Forever Jul 2012 #46
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #51
99Forever Jul 2012 #53
LanternWaste Jul 2012 #137
99Forever Jul 2012 #147
Fawke Em Jul 2012 #181
99Forever Jul 2012 #185
kwassa Jul 2012 #285
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #107
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #205
MadrasT Jul 2012 #266
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #131
LanternWaste Jul 2012 #136
EOTE Jul 2012 #151
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #130
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #4
Dokkie Jul 2012 #38
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #44
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #48
Dokkie Jul 2012 #56
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #60
Dokkie Jul 2012 #67
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #218
hfojvt Jul 2012 #84
Skittles Jul 2012 #64
hfojvt Jul 2012 #70
Blue_Tires Jul 2012 #113
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #132
RC Dec 2012 #304
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #49
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #52
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #71
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #54
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #77
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #80
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #83
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #85
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #92
eridani Jul 2012 #101
Nevernose Jul 2012 #127
LiberalLoner Jul 2012 #286
REP Jul 2012 #5
alittlelark Jul 2012 #6
hfojvt Jul 2012 #59
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #8
Dokkie Jul 2012 #24
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #25
Dokkie Jul 2012 #30
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #31
Dokkie Jul 2012 #58
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #62
seabeyond Jul 2012 #73
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #29
Lex Jul 2012 #33
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #108
antigone382 Jul 2012 #124
LanternWaste Jul 2012 #138
CreekDog Jul 2012 #105
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #9
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #74
morningfog Jul 2012 #208
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #241
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #243
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #245
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #246
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #249
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #287
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #289
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #290
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #291
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #292
stevenleser Jul 2012 #10
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #20
stevenleser Jul 2012 #21
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #26
demmiblue Jul 2012 #32
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2012 #40
demmiblue Jul 2012 #55
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #99
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #118
CreekDog Jul 2012 #11
boppers Jul 2012 #72
Tsiyu Jul 2012 #112
arely staircase Jul 2012 #231
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #12
stevenleser Jul 2012 #14
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #18
Lex Jul 2012 #15
Lex Jul 2012 #13
CreekDog Jul 2012 #17
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #76
Blue_Tires Jul 2012 #116
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #155
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #16
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #19
Dokkie Jul 2012 #27
Lex Jul 2012 #34
riderinthestorm Jul 2012 #35
CreekDog Jul 2012 #94
Dokkie Jul 2012 #47
CreekDog Jul 2012 #89
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #36
morningfog Jul 2012 #209
99Forever Jul 2012 #37
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #45
CreekDog Jul 2012 #90
Skittles Dec 2012 #307
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #98
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #100
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #103
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #165
Dokkie Jul 2012 #183
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #188
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #106
morningfog Jul 2012 #210
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #213
morningfog Jul 2012 #215
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #216
morningfog Jul 2012 #220
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #221
morningfog Jul 2012 #222
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #224
left coaster Jul 2012 #39
Dokkie Jul 2012 #50
left coaster Jul 2012 #57
EFerrari Jul 2012 #61
Guy Whitey Corngood Jul 2012 #115
Skittles Jul 2012 #63
Guy Whitey Corngood Jul 2012 #117
Warpy Jul 2012 #65
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #75
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #78
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #204
Scootaloo Jul 2012 #228
Dokkie Jul 2012 #82
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #110
sendero Jul 2012 #240
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #203
Manifestor_of_Light Jul 2012 #69
Zalatix Jul 2012 #81
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #175
pinboy3niner Jul 2012 #85
pinboy3niner Jul 2012 #87
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #96
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #111
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #114
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #119
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #120
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #190
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #102
BlueToTheBone Jul 2012 #104
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #122
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #123
LanternWaste Jul 2012 #143
Zorra Jul 2012 #125
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #126
99Forever Jul 2012 #129
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #145
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #156
redqueen Jul 2012 #157
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #158
redqueen Jul 2012 #160
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #159
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #164
redqueen Jul 2012 #167
eridani Jul 2012 #237
redqueen Jul 2012 #244
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #168
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #162
Taverner Jul 2012 #273
Zorra Jul 2012 #301
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #128
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #135
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #148
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #172
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #207
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #212
Harmony Blue Jul 2012 #177
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #277
Taverner Jul 2012 #274
patrice Jul 2012 #133
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #134
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #139
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #149
JustAnotherGen Jul 2012 #152
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #154
Starry Messenger Jul 2012 #171
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #173
Harmony Blue Jul 2012 #179
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #211
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #217
redqueen Jul 2012 #140
JustAnotherGen Jul 2012 #153
redqueen Jul 2012 #161
JustAnotherGen Jul 2012 #163
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #174
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #180
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #226
Odin2005 Jul 2012 #141
LanternWaste Jul 2012 #142
Quantess Jul 2012 #144
unreadierLizard Jul 2012 #146
Harmony Blue Jul 2012 #176
Dash87 Jul 2012 #169
Mike_Valentine Jul 2012 #170
Tsiyu Jul 2012 #182
Mike_Valentine Jul 2012 #184
Tsiyu Jul 2012 #187
Mike_Valentine Jul 2012 #194
Dash87 Jul 2012 #197
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #186
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #191
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #192
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #195
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #199
Dash87 Jul 2012 #196
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #198
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #189
Monaque22 Jul 2012 #193
HangOnKids Jul 2012 #225
Monaque22 Jul 2012 #230
HangOnKids Jul 2012 #264
Monaque22 Jul 2012 #282
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #200
morningfog Jul 2012 #202
Odin2005 Jul 2012 #219
morningfog Jul 2012 #223
geek tragedy Jul 2012 #227
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #232
LeftyMom Jul 2012 #229
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #233
SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #235
morningfog Jul 2012 #201
SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #238
morningfog Jul 2012 #239
morningfog Jul 2012 #206
redqueen Jul 2012 #247
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #248
redqueen Jul 2012 #252
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #253
redqueen Jul 2012 #255
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #258
redqueen Jul 2012 #259
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #260
KansDem Jul 2012 #281
redqueen Jul 2012 #293
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #294
redqueen Jul 2012 #295
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #296
redqueen Jul 2012 #298
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #302
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #297
redqueen Jul 2012 #299
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #300
morningfog Jul 2012 #256
redqueen Jul 2012 #257
Hell Hath No Fury Jul 2012 #303
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #262
morningfog Jul 2012 #265
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #267
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #268
morningfog Jul 2012 #275
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #276
bettyellen May 2014 #308
Taverner Jul 2012 #272
LiberalLoner Jul 2012 #283
Taverner Jul 2012 #271
Nikia Jul 2012 #214
Prophet 451 Jul 2012 #234
SoDesuKa Jul 2012 #236
Sans__Culottes Jul 2012 #242
Rabid_Rabbit Jul 2012 #251
Harmony Blue Jul 2012 #261
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #270
Taverner Jul 2012 #269
ceile Jul 2012 #279
PotatoChip Jul 2012 #280
malthaussen Jul 2012 #284
GoneOffShore Jul 2012 #288
Skittles Dec 2012 #306

Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:50 PM

1. It is an interesting book. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:52 PM

23. if you are in favor of equality, do MRA's ever argue on the side of a woman, ever?

or do they just take one side?

look at groups that represent women's rights and what do you see? a push towards labor rights (which helps everyone), efforts towards helping children (which helps everyone), and so forth.

men's right's groups? frankly, just about men, apparently to the exclusion of women. it's ugly, frankly.

as a civil rights activist myself, any group that only looks out for one set or one group of rights and remains silent on the rest (as the MRA's here usually do), to me they are just hate groups pretending to be something else.

just like Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1988 wasn't just for helping black people and Gloria Steinem was a feminist but had larger goals of empowerment and egalitarianism that meant to make the world fairer for all of us.

and the MRA movement? just about helping men. we see stories of rape, of unfairness towards women, and the MRA folks here are mostly silent on those issues. MRA is not really different in its approach to civil rights than white power groups are. narrow minded and self interested.

i argue for fairness that promotes equality among all people, regardless of gender and that we work to eliminate poverty and harm to everybody, but doing so necessarily means that we're helping those who are most disadvantaged (women, children, minorities) more than those less disadvantaged. but the point is to help everybody and improve everybody's lot in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:29 PM

42. I think you're going to have a bit tougher job if you want to try to impeach Warren Farrell

Warren Farrell was asked by NOW to form a men's group within that organization, served on the executive board of NOW for years, and has a very long and distinguished career teaching and authoring on the subject of feminism. You'd be hard pressed to find someone with as many credentials as he has in advocating for both men and women's rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #42)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:32 PM

43. And, NOW kicked his ass to the curb when he became pro incest

And pro date rape. He did not have a long career with NOW.

And, as a simple Google search, and this thread, shows Farrell is a creep. And a well-known one. His career as a pro incest and MRA activist is much longer than his erstwhile feminist showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:36 AM

79. Do you actually have any proof of your assertions this time?

Or is this just more shit thrown against the wall?

According to the wiki page, he left his teaching job at Rutgers at the same time he ended his association with NYC NOW because he moved to DC to be with his wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #79)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:43 AM

88. Warren Farrell quotes for you and all (sounds like a Republican...)

Men are often a lot less vindictive than women are, because we are rejected constantly every day.
Warren Farrell

You could make a case that women addicted men to their sexuality and then withdrew their sexuality until we provided them with a source of income.

“Men don't oppress women any more than women oppress men.”

“Feminists have confused opportunity with outcome.”

“In fact, the socialization gives us the tools to fill our evolutionary roles. They are our building blocks.”

and this list doesn't include his apologetics and defense of incest, wow, just wow. but i can't bring myself to post them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #88)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:40 AM

91. I'll take that as a no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #91)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:51 AM

93. you're asking me to post his defenses of incest? Heck no. You can put that crap under your name

you won't be getting me to put it under mine.

now you can google it very well, so i urge you to do so.

if you are calling me a liar, you are doing so incorrectly.

he got fired from NOW, do you think that was for no reason? are you not even a little interested in why?

if you defend him enough in here, maybe you would be interested in actually finding out what you're defending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #93)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:30 AM

95. That's not what I asked

Go back and re-read the thread you're on.

The person I responded to made a wild allegation they have yet to support. I asked for proof and you responded to that post with some random quotes that had nothing to do with the question I asked. Now you want to repeat the same allegation with zero proof. So maybe you're lying and maybe you're not, but with no verification either way I'm really not interested in entertaining a line of baseless allegations that really has zero do with the subject of the OP in the first place. So I think we're done here.

Chow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #95)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:40 AM

97. you're asking me to prove that he defended incest

how can i do that without a quote?

why dont' you just go and search for it. it's insanely easy to find.

i'm being totally up front with you when i say that even if you call me a liar, that person's words are so offensive that i will not post them under my screenname in order to prove that he in fact said what dozens here have said he did.

if you can't be bothered to look then i think you are more interested in the argument than the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #97)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:55 PM

150. Why are you afraid to post a quote? You're aware that people won't attribute the quote to you,

right? If you're going to make such a bold assertion, backing it up with a quote shouldn't be all that difficult to do. And before you ask, I did google it and the only substantial information I found was Farrell defending himself from accusations of supporting incest. I found no actual quotes of him doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #150)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:24 PM

166. yeah i don't want those quotes under my name, yes, i really don't.

and when it's been explained what he said, whom he said it to and how easy it is to find on the net, then i don't need to give you an exact quote to prove that it really was said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #166)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:26 PM

178. Obviously,

 

you don't have to quote anything. You can post a link...so simple..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #93)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:13 AM

250. I googled it - and I'm disgusted and I don't blame you for not posting

hes a gross human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coexist (Reply #250)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

254. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coexist (Reply #250)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:40 PM

263. I did, too.

And I wish I hadn't.

But it's important to know what kind of person is held up as a leader by these groups. And to know what exactly is being referred to, since his fans and defenders were attempting to whitewash it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #263)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:20 PM

278. OMG!

"incest participants" instead of "incest victims"?!
Need brain bleach stat!
True scum.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceile (Reply #278)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:57 PM

305. Gack!!! I need EYEBALL bleach!

 

If they tried to publish that NOW, somebody would go to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:57 AM

121. Projection.

 

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)



The above is not only something that isn't of concern to feminists, it is a necessary outcome. Everything that drags mens pay and employment down serves to close the "pay gap". That might be understandable if the pay gap statistics were used honestly e.g. 5%. But instead, they are overstated.

You really have to make up your mind. Is feminism about "equality" or is it about "equality for you"? If you are going to argue the former, this will be a short argument because it's demonstrably false.

Feminism is advocacy for women's interests and it is very much appropriate for a balancing advocacy for men's interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:29 PM

41. Really? "Interesting" instead of bigoted or flawed or... (something more accurate) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:07 AM

66. Perhaps "interesting" as in...

 

"My, what an interesting collection of formaldehyde-soaked mutant cow fetuses you have, professor?"

Or

"Huh, so that's the inside of a sea cucumber, interesting"

Or perhaps,

"So you say you clocked in on time, but I saw you walk in two hours later. Iiiiinteresting, do go on"

Just saying, they're options for "interesting"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #66)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:29 AM

109. *snerk*



Wish I could rec this reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:53 PM

2. A deeply flawed social commentary.

 

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Male power is not a myth since men still hold the highest government and corporate positions of power, men still earn more money for the same work, and money is power. Sorry but if nothing else that is a truism since well, forever, but most especially in the era of Citizens United and other areas where money buys access, influence and power in unprecedented ways since the Gilded Age (another male dominated era).

There are so many things I'd take issue with but will focus on the "myth" of the draft as evidence that patriarchy in the US is bullshit. We haven't had anyone drafted for 40 years, and women have been fighting (and dying) in wars since war began but especially in the last 20 years. They've been fighting to get equal recognition and combat status in the military for decades with every right they've won being it's own battle - in no way shape or form is the draft commentary accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:55 PM

3. I have never seen an anti-male post in this forum. 2nd...that book premise is hogwash. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:10 PM

7. Oh you should read some of the drivel posted here

 

It makes me VERY uncomfortable to be male; like I'm to blame for the mistakes of other men.

Not to mention certain feminists seem to scrutinize every action a man does; holding a door open for a woman is "sexism" while being friends with a woman is "predatory behaviour".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:46 PM

22. When we females ask you to explain why certain men act a way... EXPLAIN

If you're not "that way," kudos. Yay! Hurrah! But don't act like you DON'T understand why smart women ask you why "certain" men "act THAT way."

OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:08 PM

28. HEY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:37 PM

46. Has it ever dawned on you that ..

.. perhaps we may not KNOW why "certain men" act "that way," Ms. smart woman?

I would NEVER presume that every female should be expected to answer for all other females.

That is utterly RIDICULOUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:40 PM

51. Except that isn't what the poster said, at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:44 PM

53. That is precisely what the poster said.

Shall i cut and paste it? Cripes. Some freakin' people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:17 AM

137. Much as people should never expect one member of a religious faith to explain...?

Much as people should never expect one member of a religious faith to explain, tolerate or endorse what another member of that same faith states as fact...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #137)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:14 PM

147. Ahh yes!

The good ol' false equivocation game. Yes, all men are given a handbook shortly after being born and attend minimally weekly meetings to reinforce the requirement to always act exactly the same way in order to retain ownership of a penis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:36 PM

181. Has it ever dawned on you that we ask to learn?

If you're male, you may understand far more than I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #181)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 08:07 AM

185. On what do you base that absurd speculation?

What the heck am I going to "teach" you or anyone else about a mentality I neither share nor understand?

Why don't you explain for me what Michele Bachmann thinks? I mean, you both have vaginas, so you should know, right?

How about Ann Coulter? Give me some insight. When you finish answering for those two, I have a few hundred more I'd like to run by you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #185)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:20 PM

285. you made me laugh.

I hate it when they make me laugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:23 AM

107. There are ~3.5 billion males on this planet

 

I suppose it's possible that among all those teeming masses you'll get people who are completely incomprehensible to the others in that group?

Also saying to a woman "why do you women do X, explain yourself!" will be seen as defacto misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:19 PM

205. Why does Sara Palin act the way she does? EXPLAIN! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 02:58 PM

266. That is incredibly sexist and insulting

Men do not share a common brain or a common way of being.

Nor do women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:57 AM

131. I would suggest that ...

 

maybe, this:

It makes me VERY uncomfortable to be male; like I'm to blame for the mistakes of other men.


Is something worthy of self-reflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:15 AM

136. We often see merely what we wish to see...

"It makes me VERY uncomfortable to be male..."
That's on you and you alone.

"Not to mention certain feminists seem to scrutinize every action a man does..."
We often see merely what we wish to see-- and ignore or deny those observations which to not better validate our own martyrdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #136)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:00 PM

151. So, if an office has a misogynist who makes all the women uncomfortable,

then it's clearly the fault of the women who feel uncomfortable and not the misogynist for making them feel that way. Got it, makes perfect sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:53 AM

130. Dont'cha Know ...

 

Anything that points out male hegemony is anti-male; just as I've found, anything that points out institutionalized racism is anti-white?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:04 PM

4. Farrell was never "Director" of NOW

That is not true.

And, the whole premise of this book is quite ridiculous. You know that. The power structure is completely male-oriented and male-dominated. Dr, Farrell's teachings begin with a faulty premise. He has also been a a bit too creepily pro incest in interviews.

Also, you do realize that the SPLC has listed MRA groups and activists as hate groups, right?

Maybe you think your father is a monster, but I love and cherish mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:26 PM

38. I hope you watched the whole video

 

before commenting because he explained why even though the power in society resides with men, it half of the time comes with a big disadvantage(self sacrifice). Its sorta like how conservatives talk about freedom, a slaves cast out/freed from a slave plantation to starve on the outside is less free than a slave who is shackled and fed inside the plantation.

This power comes with it the responsibility to sacrifice ones self/group for the protection of the subject. This is one twisted kind of power, a power I don't want any where near me.

Also the author is not a MRA, listen to the 2nd vol of the video and listen to him confirm it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:34 PM

44. Farrell is MRA

He is on the board and a consultant to many MRA orgs.

I know more about him, and have for a long time, than you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:38 PM

48. Stop digging your own grave. Really. Just stop.

 

Women "self-sacrifice". I can't even begin to explain that to you if you don't already "know" this I really object to you trying to diminish the fact that men who have all POWER in society and then making that power into some sort of "self sacrifice" which makes them inferior is grotesque in the extreme.

Its so twisted if defies rationality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #48)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:46 PM

56. I think you are really missing the point

 

Its an equal oppression, men have their own share and women have theirs too. The title is "The myth of Male powers" not "The confirmation of Women Power". We are in this boat together, we all have our moments of oppression and our moments of domination all together it cancels out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #56)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:58 PM

60. Nope, I am not missing the point

 

There's no "equal oppression" at all. Men still hold the highest government and corporate positions of power, men still earn more money for the same work, and money is power.

The patriarchy in our society is real, ugly, and oppressive for women.

Whatever nuance you think your OP is making is deeply flawed. Please re-think your opinion of this guy. You won't last long on DU until you recognize he is not a progressive voice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #60)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:09 AM

67. At what price?

 

They die younger, they are more likely to be homeless, depressed, be victims of homicide, end up in prison, die in war, commit suicide etc etc. Add to that the stats on education has been falling year after year and nobody lifts a finger. How many years now have education depts been warning us about the poor performance of boys in English/language subjects? this deficiency have been known for years but nothing has been done about it on the other hand women deficiency in maths and sciences has been address to a point where women has reached or surpassed boys in those fields.

Don't you see this power is a double edged sword.

Finally, about the author, I dont see how this topic can be progressive or conservative. Its a social commentary on the sexes that I happen to agree with. Who gives a flipping f**ck what he thinks of other subject? all I know is that I agree with the points made in the video and which he backed up with enough evidence to convince me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #67)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:29 PM

218. +100. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #60)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:55 AM

84. It's shouldn't be about a "guy"

it should be about facts.

Facts, not people.

"There's no "equal oppression" at all. Men still hold the highest government and corporate positions of power, men still earn more money for the same work, and money is power."

I find that to be a bizarre statement, even if it is held by many self-proclaimed progressives.

"Men still hold the highest government and corporate positions of power."

For every man at the highest position of power, there are a hundred men sweating in the summer sun emptying garbage or picking cotton. It would be kinda silly for somebody like Oprah Winfrey or Condaleeza Rice or Katie Holmes to look down at one of those servants and say "men have all the power".

"Men still earn more money for the same work"

Ugh. That is so hard to quantify. What I see right where I work. We have an opening for a part-time job. At least two people may apply for it. One is a guy, who currently works here as a temp. Another is a woman who is working here for community service. My supervisor, who is a woman, seems to favor the woman. If she gets the job, she will certainly be paid just as much as he is. But would they do equal work? What happened over this last weekend? We had to move furniture back into an office and kitchen. She was a lot of help, working steady and carrying things, but he was moving refrigerators and heavy wood desks. Is moving a lamp or a chair really the same work as moving a refrigerator? And yet the woman may be rewarded with the job that both are applying for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:04 AM

64. mmmmmm....no

that would be better but NO, that is NOT how it is - not by a LONG shot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:15 AM

70. in which society do men have ALL power?

certainly not this one, and certainly that is not a power shared by ALL men even if there are some men who have some, or even lots of, power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:44 AM

113. Holy fuck...Did you really just say this with a straight face?

"a slaves cast out/freed from a slave plantation to starve on the outside is less free than a slave who is shackled and fed inside the plantation."


I'd respond out of sheer offense, but I'm pretty sure you aren't the least bit serious -- You just wanted to bait the hook and see how GD was biting today...

I'll give you a 5/10 for the effort, plus one point for the subject matter, another point for your complete lack of self awareness and a tenth of a point for that horrible slavery analogy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:59 AM

132. WTF ...

 

Its sorta like how conservatives talk about freedom, a slaves cast out/freed from a slave plantation to starve on the outside is less free than a slave who is shackled and fed inside the plantation.


I did not watch the video ... and if that is what you took from it, I most certainly will not watch it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:18 PM

304. What is MRA?

 

I Googled it and came up blank.
(Notice, no quoits around MRA here. Didn't want to set anyone off.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:39 PM

49. Yes he was

Warren Farrell was elected to NOW's Board of Directors for 3 years, which made him a "director" by definition.

If you have any evidence that Warren Farrell has ever belonged to any group designated by SPLC as a hate group, I'd be glad to see it. Otherwise the mention of such is no more valuable than throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:43 PM

52. lol no, he wasn't, ever

Farrell was never NOW's director, and his association with NOW stopped as soon as he became "positive incest" and "date rape isn't rape." He never expressed those views while working with NYC's NOW.

And, Farrell is a huge part of many MRA groups in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #52)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:19 AM

71. So who is NOW's director, either then or now?

Farrell never claimed to be THE director (which would be silly in the first place since there is no such thing).

Sounds like you have a very poor understanding of what a Board of Directors is or does. For further reading...

Recapping the terminology:

director - any member of the board of directors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Directors

Your inability or refusal to name which group Farrell is associated with that's listed by SPLC as a hate group is noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:46 PM

54. He was on the Board for the New York chapter of NOW, which is not the National Board.

The National is in DC.



Farrell has come a long way, baby. In the 1970s, as a political science grad student at New York University, he was leading consciousness-raising groups to help men "stop dominating and start communicating with" women. He served on the New York City NOW board for three terms when, he recalls, "I became good at saying what women wanted to hear."

As a soldier on the new sexual frontier, he received standing ovations and "the equivalent of $100,000 a year" for his speeches...

<snip>

Farrell says he has missed the spotlight as spokesmale for the women's movement in the 1970s. "When I dropped the feminist party line, I was surprised at how quickly my standing ovations ended. To give you some idea of the sacrifice, I probably lost $2 (million) or $3 million in speaking engagements over the years.



Sounds like he was in it for the money.

edit: oops! link http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-09/news/vw-22148_1_feminist-warren-farrell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #54)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:30 AM

77. Which would make him a director

I'm not sure what point is trying to be made here. The reference in the OP is not incorrect and I haven't seen anything where Farrell himself has made any claim of anything that he is not. Given the number of detractors that he has, I'm pretty sure if he had made any false claims about his credentials, such would be all over the interwebs by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #77)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:43 AM

80. In the 1970s. Which was a long time ago.

Most of his work has been exclusively with men's orgs every since his break with feminism.

Two things, Farrell has a tendency to indirectly use his three terms as a member of the board of NY NOW to seem like he had a National leadership role, which isn't true. Any "cred" he had in this area is long in the past. He disavowed it himself.

He hasn't claimed to be a feminist in 40 years, so his tenure on NOW isn't really relevant. He's a Men's rights advocate now, and those are the orgs he belongs to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #80)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:53 AM

83. He was also a men's rights activist when he was associated with NOW

I find the charge that someone can't be both a men's and women's rights activist to be somewhat sexist. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive of each other. I still have yet to see any link or the slightest bit of anything factual which shows Farrell trying to represent himself as anything that he isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #83)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:07 AM

85. What MRA orgs did he belong to while on the board of NY NOW?

That isn't something I've ever seen him claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #85)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:43 AM

92. I don't know that he ever has belonged to any

I'm not sure what difference it would make if he had other than someone seemed to allege that he belonged to groups that were the moral equivalent to the KKK without one shred of evidence to support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:38 AM

101. Maybe this should be a separate topic, but does anyone else object to

--the term "incest" being used to describe the rape of children by parents? "Incest" could just as well refer to adults with some degree of biological connection having consensual sex with each other. The term's use to apply to what is actually rape is a bogus attempt to soften what is actually going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #101)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:41 AM

127. Legally, incest must be consensual

Otherwise it's sexual assault, regardless of the DNA of participants/victims. At least in Nevada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #101)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:22 PM

286. yup it's really incestual rape.

But this Farrell jerk wrote in penthouse that it was an idea whose time has come and the next exciting sexual craze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:09 PM

5. Well-done parody

Best I've seen in a while. Nearly peed myself laughing. Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:10 PM

6. I listened to the whole thing.

He does not seem to understand the 'class' distinctions.... he is talking about the poor working class family with 10 kids to support....

His take on women being the equivalent of upper class privileged males in regards to going to war is uh... interesting. We still have the same problem it seems.

"when divorce could lead to starvation"... we were taught 'survival skills'?

'Men freed women, but forgot to free themselves' - WOW

The rationalization of property ownership being the purview of males is a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech.



I tried - this is the wrong dude to argue the point.
I'm open to rational discussions on the rights of both men and women, but this one is not.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alittlelark (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:57 PM

59. he never really lays out a thesis

at least not in that ten minute clip. He makes a series of sorta rambling points. Some of which are interesting, but others basically wrong. For example, his "stage 1" when "divorce leads to starvation". When the heck was that supposed to have been? In our parent's generation (whatever generation that is, seemingly Farrell is a boomer and myself an Xer). In the so-called Greatest Generation?

Well, my dad's aunt was in an unhappy marriage back in the 1920s and her little brother drove out to Washington state and brought her back home to Beloit, Wisconsin where they lived with their mother until she died in 1960, just one day after my big sister was born on Mother's Day. Their mother, by the way, was also divorced. Her husband, William, supposedly ran off with some younger woman, 13 years younger than him and had four more daughters. I speculate, though, that perhaps she kicked him out. I base that on the fact that great-grandmother's name was Alice. And great-grandfather's first daughter with his new wife was named Lucille ALICE. Now, if he had divorced her, then why would he seemingly name a daughter after her?

But anyway, neither Alice's divorce in 1903 nor Eva's in 1925 lead to starvation.

Speaking of incest though (sort of). Eva was married to a step-son one of her first cousins on her mom's side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:15 PM

8. How was the abuse thread anti-male?

Father's Day isn't a happy day for some people. Why erase their feelings?

I think he failed to make the case. When Warren and other men are hearing their vaginas discussed by everyone and their dog on TV and in Congress, then he will know what it is to be a second class citizen.

edit: oh fun, "Dr." Farrell is pro-incest. Is that really what we need to see more of here?

*Trigger alert*

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,95569,95569

"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

I won't post more. It's hardcore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:58 PM

24. Because it was on a day set aside to for

 

fathers appreciation. That post will be immediately canned if it was done to any other group, just think of a popular post on Martin Luther King's day in General discussion recounting how the OP was attacked by black people and how horrible his black attacker was. It had almost 200 recs and about 100 comments with no objections (yes, I read it all). The post was a deliberate attempt to rain on our little father's day parade.

Again, I didn't know Dr. Farrell was pro incest but what does it have to do with the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:03 PM

25. Commenting as a child on their father is just like being a racist. Ok.

Deliberate? Right. You have proof of this, of course.

Re: the incest. Well, usually men pride themselves on their rationality and relying on credible sources for things. I was being thoughtful, and assumed you might be one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:12 PM

30. what?

 

I don't understand your 1st sentence. And who said I was a man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:13 PM

31. I'll just back away slowly now. Someone else can deal with you.

edit to add, you said you were a man: "our little father's day parade."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:51 PM

58. Nope, I didnt say that

 

Its our little father's day parade in hope that most of us have a father worthy of celebrating a father's day for. If you were sired by a man then you too should own it and celebrating father's day.

Btw I am indeed a man, so now you know because nothing in my OP gave away my gender/sex

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:59 PM

62. LOL. OK.

Yeah. You keep thinking that. Pro-tip: women don't say things like "sired by a man" or post crap by pro-incest MRAs to prove that men are oppressed by wimmin. That wasn't just a giveaway, it was like fireworks over the Hudson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:19 AM

73. i put up a thread in HOF honoring fathers. i had a good father i value very much and tell

 

him regularly. he helped me to be who i am, that has allowed me to know my worth and respect from men. it has allowed me to make excellent choices.

i did not see the thread you are talking about. BUT... i know a lot of people have been abused by fathers (and mothers) and that leaves a scar. you cannot expect a person to not have a reaction.

IF it had been someone posting on a mothers day thread, the horrid treatment from a mother, as a mother, i would have felt nothing but empathy. and as a daughter, i would apprecaite and value my mother that much more.

again, i did not see the thread

but, i have a hard time getting your post.

If you were sired by a man then you too should own it and celebrating father's day.


i think it is pretty clear just being "sired" does not make a father. or giving birth make a mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:10 PM

29. Uhm, its a fucking greeting card holiday ginned up for more of your dollars

 

If you buy the saccharine sweetness be my guest. But some many? most? people don't have a Leave-It-To-Beaver household experience. Its not a federal holiday honoring someone who died in the civil rights movement, its a made up greeting card holiday to sell more shit for Hallmark.

And fwiw, your OP is asking us to digest the words of a guy whose got some pretty fucked up notions on relationships, as some sort of guru on... relationships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:17 PM

33. Raining on your "little father's day parade" is the equivalent of a racist post

on MLK Day? Okaaaaay.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:24 AM

108. Consider the reverse:

 

on mothers day a posting about all the mothers who drown, abuse, or otherwise harm their children.

That would not be received well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #108)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:25 AM

124. I've seen plenty of DUers talk about trauma inflicted by their mothers.

I wasn't around for this mother's day so I don't know whether a similar post occurred, but I do know that on other holidays that tend to be associated with family, such as Christmas, DUers who have negative memories of those holidays or of their families have shared that. It isn't trying to rain on anyone's parade. It's dealing with the fact that scars from a bad family life or upbringing can open up at times when we are expected to enjoy and celebrate family--something that is normally quite healthy and beautiful, but for some of us is a preposterous and painful notion. Nor is it a criticism of fathers, mothers, or families in general, it's just part of being in a supportive community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #108)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:24 AM

138. Every prognostication is true... until it comes to pass

That would not be received well...."

Every prognostication is true... until it comes to pass, and with its passage, we quickly and conveniently forget, until we are compelled to use prognostication again as we have little else to lean on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:46 AM

105. what if my dad wasn't Martin Luther King, Jr.?

do i still have to honor him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:17 PM

9. I dunno. I just get sick of being told

 

how I'm some kind of upper class privileged man when I live in poverty, struggle with my family of women to make ends meet and couldn't' get a scholarship for any college because most of them were reserved for women.

I also now get told how I'm privileged, should be ashamed of the actions those of my gender have done throughout history, and how men are savage brutes who need female guidance. I don't know, but if you want men to support feminist causes, you shouldn't treat them like shit in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:24 AM

74. On what planet?

 

First off, you're poor and struggling to sustain your family? Okay. Do you think you'd be better-off if you were a woman under the same circumstances, unreadier? What I'm asking is, if scientists came up with a ray gun that could irreversibly transform you into a woman, would you jump at the chance? Would a uterus and not one but two ovaries improve your lot in life? Or do you think you'd have a harder time of it?

You say that if feminists want men to be their allies, they need to not "treat them like shit." Now, maybe I'm just ultra-special and one of a kind, but... I've never been treated like shit by a feminist. I've been treated with some wariness and skepticism before, but never "like shit." No one's ever asked me to personally take shame on being a male, feminist or otherwise. I've certainly never been called a "savage brute" who "needs female guidance."

Like I said, maybe I'm a special snowflake. or maybe, when you stomp around declaring that you can't get a college scholarship because WOMEN, you're putting people off, and they act accordingly? In other words, maybe it's not them; maybe it's you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:35 PM

208. lol.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 07:26 AM

241. "couldn't' get a scholarship for any college because most of them were reserved for women.

 

because most of them were reserved for women."

This statement sounds very like the racist boohoo complaints about Affirmative Action robbing them of jobs/scholarships/opportunities. I'd like to see some validation of the premise that you've been robbed of opportunity because of reverse-discrimination.

Is it possible that you didn't get a scholarship because you couldn't compete academically?


"I also now get told how I'm privileged, should be ashamed of the actions those of my gender have done throughout history, and how men are savage brutes who need female guidance. "

Again, I'd like to see some evidence to support that broad-brush statement.

I'VE never been told anything remotely like that by any female feminist and have, in fact, been welcomed as a brother-in-arms and fellow-feminist. Perhaps your hyperbole merely reflects the reaction you've received for blatantly anti-women posturing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sans__Culottes (Reply #241)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 08:50 AM

243. Here we go.

 

Anti-woman? How the hell am I anti-woman?

I support abortion rights. I support the rights of women; there are disadvantages in society, I admit that.

But at the same time, I still feel bombarded with collective guilt that "MEN are the reason this is happening, and you should feel guilty because you are one of them".

It's like aspects of society want men to feel guilty for the actions of individuals; if I felt that way about the individual women I met who were cruel, patronizing and snobbish, I'd be legitimately anti-woman.

Yet, I don't broad brush an entire gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #243)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:46 AM

245. You haven't responded to the issues in my post.

 

Please explain how you were deprived of a scholarship because "they were reserved for women"?

Please explain how this statement is *not* the equivalent of racists claiming that Affirmative Action has blocked them from employment or education opportunities?

Please explain *how* you've been made to feel guilty by feminists. Not general angst, but in exactly what way and by whom you were attacked for Chauvinism that you haven't personally displayed? (Again, this is just the rehash of supremacists whining about being punished with White Guilt.)

I'm not interested in an apologia that evades my questions with the assertion that you support Choice. That's a side-step. I didn't accuse you of attacking women, I accused you of making unsupported allegations claiming you've been personally wronged.

There's no point in posting a "response" that changes the subject. If you *can't* or *won't* answer my questions, don't waste my time by "responding" to my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sans__Culottes (Reply #241)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:48 AM

246. There is no "reverse discrimination". There's only one kind.

 

The federal government runs a grant program through the the department of education entitled "The Women's Educational Equity Program". Setting aside the inherent oxymoronic title of the program (you can't have equity for only one person or group without considering the benchmark) this, along with the man-only draft registration is one of the first institutionally sexist programs which would be eliminated if the Equal Rights Amendment were enacted.

It really doesn't matter what it sounds like. Scholarship programs run about 2:1 in favor of extending the 3:2 dominance women have in college.
http://www.cappex.com/scholarships/gender/-s-g/

For every example of "anti-women posturing" I can show you two examples of ingratiating servile self loathing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #246)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:12 AM

249. Since women now outnumber men handily in highschool/college graduation rates

 

it seems those initiatives should be flipped around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #246)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 08:13 AM

287. Can't say you've made a clear point.

 

A very cursory examination of your links negates your premise:

Your first link:

"you can't have equity for only one person or group without considering the benchmark)" It's pretty clear what the benchmark inherent in the title is. It's "understood".

The bullet points explain this program pretty well:
"Training for teachers and other school personnel to encourage gender equity in the classroom;
Evaluating exemplary model programs to advance gender equity;
School-to-work transition programs;
Guidance and counseling activities to increase opportunities for women in technologically demanding workplaces; and,
Developing strategies to assist LEAs in evaluating, disseminating, and replicating gender-equity programs."


This isn't about scholarships at all, it provides for programs to counter misogynistic practices in place. Doesn't support unreadierLizard's premise; this list only mentions programs available to women and doesn't prove a paucity of scholarships available to men.

Your 2nd link:

lists 2 categories, one for female scholarships, one for men. Both are extensive. Perhaps unreadierLizard should avail himself of one of the 31 scholarships listed for men (supposing his GPA qualifies him).
Even at a 2:1 ratio, how does this support unreadierLizard's statement that he "couldn't get a scholarship because most of them were reserved for women"?
Perhaps he should quit blaming his failure on uppity women and realize that "scholarship" depends on being a "scholar".

EDIT: Please note that these lists do not reflect any scholarships not restricted by gender, there's a plethora of scholarships that are available to either gender that remain unlisted!

Secondarily, I doubt that a list of approximately 100 listed scholarships is the sum total of ALL scholarships available.

"There is no "reverse discrimination". There's only one kind." Are you denying that there is discrimination against women? That's self-induced myopia.

My questions to him remain unanswered, but you deserve credit for trying to prop up your bro!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sans__Culottes (Reply #287)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 11:34 AM

289. Simple premise.

 

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


That is the full text of the relevant part of the equal rights amendment.

Here's my question. It's simple.

"Would you consider laws, programs and practices which are outlawed by the equal rights amendment discriminatory?"

If so, then programs such as these are discriminatory.

And no, there are no misogynistic practices in education. One need only look at the outcomes to prove it.

Girls
- rarely drop out
- get better grades despite having worse test scores
- commit suicide far less frequently
- are rarely suspended and disciplined
- rarely show up as learning disabled
- are much less likely to be medicated for classroom management reasons
- get into college
- graduate college
- and have a teacher of their gender leading the class

It is my belief that education is filled with misandristic practices, and the trends and outcomes support my view.

If you only want to ask one person, use PM's. This is a discussion board, and you'll get discussion from anyone interested in the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #289)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 01:32 PM

290. ERA isn't law.

 

ERA failed, perhaps in part because it was imperfect and did not serve to redress the disparities suffered by women effectively.

I supported the ERA in the 70s because it was the best we could hope for at that time; I didn't necessarily agree with every position included therein. The point you quote, for example, was insufficiently defined. It clearly was intended to mean that women could not be discriminated against but slippery patriarch-enablers could use it as a talking point to pretend otherwise. Much like 2A, it's written in such a vague way that sulkers can twist its intent to suit their selfish purposes. (Note my spurious comment as to why ERA failed; that is the sort of commentary provided by the intellectually dishonest poster. Such as you. In actuality it failed because of a prevailing medieval attitude of denial by misogynists.)



As to "And no, there are no misogynistic practices in education." I have to state up front that I'm amazed. That is the same type of spurious, cynical argument recited by White Supremacists to crab about Affirmative Action. Do you support that anti-progressive premise, also?

Historically, there have been huge inequities perpetrated against women in education. If any of your Girls list points are accurate (and I'd need to see documentary support for this list; some of the points seem to be very subjective) it's because women are provided access that was earlier denied them. Your list only provides proof that the system is working better now.

"It is my belief that education is filled with misandristic practices, and the trends and outcomes support my view." I believe that is your belief, but you've fallaciously interpreted your list to support a cherished POV. In actuality, it merely supports the fact that inequality IS now being addressed to some extent.


Your comment about PMs is insultingly condescending.
First, my post in this subthread was directed to the Lizard. He apparently can't come up with any rational answers and has refused to respond. It isn't inappropriate to readdress him in order to prompt a reply.

2nd, I've responded fully and civilly to your posts, so I am properly participating in board discussion.

3rd, you didn't address my questions to the Lizardman, nor in your 2nd post did you address my specific queries regarding your 1st post to me. It isn't inappropriate to nudge you back on topic.


At this point I feel that you're redirecting my open and public discussion with another poster. I don't care to have my primary post derailed, so unless you have something that actually supports his statement that he was blocked from a scholarship (rather than merely failing to qualify) I'll bid you "Good day".


I really don't care to discuss your reactionary gender-bias. Since you haven't addressed any of my concerns, it's clear your mind is completely closed to debate and you merely want a platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sans__Culottes (Reply #290)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 02:52 PM

291. That long post was completely and entirely nonresponsive to my very simple question.

 

It was also bereft of anything factual.

But it does show why the equal rights amendment is no longer supported; equal rights isn't the point of modern feminism. "Insufficiently defined" my ass. It's clear as glass, but equality of law is no longer enough, and is in fact a step backward.

Discrimination is now a goal.

BTW, the education system isn't working "better". It's working better for you.

If there are 200 scholarships for which he is eligible to apply, and 800 for which his sister is eligible to apply, college is more accessible for her, and explains why she is 50% more likely to go to school than he is despite the fact that boys in general have significantly better test scores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #291)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:19 PM

292. I said "Good day".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:20 PM

10. Results of the alert on this OP

 

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002894783

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

"Men's Rights Activists" are regarded as anti-woman hate groups by the SPLC. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women Bigoted hate speech is not permitted on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:14 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Certain Mens Rights Activists groups are indeed regarded as hate groups by the SPLC. Alerter, however, did no work to try to tie the author of the book in question to one of these groups.

I'm inclined to not agree with anything in this book, but I am not able to call the person or his work bigoted by what has been presented thus far.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I did some research. The author is on a Obama White House appointed board called the Council for Men and Boys.....which includes Gov. Jennifer Grantholm. The term "Men's Rights Activist" may be misused here. I'm for keeping it, but it needs to be monitored closely.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seriously? We can't even discuss a book because it's "bigoted hate speech"? Seriously?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This alert is absolute nonsense. This is precisely the sort of issue that deserves discussion on DU. The "hate group" claim is absurd and deeply offensive.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: good for discussion.....BTW, if u are stuck on this post, u are fucked. When the economic bus leaves it's tread on your chest, look down as think "i was warned"

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The Great DU War Between The Sexes is fucking stupid. But if you kids are determined to continue it, then knock yourselves out. I say "Fight it, don't hide it."

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #10)


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:46 PM

21. Well, to be honest, I was voter #1, and If I knew then what I know now, I would have voted to hide

 

the guy is a full fledged bigot and whackjob. But that wasnt clear from the original alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:07 PM

26. Wow I guess I learned something as well. Excuse me while I delete my post...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:16 PM

32. I am surprised that you didn't find the content of the OP objectionable in and of itself.

Seriously?

"...Warren argues that society has been mislead by the feminist movement into perceiving women as victims of male oppression. He believes that the reverse is true; women have most of the rights and privileges whilst men are treated like 2nd-class citizens."

Alrighty, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:28 PM

40. I find MANY opinions to be objectionable. That doesn't mean I want them banned or hidden.

 

How can an asshole be ostracized if you don't know how they think because they're not allowed to express themselves?

Do you want every post you object to to be hidden? Sometimes I think it's better to expose them to the light and let everyone see.

I'll admit I didn't watch the video; I commented on whether the opinion I read in the post should be deleted out of hand. I didn't say I agreed with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:46 PM

55. No, I don't want posts hidden that discuss alternate points of view. However...

when a post clearly advocates for an alternative pov that is antithetical to this board... well, yes, I do want to see it locked/hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 05:59 AM

99. Probably because the alerter posted a link filled with garbage that had zero to do with the author

As if guilt by association isn't enough of a bullshit allegation in the first place, they somehow neglected to include even the association (which in their mind is probably irrelevant anyway since all men are all associated by gender).

So now the same person or people are regurgitating links that google turned up that are filled with obvious ad hominem bullshit rants, quotes out of context, and outright lies. I'm not sure how that makes it more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:40 AM

118. +1 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:21 PM

11. if males were any more disadvantaged, just imagine what could happen!

instead of suffering far, far less poverty than children and females suffer, they might suffer just somewhat less poverty than those disadvantaged groups.

instead of many advantages in the workplace in terms of pay and position, were they to lose ground, they might only be somewhat ahead of what females in the workplace have.

see, you guys are really fighting the good fight. since you see this as a zero sum game, what you must realize is that every cent a female gains in terms of compensation is one cent that a male has previously earned.

every position in the workplace a female gains, which was previously unheld or previously underrepresented by females is one less prime spot that a male once held!

if we are going to make sure that men keep the advantages that they have, we need to quash this movement towards equality and make sure that females are fought on every level --including making them look like unsympathetic characters by making them appear to be money grubbing (greedy child-support-wantin') and vengeful (the nerve of domestic violence victims to bring it up during divorce and child custody proceedings!)...

luckily we have people here committed to doing all that they can to making sure men don't lose advantage to uppity women trying to gain parity from them --jeez, don't they get that having babies means they can't be equal since they don't work enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:19 AM

72. Zero-sum gaming is not the answer.

Oh, sorry, took a while to see the sarcasm tag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:41 AM

112. + 1,000,000,000


and I really like the fact that, as a woman, I don't have to suffer male legislators writing laws about my genitalia while denying me the right to call my genitalia by its scientific name.

All that legislation about what men can and cannot do with their penises must be so tough on men. But I never post on threads about penis suppression laws. Not my problem...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #112)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:42 AM

231. no

joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:22 PM

12. Farrell's positive incest and date rape links

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,95569,95569


http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


There are many good guys out there, but Warren Farrell sure as hell isn't one of them. He's the MRA's "Scum Manifesto" author, to use a Meta analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:24 PM

14. I wish the alerter had included those links in the alert.

 

I was juror #1. Armed with those links I would have voted to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:39 PM

18. He is rather notorious

He was also, as I stated upthread, never director of NOW. False.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:25 PM

15. Figures.

Doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:23 PM

13. What about The Myth of White Power? When will that be posted here?

And will that be ok?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:37 PM

17. Amen

and Jeez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:29 AM

76. oooooh, third rail.

 

I say, Bring it on! I'm a little sick of being stuck shadowboxing DU's racists, I say we let 'em come out in the open for a well-earned clobbering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:51 AM

116. Give him another couple of hours, since he's on a roll...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:02 PM

155. It is posted all the time ...

 

whenever a Black person suggests that this or that experience is evidence of racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:27 PM

16. Pro-incest?

Anyone want to address that shit? And do the people he's aligning with (including some prominent Democrats) know this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 10:41 PM

19. And, also an advocate against the Violence Against Women Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:08 PM

27. So are you going to state your objections

 

to the information contained in the OP? or just continue with your ad hominem attacks on the author? I know some people have violent reactions to ideas of incest and polygamy but I think those reactions are cultural just like the idea of eating dogs and cats. I do not support incest or polygamy but if consenting adults decide to engage in it, then its their own prerogative. Now can we get to the content of the video and just for a moment forget the literary history of the author.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:19 PM

34. "violent reactions to ideas of incest . . . . I think those reactions are cultural"

Really? So it's okay?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:22 PM

35. !!!!

 

Wowza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:23 AM

94. little did you know you would get the opportunity to argue with Mr. Farrell himself

or so it would seem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:37 PM

47. Again, you are putting word into my mouth

 

I never said it was OK, I just think it's cultural. Arranged marriages, polygamy, matriarchal/patriarchal societies, cannibalism are all activities practices by different cultures around the world that I happen to disagree with. But the fact remains that those people in those cultures do not have the same reaction to it as you do.

That is what I mean by it being cultural. Also incest could mean cousins marrying other cousins not necessarily sibling marrying each other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:46 AM

89. nice knowing you (well not really)

but the same thing happens to all posters who go down the road you're going...

and your contribution here will be reduced to this last hurrah, defending a guy who defended incest and yet while adamantly saying you weren't agreeing with him, end up stating the very thing he said!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:24 PM

36. You think anti incest beliefs are cultural???

"I know some people have violent reactions to ideas of incest and polygamy but I think those reactions are cultural just like the idea of eating dogs and cats."



You are equating incest and polygamy? I guess we should be glad you didn't also use homosexuality, huh?

Again

I haven't made any ad hom attacks on Farrell, I don't have to. "Consider the source" is all anyone has to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

209. Fuck Warren Ferrell.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:25 PM

37. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:37 PM

45. How do you feel about Farrell's pro incest views?

And his views that date rape isn't actually rape?

Why do you think the power structure in the US isn't male-oriented

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:51 AM

90. Dokkie just stated that he didn't agree with them, but then in his own words...

said the same thing Farrell said.

why is it whenever we look into Men's Rights Advocacy that we always find stuff like this, or the hate or some other nonsense that makes it unlike any other accepted civil rights activism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:08 AM

307. because the real "rights" they want

is the right to sick behavior

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 05:17 AM

98. He isn't pro-incest

I get that those who can't argue on subject have to try to use deflection, but the charge that he is pro-incest is really pretty pathetic even for those who have raised ad hominem attacks to an art form.

Farrell is a psychologist who has treated people who have experienced incest. He's no more pro-incest than someone who treats drug abusers is pro-drug addiction. He makes the point that some victims of incest have little to no lasting negative psychological impacts other than the stigma that society places on incest victims. This point is backed up by relevant case studies and other psychologists who hold the same opinions. So maybe you agree with that opinion and maybe you don't, but trying to label him as pro-incest for relating the experiences of incest victims as evidence for his assertions is really a pretty sad attempt to discredit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #98)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:34 AM

100. Farrell is not a psychologist! That is 100% not true

Why are you saying that??? He is NOT A PSYCHOLOGIST. He has a Ph.D. in Poli Sci. He has never treated incest victims. He has "studied them, : and HE IS PRO INCEST -- READ HIS OWN WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT. Both I and Starry Messenger have posted links that quote Farrell IN HIS OWN WORDS believing in "positive incest" where fathers (and sometimes mothers) rape their daughters. Except, he says it is sensual and sexy and affectionate.

You are grossly mistaken in your knowledge of Farrell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #100)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:21 AM

103. And as eridani wisely pointed out above, rape is the word for what

Farrell was advocating, being that it involves the underaged children. I think we're being massively played here by people who know they are toying with us. Really sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #103)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:45 PM

165. It's quite obvious you are being played

However, it's not by who you think. You are being played by those who have taken his quotes completely out of context, completely fabricated nonsense, and conveniently omitted relevant parts of his interview that didn't support their lame attempt to discredit. It's really no different than those who have taken Obama's quotes out of context and then pretended he meant something completely contrary to what his actual message was. Those who are manipulating you are counting on you not taking the time to actually investigate their allegations, just like those who quote Obama out of context are relying on those who are easily swayed by one-sided hacks with an agenda.

Farrell authored a study on incest. That doesn't mean he supports incest, pedophilia, or any of the other half-baked allegations his detractors have made. The fact that they refuse to discuss the actual content of his work and instead seek to make ad hominem attacks should be your first clue to their duplicity. Had you actually read the Penthouse interview in it's entirety, you might have noticed he explicitly said he wasn't advocating incest and especially father/daughter incest. Oooops! Those who seek to manipulate you probably aren't going to offer that information, now are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #165)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 06:20 AM

183. thanks for the information

 

I actually knew absolutely nothing about his before I posted his video so thanks for defending him against the smears from his detractors. I will use some of your quotes to counter the pro incest allegations and the lie that he was never a director of NOW. It was hard to believe that a man who sounded very rational and level headed would be pro rape incest but now I know its not really true, he just suggested that some incest victims did not retain any negative effect from the incest apart from the stigma from society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #183)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:03 AM

188. Here's the really sad part about those who try to smear him

The point Farrell was making about incest was that there are people out there who have participated in incest and not had any negative psychological effects from it. It's not as if this is anything new. Freud, Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, and others have all noted this in various studies. However, due to religious and cultural attitudes towards incest, those who have experienced it (10-20% of the population) are often stigmatized for life by friends and family members. Therefore at some level, the fear and ignorance of what incest is and isn't revictimizes those who have experienced it because they simply can't talk to anyone about it and they are sentenced to a lifetime of shame and often rejection. So rather than encouraging more understanding of incest, which is a good thing, they falsely claim Farrell is encouraging incest simply because they can't deal with the inconvenient facts he points out on a completely different subject. I find that behavior more than a bit repulsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #100)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:49 AM

106. So how did he get away with teaching psychology at the UC School of Medicine?

He also taught psychology at the California School of Professional Psychology. Compare that to the endless stream of 'expert' feminists trotted out on DU who are either college dropouts like Dworkin and Brownmiller, or have zero background in any sort of human behavior studies.

Because he writes about "positive incest" doesn't mean he supports the practice. Dozens of psychiatrists and psychologists have written about "positive incest" from Freud to Kinsey and lots of others who have studied the subject since then. Farrell has repeated said he doesn't advocate for incest, including right in the Penthouse interview which his detractors are using to claim he supports the practice. I suppose when you have a desperate need to discredit someone, things like facts and reality don't matter too much.

I'm not recommending incest between a parent and a child, and especially not between father and daughter.


I guess that part doesn't fit their agenda, so they conveniently leave it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #98)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:38 PM

210. No, he's pro "Family Sex".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #210)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 04:46 PM

213. I remember when the Thinkpol was trying to claim Kinsey was trying to promote homosexuality

This reminds me a lot of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #213)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

215. lol. "Family Sex" is his term, not mine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #215)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 06:28 PM

216. As if that makes any difference

... as to your promotion of agenda driven lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #216)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:59 PM

220. You're funny!

 

I don't give two shits about this asshole. No agenda, just good old fashioned ridicule at a wannabe victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #220)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 08:18 PM

221. Now that's funny

First you claim you don't have an agenda and then in the same sentence you say you're just ridiculing him because you don't like his message.



As fun as it's been listening to your baseless accusations and unintentional irony, I think I'm done here. Do continue though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #221)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 10:05 PM

222. Why don't you tell us what he has said about Family Sex?

 

You seem to like he guy, you must know what he haw written.

PS calling out a stupid message does not amount to an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #222)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:03 PM

224. No problem

I'm not recommending incest between a parent and a child, and especially not between father and daughter.


Now, does it not strike you as odd that those who claim he is advocating incest, based on the Penthouse interview, that in the very same interview he would say exactly the opposite of what they (and you) are claiming?

PS Yes it does amount to an agenda and it also shows you have a very closed mind. Because of this, and because all you want to talk about is BS allegations that are childishly easy to debunk, you can continue this line without me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:27 PM

39. I thought this was a link to an Onion article.. seriously..

..what is the point of posting a link to this kind of unmitigated crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left coaster (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:39 PM

50. maybe you should watch it first before commenting

 

and remember try and have an open mind when watching it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Reply #50)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:47 PM

57. Maybe you would be a better fit for a site like free republic. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:59 PM

61. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:51 AM

115. More like:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 11:59 PM

63. poor widdle guy

he's just so oppressed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #63)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:52 AM

117. STOP IT! You're oppressing me with your

comment!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:04 AM

65. Yes, we're reminded of how powerful we are everytime we get a paycheck

or by the nervous feeling in the pits of our stomachs when we need to renew a birth control prescription or the constant background fear we all live with 100% of the time that no man will ever understand.

Yeah, we're all powerful and men are just poor victims.

This guy is just an ivory tower theorist who doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know anyone over the age of 35 who blames their parents for the choices they had to make. I also don't think having men stuff their feelings to succeed in life is much of an answer.

As for a man going to prison for his wife's crimes hundreds of years ago, it's because she was considered his property and any damages caused by his property were his fault. If his cattle got out and wrecked a neighbor's garden, the same thing applied.

This guy is so far off base that most men who are feeling victimised (which they are, but not by women. By themselves and the structures their brothers designed) who will lap it all right up.

Men aren't born monsters. What makes them so is the male paradigm of considering themselves predators and women prey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:25 AM

75. Except most men don't consider themselves "predators" or women as "prey"

 

It's shit like this that makes me uncomfortable to be a man around here.

Blaming an entire gender for the actions of individuals you have had wrong experiences with is no way to live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:31 AM

78. Then who keeps propagating it in our culture?

 

Magical Gender Role fairies? I'll bet they smell like Axe body spray, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #78)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:17 PM

204. Everyone who says that women = victims?

 

Just sayin. You can't have victims without abusers.

So, it's you who propogates it in our culture.

Men don't generally think of themselves as abusers... unless they accept what you are telling them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #204)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:57 PM

228. Who said anything about abuse?

 

The question was about predator / prey perspective in gender interactions. Haven't watched many movies, have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:49 AM

82. I know exactly what you are talking about

 

I had a very good friend once, she was a struggling single mom, I was a student in college, we lived in the same apartment complex and we were so close that we had keys to each others apartments, we knew each other secrets, who we have had sex with and stuff like that (was 20ish at the time). So one day she was looking for a baby sitter for her 4yr daughter, she called just about everybody she knew who could baby sit her daughter and none of em was available. She was really stressing out because she needed to be at work.

So I saw her panicking and I asked what the problem was, she told me the story how she was looking for a babysitter and could not find one, so like the good friend I was, I offered to babysit the daughter and what she replied with still haunts me today. She said "I will not be able to live with my self if someone bad happened to my daughter", I told her, that I knew exactly what to do and where everything was and I was going to take good care of her. She then said, its about her physical safety and stopped at that.

She did not come out and say it but I got the message loud and clear, she saw me as a pedophile who was going to take advantage of her daughter the moment I had my alone time with her. This is a girl that I had confined my deepest secrets to, a girl who I helped financially when she was broke. After that conversation, we never spoke to each other and till today I dont know how what ended up happening that night.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #65)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:29 AM

110. Control for all relevant factors

 

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

and the pay gap becomes trivial.

And I think it's perfectly fair to say that while women have it worse in some ways, men also have it worse in others (of course that might get you labeled a sexist here).

Imagine the outcry if it was mostly women who occupied our prisons and were given harsher penalties for the same crimes, who dropped out of highschool, lived on the streets, died violently at young ages, became addicted to drugs and committed suicide.

We would be treated with hourly reports on the situation and how our horribly sexist society is waging a war on women.

But since all those things affect men. . . meh. Suck it up.

Oh and more than sucking it up, don't even mention it because that will get you labeled an anti-woman bigot.

Men aren't born monsters. What makes them so is the male paradigm of considering themselves predators and women prey.


Wow. Not some men. Just "men".

Imagine a post that pointed out how many women who lie about domestic abuse, rape there are that concludes with "women aren't born liars and manipulators. What makes them so is the female paradigm of considering themselves perpetual victims and men as nothing but predators".

That wouldn't go over so well. Not so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #110)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:41 AM

240. This is why I actively abandoned feminism..

.... (as defined by all too many women and even some men) a long time ago. The attitude that all men are "predators" or "rapists" is just as patently ridiculous as the attitude that all women are "bitches" or "whores".

It's not helpful, it's not real and it is not the kind of thinking on which a movement can be sustained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:15 PM

203. Blind squirrel just stumbled over a nut.

 

Men aren't born monsters. What makes them so is the male paradigm of considering themselves predators and women prey.


So the gender feminist paradigm of women as prey has no affect on the outcomes? Victimhood fetishism is a perpetuating structure for the paradigm you claim is the problem.

You can't have it both ways, women=victims REQUIRES accepting your belief that men are abusers.

If you get a paycheck, consider yourself lucky, because men are far less likely to be educated, and significantly more likely to be unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:11 AM

69. He's been pushing this drivel for decades.

I saw him giving a speech when I was in college in 1973 or 1974.

He's one of those guys where he initially appears to be sensible, then you think about it and he doesn't make sense anymore.

Sort of like Thomas Friedman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:48 AM

81. Does Warren Farrell even REALIZE what is really going on?

 

The Patriarchal system that has ruled society for ages is as harsh to 99% of men as it is to women.

99% of men are tools to be used to run the machine, and when they come up short or they wear out, they are discarded. Many men die to keep the system running. 60% of males never live long enough to have kids. Who gets wasted the most in war? Men. Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, before the army comes and does horrible things to women and children, they massacre all the males that stand in their way.

Today, in the workforce, men earn more than women. However when the recession hit, many men stopped earning more than when they lost their jobs. The recession killed far more men's jobs than women's jobs. If the trends keep up there will be more unemployed men than women. Chronically. How's that for benefits of a Patriarchal system.

The Patriarchal system only favors the 1%. The rest of the men are throw-aways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #81)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:03 PM

175. There are already more unemployed men than women.

 

The earnings of the unemployed aren't counted for the purpose of determining "the wage gap"

You're absolutely right. 99% of men are throwaways, leaving the 1% as the benchmark against whom equality must be judged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:07 AM

85. Posted by Dokkie. Quelle surprise! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:07 AM

87. Posted by Dokkie. Quelle surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:33 AM

96. Perfectly fine to counteract the more extreme forms of feminism...

 

I like balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #96)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:30 AM

111. Prepare to be flamed.

 

Here on DU, there's no such thing as "extreme" feminism.

I tried to give an example of such and got called a liar.

Despite it being first-hand experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #111)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:50 AM

114. I pointed out that a feminist that was cited

 

as proof of why porn is evil during the porn wars (she wrote a series of op-eds on why she personally didn't like porn, go figure) hated men and that did not go over well.

Here's the thing though: I didn't make an independent analysis of what she said and interpreted it to mean "ah well clearly that is man hating".

No, I cited a series of articles that this woman had written which clearly laid out why she hated men. She even used the titles "why I hate men, part 1/2".

That got me banned from that group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #114)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:52 AM

119. Kind of scary that

 

a post with such a blatant title was allowed to stand.

I'd wager all the money in my bank account that if someone made a thread in the Men's Group entitled "Why I hate women, part 1/2" that it would be locked and that person would be out the door faster then they could say "Surprise".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #119)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:56 AM

120. Oh sorry if I wasn't clear

 

they were citing an outside blog. Not any post here.

I labeled the author of that blog a man hater because of her other works on that blog.

As far as I know no one on here has been that blatant.

But still, citing as proof someone's op-eds when that person is clearly a bigot shouldn't be encouraged here.

/like quoting a white supremacist cite for "facts" about immigration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #96)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:25 AM

190. Yes, those anti-rape feminists need to be balanced by pro-rape

 

pigs like Farrell and his followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:43 AM

102. Warren farrell is not a psychologist

He is not a sociologist.

His Ph.D. is in Political Science.

Dr, Laura is not a psychologist.

She is not a sociologist.

Her Ph.D. is in physiology.

Neither of them have any academic or professional knowledge or experience about their dangerous and hurtful words about women, yet I have yet to see a pro-Dr. Laura thread on here.

Regardless of what some posters are saying, Farrell is PRO INCEST. He believes some incest ie rape of minor girls is a POSITIVE thing. It is sensual and affectionate and the girls, goshdarnit, don;t mind their daddies raping them one bit. Sometimes they are even the aggressor and make their rapists rape them. Starry Messenger and I have both provided links to these statements of his. Over the years, he has tried to run away from this, but the interviewer has his words taped and transcribed.

Farrell believes there's no such thing as date rape. In the book the OP is lauding, Farrell makes this clear.

He also has many other odious views.

He is a Men's Rights Activist, and is a consultant or member of many MRA groups. The SPLC considers these groups hate groups.

He was NEVER director of NOW. EVER. He certainly did work with NOW in NYC decades ago, but as soon as his pro incest and anti feminist views were exposed, NOW kicked him to the curb.

I am a bit disturbed more DU men are not helping to discredit Farrell. It is not the duty of DU women to do this all the time, and it is frankly getting a but tiresome.

There are many good men out there, but Farrell is not one of them, no matter how pretty and legit his facade is.

I am now done with this thread. Minority groups should not have to be made defensive because of their lack of power in this society, not on a Democratic website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:26 AM

104. I won't waste my broadband time on something like 10 minutes of lies by a liar

Director of NOW? Please. Women MISLED society? Thank heaven I'm going to do some physical work, cause I want to throw my computer!

Women have most of the power and rights? We obviously are on different planets. We have all the rights so we get paid 77cents on the dollar. We have all the rights which is why we aren't allowed to control our own bodies. We have all the power?

Sounds to me like someone told this guy to take a hike and he can't stand it. Boo and waaa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:06 AM

122. Nothing in any of the negative posts here suggests that they listened to the clip. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #122)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:16 AM

123. They don't have to listen because it's all lies

 

and they know it's all lies because they didn't listen.

Makes perfect sense in a crazy sort of way.

/like how fundies know that darwin was lying without ever cracking open any of his writings or a biology book. Also why they refute evolution with facts like nessie being real which proves jesus rode dinosaurs which proves Darwin was an agent of satan. Somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #122)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:00 PM

143. Nor does it deny it...

Nor does it deny it...

I imagine we often have only presumptions on which to base our statements..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:28 AM

125. Poop. Just Do The Math of Male Power.

Women's pay, women's rights historically and in the present. number of women Presidents of US, number of women in House and Senate, number of women raped compared to number of men raped, and so on ad nauseum.

Do the math, and it's easy to see that Farrell's ideas don't add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #125)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:35 AM

126. And thus, we must blame every male in existence

 

and make them collectively branded with guilt. I know.

I want to support feminist causes but when I hear about how "MEN ARE THE PROBLEM" and the like, it makes me back off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #126)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:49 AM

129. A VERY salient point.

You have to wonder which men the hardcore anti-male "feminists" expect to "convert" by insulting and blaming ALL of us for the some of males that still live in the Dark Ages. It would be like saying ALL women are the same as Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, etc and expecting each of them to own their crazy bullshit, simply because they have the same kind of plumbing.

RIDICULOUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #129)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:12 PM

145. Exactly.

 

If I were to generalize women based on my personal experiences, I'd have an opinion of them that would get me banned from this forum. But I don't judge an entire gender based on the actions of individuals.

But apparently it's okay to do it to men! Certain men oppose birth control, all of them must suffer! Certain men oppose abortion, all of them must oppose abortion! I dated a man and we broke up, all men must want sex!

it gets tiring after the 5th thread on how men are bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #126)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:17 PM

156. Men ARE the problem ...

 

whether through: actively working to subjugate women; passively enjoying the male hegemony that subugates women; or by, denying that male hegemony exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #156)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:20 PM

157. There's plenty of women helping with that, too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #157)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:38 PM

158. True that ...

 

To the question of how many blacks she had freed from slavery, Harriett Tubmann responded, "I could'a freed them all, if they only knew they were slaves."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #158)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:42 PM

160. Amen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #156)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:39 PM

159. I'm sorry but

 

that makes no sense at all.

"actively working to subjugate women" this is true, I will give you that - but those men don't represent every single male alive today just as women like Sarah Palin or Elizabeth Bathory represent every woman alive today.

"passively enjoying the male hegemony that subjugates women" This is something I don't understand; EVERYONE talks about how men have this "privilege " that makes them superior to women; I don't see it. I can understand it existing for those in the upper class, but I struggle just as hard as my female friends and family do. I don't see inequality here - I see the poor getting poorer, men and women alike.

"denying that male hegemony exists" It might have existed in the past, but it seems to be greatly diminished today; in fact, I see women everywhere - female-only scholarships, female-only awards, female-only positions of power; if there is some kind of male hegemony or secret plan to subjugate women, I must have forgotten the handshake because I'm not part of it.

Saying "we believe in equality" and then "Men are the problem all of them no exceptions you're all privileged nah nyah nyah nyah nyah" doesn't really endear the feminist movement to men who aren't assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #159)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:15 PM

164. It makes no sense ...

 

because you don't want to have it make sense.

"actively working to subjugate women" this is true, I will give you that - but those men don't represent every single male alive today just as women like Sarah Palin or Elizabeth Bathory represent every woman alive today.


Please note I gave three scenarios of how "Males are the problem"; the first of which, albeit a relatively small portion of the male population, are those that actively subjugate women. These are the ones that are sexist and/or woman-haters.


"passively enjoying the male hegemony that subjugates women" This is something I don't understand; EVERYONE talks about how men have this "privilege " that makes them superior to women; I don't see it. I can understand it existing for those in the upper class, but I struggle just as hard as my female friends and family do. I don't see inequality here - I see the poor getting poorer, men and women alike.


Please don't mistake your struggling with the struggles of others. Has it occurred to you that you struggle DESPITE being a male; whereas, your female friends and family struggle BECAUSE they are female. An example of male priviledge is never having to be concerned that what you say or how you act, will be held against you because "women just don't act that way."

"denying that male hegemony exists" It might have existed in the past, but it seems to be greatly diminished today; in fact, I see women everywhere - female-only scholarships, female-only awards, female-only positions of power; if there is some kind of male hegemony or secret plan to subjugate women, I must have forgotten the handshake because I'm not part of it.


YOU ARE DOING JUST THAT WHICH YOU CLAIM TO BE IN THE PAST! Sorry about the yelling; but you have got to see that saying that you don't see inequality in a world where males hold all (most of) the real power, because both you and some females that you know are struggling, is a denial that a male hegemony exists.

Saying "we believe in equality" and then "Men are the problem all of them no exceptions you're all privileged nah nyah nyah nyah nyah" doesn't really endear the feminist movement to men who aren't assholes.


I am certain that you have heard the expression, if you are not a part of the solution; you are part of the problem. IMHO, and from my life's experience, the solution starts with honest, non-defensive, reflection. This will help you to understand that personalizing the criticism (in this case, male hegemony) is standing in your way to understanding.

Once this is accomplished, you might arrive at an understanding that the "men who aren't a$$holes"; but deny that male priviledge exists, in the face of all evidence, are the foundation of male hegemony. And those not working to end male priviledge are much like the white people during jim crow that sat back and allowed a system that subugated Black folks. They may not have been the ones beating Black folk and dragging them off the buses or blocking the school house steps; but they are just as responsible for the system that allows others to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #164)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 07:36 PM

167. That was beautifully stated.

I wish that last paragraph would go viral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #167)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:21 AM

237. Yes, It was. I sure wish I could just take off white privilege like a sweater when it gets warmer

It isn't possible to do that, but at least I can admit it exists, that I benefit from it, and that it is my moral obligation to work against social institutions thaqt support it. Believe it or not, there are men who feel the same way about male privilege. Warren sure the hell isn't one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #237)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

244. Another beautifully stated post.

"... at least I can admit it exists, that I benefit from it, and that it is my moral obligation to work against social institutions thaqt support it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #164)


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #156)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 04:16 PM

162. I feel no need to apologize for the actions of others

YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #126)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:20 PM

273. "Men are the problem" =/= "ALL men are the problem"

 

Although I would argue that women like Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Palin have done as much damage as their male counterparts....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #126)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 02:50 PM

301. *sigh*...The poop pit grows ever deeper. If you want to feel guilty about something, that's your

choice, but don't blame me/other women for how you feel.

In reality, no one can make you feel guilty unless you allow it. If many men feel some sort of collective negative feeling about women having had an unequal social, political, economic status throughout most of history, maybe there is some underlying reason for feeling that way. Kind of like how many Americans in the present still feel horrible that our country was largely developed on the backs of slaves. Luckily, some wise, decent folks believed that slavery was unjust and monstrous in its inequality. But, unfortunately, we're still, in 2012, working on gaining full equality for the descendants of people that were legally enslaved in America, and equality for other ethnic and gender minorities as well.

The point is, genuine full equality still takes a very, very, long period of time to become a part of a general cultural consciousness, and a practical reality, after equality becomes the law of the land. You can't change the enculturated, institutionalized effects of history upon a population overnight just by passing a law.

"I want to support feminist causes but when I hear about how "MEN ARE THE PROBLEM" and the like, it makes me back off."


Really?

Then, with all due respect, I suppose it's probably best for all feminists, women and men alike, that you back off from supporting feminist causes, until you have at least a minimal degree of genuine recognition/understanding of how and why the majority of women understand themselves to be almost universally in undeserved, unequal, social, political, and economic positions throughout the globe.

Not all men are the problem.

But many men really are a huge part of the problem.

Here's an example of 10 men who are definitely "the problem"...
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

Caption: Nine US legislators standing behind George W Bush in 2003 as he signs the partial-birth abortion ban.

Hint: There are no women in the above photo; republican men are arbitrarily making decisions for us. They fully believe it is their divine right to do so. Almost half the voters in the US often vote republican. Most GOP men consider women to be inferior to men, and do not treat women as their equals.

Even many GOP/RW fundy religious (christian, muslim, and other) women consider themselves to be inferior to men as well; it is almost always their patriarchal religious/cultural background and/or family uprbringing that causes this very sad state of crushed self-esteem and ignorance among affected women.

So you see, it's not all men who are the main part of the problem. It is a general widespread history of global patriarchy that created the general cultural mindset of many men, and even some women, that is still the major cause of the conditions that women find themselves in today.

Far too many men really do remain a huge part of the problem. Some of the active causes of the problem range from outright individual misogyny and institutionalized sexism to ignorance or complete denial of the fact that women do not have equal social, political, legal, and economic status basically everywhere on the planet.

Can you empathize/conceptualize for even a brief moment what it is like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia?

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are defined by Islam and tribal customs. The Arabian peninsula is the ancestral home of patriarchal, nomadic tribes, in which purdah (separation of women and men) and namus (honour) are considered central.

All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions.[1] However, King Abdullah has declared that women will be able to vote and run in the 2015 local elections, and be appointed to the Consultative Assembly.[2] Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. The World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity. It was the only country to score a zero in the category of political empowerment. The report also noted that Saudi Arabia is one of the few Middle Eastern countries to improve from 2008, with small gains in economic opportunity.[3]
snip--
For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan, real estate investor[1


Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Patriarchy also has a strong influence on modern civilization, although many cultures have moved towards a more egalitarian social system over the past century.[1]



Caption: July 4th, 1976: After more than 2,400 years of general global gender inequality, Glinda Goodwich magically ends historical patriarchy, and makes all women totally equal to men instantaneously.

VOILA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:45 AM

128. I hate to say this; but ...

 

this stance doesn't surprise me in the least. It is prevalent in the liberal communities, where a "non-member" (e.g., male) takes a leadership position in a "discrete group member" organization and begins to promote/protect their interests, rather than those of the organization.

I've seen it in Black civil rights organizations. It usually begins with the white person attempting to assert that their experience with racism is as, if not more, legitimate than those of their Black cohort.

But I suppose people of the dominant sub-population can't help it ... it IS, after all, all about them; that's what being a member of the dominant sub-population allows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #128)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:12 AM

135. Do you consider yourself part of the dominant sub population?

 

Or do you think the book is only about white men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #135)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:45 PM

148. I am ...

 

a Male, and therefore a member of the dominate sub-population with respect to female interested organizations.

That is why I don't accept leadership positions within female interested groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #148)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:49 PM

172. That didn't make a lick of sense.

 

I didn't ask if female interested organizations consider you to be a member of the dominant sub population. I asked if you consider yourself in a position of dominance by virtue of your gender.

If being a man was a hugely protective factor of privilege within the realm of race, we'd expect to see black men as a group doing better than black women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #172)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:25 PM

207. Apparently you read things to say what you wish for them to say ...

 

I said"

a Male, and therefore a member of the dominate sub-population with respect to female interested organizations.


And yes, being a male, society places me in a dominant role by virtue of my gender.

If being a man was a hugely protective factor of privilege within the realm of race, we'd expect to see black men as a group doing better than black women.


I suspect my perception of hierarchy is different than yours ...

My life's experience has it:

White Males ... For obvious reasons; and the rest are debatable

For me it goes,

White Females ... thanks to their benefitting from the white male priviledge;

Black Female ... Sorry sisters, I know you have it rough; but white males are still less threatened by you than Black males. While Black Females may out-think white males and out perform white males, they still think they can f@# you into compliance/cooperation/submission; whereas, white males are under no such delusions with respect to Black males ... Plus, there is always the physical and sexual competitiveness threat that Black males are believed to pose to white males;

And lastly, Black males.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #207)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:40 PM

212. Okay...

 

How do you reconcile your life's experience that black men suffer the worst (I agree, although I think that native american men have it bad too) with your belief that being a man "places you in the dominant role"?

For 95% of men, being a man is all downside. You're individually accountable for not being in the top 5%, but shouldn't expect support of any kind.

Two aphorisms succinctly illustrate US society;
1) "Women and children first"
2) "Every man for himself"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #148)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:22 PM

177. So can you answer the question

or will you dodge the question another round?

Females have no problem accepting leadership positions in "patriarchal" structures that most of the feminist movement deems devious. And based on your positing those men that passively do nothing are accomplices guilty in aiding this hegemony. So, I guess all those men and women who can live together and realize that the broader issue is oligarchs vs poor most be all bad? Yeah tough luck selling that to any rational thinking human being.

Only hardcore feminists would cheer that on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #177)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:44 PM

277. I did answer the question ...

 

I said:

a Male, and therefore a member of the dominate sub-population with respect to female interested organizations.


Now to the rest of your post:

Females have no problem accepting leadership positions in "patriarchal" structures that most of the feminist movement deems devious.


How is this related to a man taking a leadership position with a woman-interest organization, than turning around to use that post as a launching pad for them to advocate that it is not women sho are oppressed; but rather men?

And based on your positing those men that passively do nothing are accomplices guilty in aiding this hegemony.


Yes ... The men that "do nothing" ARE "guilty" of complicity; just as white people that did nothing about jim crow were/are complicit in the continuation of jim crow.

So, I guess all those men and women who can live together and realize that the broader issue is oligarchs vs poor most be all bad?


I guess we can only work on one issue of justice at a time ... Right? So, Black women in feminist organizations should be silent about racial issues ... Right? And white women engaged in the the class struggle, should be silent about the sexism they see ... Right?

Yeah tough luck selling that to any rational thinking human being.


I don't have a lot of problems "selling that to rational thinking human beings"; just human being that wish to believe that their issues/concerns trump those of other rational thinking human beings, i.e., support the status quo hegemony on matters that do not directly affect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #128)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:20 PM

274. +100

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:09 AM

133. There's this funny dynamic between that which has been given artificial ascendence & authenticity.

Jefferson Cowie http://books.google.com/books/about/Stayin_Alive.html?id=xz-EINoBGNcC says Nixon gave Middle-class White Males artificial "power" in order to use them to break FDR's New Deal Coalition and to then seed The Southern Strategy and then Reagan, subsequently, disposed of them.

It's interesting that such a visionary as John Steinbeck, in the final vignette in Grapes of Wrath, foresaw exactly this dynamic by posing the low-economic-class, extremely dependent, Rose o' Sharon, who had just delivered a still-born abnormal baby in the midst of a raging flood, smiling mysteriously as she breast-feeds an indigent male (recall also the recent cover of Time magazine), who was starving to death.

Perhaps men should ask themselves if their perceived "strength" is not due to the fact that they've become infantilization addicts, enabled by and dependent upon the weaknesses of others and women should ask themselves the reciprocal of that same question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:09 AM

134. Male Rights Advocates/Organizations ...

 

are the gender equivilent of white power advocates/organizations.

IOW ... "I don't have what I used to have; so poor poor pitiful me."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #134)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:27 AM

139. They are nothing alike.

 

Women are a majority.

White women, specifically, are the biggest single voting block. That is the reason that the political calculus of HCR requires you to pay more for medical insurance and your wife less.

The reason that black men are disproportionately imprisoned is 1st because they're men and 2nd because they're black. As a man, you're 11 times more likely to go to jail than a woman, in contrast a black man is 6x more likely to go to jail than a white man.

You don't enjoy any meaningful degree of privilege based on your gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #139)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 01:51 PM

149. B.S., ...

 

Women are a majority.

White women, specifically, are the biggest single voting block.


Do you know nothing about power dynamics. Numerical superiority has/says nothing about power.

You don't enjoy any meaningful degree of privilege based on your gender.


I am male, and I know that I, and every other male, possess an undeserved priviledge in these United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #149)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:37 PM

152. Thank you

Strong and on point as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #152)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:56 PM

154. I hereby pledge ...

 

that I will no longer post onto threads that deny the existence of Male Priviledge and white priviledge.

It's not good for my blood pressure or my pleasant disposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #154)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 09:02 PM

171. I'm glad you posted here today.

Really great posts and put the heart back into me. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #149)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:53 PM

173. Numerical superiority has everything to do with electoral power.

 

You don't have the power you think you do.

That's the beauty of the male power myth. Both parties are heavily invested in it. One side is engaged in self-deception and the other is engaged in rationalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #134)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:26 PM

179. That is an intellectual bankrupt comment to make

Male rights advocates are primarily concerned with increasing, and promoting knowledge about cancers associated with men (eg. Prostate) but also how the male superiority isn't as strong as the feminists claim.

How do I know this? We had a guess speaker who was a male rights advocate come to a human sexuality class. The professor, who invited the speaker, is a feminist who felt strongly that male awareness of cancer is starting to fall behind compared to women's awareness.

Funny how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #179)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

211. Not at all ...

 

My experience with MRAs was my attending a child custody/child support seminar with a (male) friend.

The entire seminar was tinged with similar comments as found in the OP ... woo us poor, poor, put upon males, while the main point was how to get custody (so you don't have to support that b!tch) and now to reduce child support (so you don't have toi support that b!tch).

I think I lasted about 10 minutes and spent the rest of the evening in the parking lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #211)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 06:55 PM

217. Sounds like you have a wide range of experience on the subject

All of 10 minutes and one group. Obviously the charge of your intellectual bankruptcy on the subject was way off base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:34 AM

140. Rec'd by the host of DU's Men's Group. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #140)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 02:38 PM

153. Seriously?

And btw - it was posted here in GD - I'm SURE . . . to keep this here woman in line! :rotfl:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #153)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:43 PM

161. LOL, surely you're not actually surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #161)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 05:09 PM

163. Nooooooo

. I'm going to go sit in the corner now and behave. Since my husband is in the kitchen cooking dinner - I have nothing better to do than behave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #140)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 10:57 PM

174. Can I do it twice? It's an EXCELLENT book.

 

Written roughly 20 years ago, but still relevant.

Unlike say, Valerie Solanas, who despite still having adoring fans who consider her deranged and mentally disturbed screeds "excellent" and "brilliant" even after she attempted to murder three people to justify it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #174)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:28 PM

180. SCUM WAS SATIRE

 

Just because she tried to kill a man for it and helped to cement the anti-male feminists in the movement as a power-base it doesn't mean it wants all men to die! We gotta keep some alive for breeding, she says in there, if I recall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #174)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:43 PM

226. Sure, men wanting a license to rape is always relevant.

 

And always abhorrent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:51 AM

141. What a load of RW horeshit.

MRA = asshole misogynists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:58 AM

142. The speaker engages in a most wonderfully imaginative false equivalency

The speaker engages in a most wonderfully imaginative false equivalency-- all the better to allow those who assume the fictional role of the Martyred Male to ignore or even deny the realities of history, regardless of (the most spurious and irrelevant correlation) whether my own father was a monster or not. I hope that he learns, one day if not tomorrow, the specific and relevant difference between 'aberration' and 'common.'

He speaks with the same meter, the same passion and the same style of Bradley Smith and the CODOH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:01 PM

144. "Trash This Thread". no text

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:16 PM

146. Also, for the record;

 

Farrell was a director for NOM-New York:

When the second wave of the women’s movement evolved in the late 1960s, Farrell’s support of it led the National Organization for Women’s New York City chapter to ask him to form a men’s group. The response to that group led to his ultimately forming some 300 additional men and women's groups and becoming the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women in N.Y.C. (1971–74)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #146)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:09 PM

176. Facts don't matter

they blindly rage against anything male, so critical thinking is a fleeting concept with most of the feminist movement these days. Some of the more progressive younger feminists at least understand the need for an approach that involves men and women to work together. When the older feminists view males as the enemy, and well as their different behavior no wonder they end up in this spiraling abyss. They use explosive language, but primitive ways to convey disagreement by labeling males as potential rapists. That is like calling a peron on the street a potential killer. Just because it is possible, or may turn out to be true, we as a society don't make such leaps until they are actually true.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:12 PM

169. I have yet to find a "Men's Rights Activist" with anything useful to say

It's always the same garbage too. "Oh, those awful women. We're just poor, persecuted, innocent souls!"

I think MRA-types hate women, and blame them for everything that went wrong in their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dash87 (Reply #169)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 08:54 PM

170. That is a pretty bold blanket statement...

 

... and neatly crosses the border into offensive territory.

Equal rights for everyone or just the groups you deem to be worthy?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike_Valentine (Reply #170)

Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:57 PM

182. Gettin' kinda hysterical there, are ya?


Where did the poster say they wanted to take away anybody's rights?

This is what fascinates me about these discussions. Merely expressing dislike of something suddenly means you want to kill it.

What a hysterical response to criticism!

I happen to agree with the poster. I have a hard time understanding what it is men's rights people want. But they are free to want it and express their wanting.

I just notice they seem to run and hide when it comes to caring about anyone else's concerns or "rights." Maybe it's just me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #182)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 06:53 AM

184. I don't think that word means what you think it means...

 

There are men's rights issues that should be addressed.

Custody issues come to mind among others.

I would also say that the post went beyond expressing dislike and crossed into broad brush attacks that wouldn't be acceptable for other advocacy groups.

I think MRA-types hate women, and blame them for everything that went wrong in their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike_Valentine (Reply #184)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 09:51 AM

187. I don't think you know what "broad brush attack" means



When someone says, "I think..." they are expressing their opinion.

The poster did not say "All MRA types hate women." THAT would be a broad brush attack. The poster gave an OPINION.

So you get all hysterical and start accusing the poster of not wanting "equal rights" because the poster has an opinion?

Silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tsiyu (Reply #187)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 01:13 PM

194. Again...

 

Check the dictionary for the definition of the word "hysterical."

Declarative or not... Substitute any other equal rights groups of your choice for MRA and see if you get the same response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike_Valentine (Reply #170)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:12 PM

197. Equal rights for everyone - yes. That's why I dislike MRA groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dash87 (Reply #169)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 08:18 AM

186. You could say the same

 

of feminists.

And it would be equally true.

/undoubtedly there are feminists who just hate men and want to be seen as victims so they can blame men for all their personal problems.

//you'd be totally cool with someone equating those people with all feminists right? Fair is fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #186)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:30 AM

191. Except it's not true about feminists, who are about empowering

 

women and also challenging socialized forms of oppression.

MRAs seek to continue oppression by making it easier to punch their wives and rape at will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #191)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:38 AM

192. Oh of course, any group you agree with

 

is filled up 100% with noble people who have only noble goals.

Any group you disagree with is filled with demons exclusively and has only evil goals.

I know this to be true because in all my time on the internet I've seen it stated thousands of times by hundreds of people. They can't all be wrong.

Also by stating their views for them you have presented an effective and reasonable argument. So if someone were to state that feminists are all about hating men that would be wrong because it would be an outsider spreading lies about a large group of people. But if you say MRAs only care about beating and raping their wives that proves it's true and they are bad guys (who else would argue for the right to beat and rape women?) even though there is no evidence for this claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #192)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:07 PM

195. The false equivalence, both-sides-do it crap is ignorant at best.

 

Comparing the side that wants to prevent rape and prosecute wife beating to the side that wants to make it harder to prosecute rape and wife beating is not progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #195)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:28 PM

199. There you go again

 

making a claim then using that claim as evidence.

Feminists eat puppies. Why should you agree with someone who eats puppies? How is that progressive?

/see how that works.

Whatever your experiences with individuals can you at least agree that there are issues that primarily affect men and not in a positive light? I could list them but that's already been done and I doubt it would have any effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #186)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:09 PM

196. Feminists aren't regarded as hate groups by the SPLC.

And also, I've found most Men's Rights organizations to be hostile against women, portraying them as lesser-beings who only care about money and nothing else. Hatred of women and MRA groups seem to go hand-in-hand.

Equating feminists with Men's Rights groups is just ridiculous. Feminism has a rich history, while MRA groups are made up of women-hating troglodytes with very few legitimate gripes other than how awful women are, how they should just shut up and be silent, and how superior men are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dash87 (Reply #196)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 02:27 PM

198. All I found on their site

 

was one reference to some people spreading false claims.

Could you be more specific?

"And also, I've found most Men's Rights organizations to be hostile against women, portraying them as lesser-beings who only care about money and nothing else. Hatred of women and MRA groups seem to go hand-in-hand. "

Funny, I've noticed the same thing about *some* feminists but against men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:23 AM

189. This rape apologist has supporters here?

 

Ugh, why not have a David Duke "the myth of white privilege" discussion while we're at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 12:05 PM

193. I run the risk of being hated by feminists

 

dont get me wrong here but I do support women, I am one too
But I really think male and female are meant to compliment one another, to be equal.

I loved this interview so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monaque22 (Reply #193)


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #225)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:24 AM

230. Oh dear

 

sorry to hear that....hope you didnt choke on it honey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Monaque22 (Reply #230)


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #264)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 06:41 PM

282. But your post made me laugh

 

soooo much, wheres your humour.....deary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:04 PM

200. Objections to this post are all essentially the Jane Fonda gambit.

 

The author once said something controversial, so therefore anything he might subsequently say, or in fact anyone who might agree with something he might subsequently say are instantly discredited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #200)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

202. The title alone is enough to discredit this OP. The "men's rights activist" seal the condemnation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #200)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:33 PM

219. I have never met an MRA who is not a misogynist asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #219)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 10:06 PM

223. MRA= Misogynist Rights Asshole.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #200)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 11:47 PM

227. The title of this thread refers to his pro-rape screed of the same title.

 

So, yeah, citing pro-rape propaganda will peg one as a misogynist asshole--as well as someone not to be trusted alone with a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #227)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:56 AM

232. You've just demonstrated that you've never read it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #200)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:03 AM

229. Oh noez! Uppity women with opinions!! To the MRA Treehouse! Retreat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #229)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 12:57 AM

233. They're not opinions, they're attitudes. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #233)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:12 AM

235. Feminism As Faith

Feminism, like a number of other ism's, is really only an extended argument. It has some cogency, but problems occur when people starting using its tenets as revealed truth. The relgious wars we're seeing arise from the discrepancy betwen people's actual experience and the tenets of belief.

Do some women oppress some men? Yeah, sure they do. Real life is complex. These situations are not anomalies, either. If you try to point out that feminist tenets of belief don't cover every situation, feminist hardliners are ready to call you nasty names.

We can get back to legitimate argument about what feminism covers and what it doesn't. Unfortunately, many people don't want to reopen for discussion what to them is settled doctrine. Remember that Martin Luther only wanted to discuss his twenty-four theses.
[center]


Thesis: Military Conscription Oppresses Men [/center]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:11 PM

201. I quit reading at "men's rights activist."

 

Silliness, reverse victimhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #201)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:23 AM

238. Good For You

As soon as you saw something that was going to require some actual thinking, you hit the brakes. Intellectuals are troublemakers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoDesuKa (Reply #238)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:37 AM

239. I don't engage in bullshit. I am already aware of that line of thought.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 03:21 PM

206. "We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting

 

"We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting."

Warren Farrell, in Myth of Male Power

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #206)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:08 AM

247. Date fraud?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

I wish it surprised me that DUers were actual fans of this shithead.

But then we have those same DUers claiming that if women are just paid a little bit less than men, that's ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #247)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:11 AM

248. "claiming that if women are just paid a little bit less than men, that's ok."

 

Citation needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #248)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:32 AM

252. You, yourself, called it "trivial", in this very thread.

If you need more evidence, read the last thread in which all the usual suspects lined up to howl about how it really isn't that bad that women are paid less for the same work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #252)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:36 AM

253. Ah, so you misunderstood what others write

 

understandable I suppose.

Trivial in this case meaning statistically so. If women are found after all that to earn 99.999999 cents per hour compared to men there is a difference but it is trivial as that difference easily falls within the margin of error (ergo it could be entirely non-existant).

And the threads I remember on this subject dealt with refuting the studies that showed women earned seventy cents on the dollar compared to men. Not that it would be ok for women to be paid less for the same work.

If you chose to misread that as "it's ok to pay women less for the same work" I'm sorry. But that is not what actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #253)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

255. The fact is, women are far more often paid less for the same work.

You can lie to yourself about what it says when people argue that it's really not that bad, it's pretty obvious to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #255)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:05 AM

258. Actually in no way is that established fact

 

I think you've gotten used to being on that other forum (which shall not be named) where everyone agrees and if anyone points out flaws in the sources quoted they are immediately removed.

Those studies were shown to have many errors. *That* is what was being pointed out on those other threads.

You must realize that just repeating a claim with "fact" before it doesn't actually make it a fact.


"You can lie to yourself about what it says when people argue that it's really not that bad"

Again, that's not what was happening. No on said it would be ok to pay women less for the same work. They pointed out this wasn't the case.

You are at this point deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to portray a large number of fellow DUers as hating women. That is not cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #258)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:07 AM

259. Yep, and global waming isn't real, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #259)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:10 AM

260. But strawmen are

 

Please point out the connection between global warming and the claim that women earn 70% of what men earn (for the exact same work).

Actually misrepresenting the opposition, throwing out "facts" with no sources, and labeling everyone who disagrees as being out to persecute you . . . this is what you and the creationist crowd do. If you're looking for a suitable analogy.

"Fact: women earn less than men/jesus rode a dinosaur. Anyone who disagrees hates women/jesus. It is clear from the way people reject this claim that they have an irrational grudge against women/jesus."

Yep, swap out a couple of nouns in your arguments and it could easily double as a creationist post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #255)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:51 PM

281. I work in the public sector

My entire work career has revolved around public education and services. I don't recall ever seeing a situation where one of my female colleagues was making less than I was. Because there are transparent and stringent salary and wage scales based on education and experience, I believe we are all paid the same for our level of E and E and degree of responsibility.

Could it be that the "women are far more often paid less for the same work" reality comes from corporate (read: private) practice? I don't know since I've never worked for a private entity, but wouldn't the "men v. women" pay discrepancies be more a result of corporatism than sexism?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #281)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 11:10 AM

293. No, it's not corporatism IMO.

The lack of such unfair treatment in the public sector is due not to enlightened people working there, but regulations.

It is fairness by force, which is of course better than letting those who support the patriarchy do whatever they like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #293)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 11:57 AM

294. It's an interesting catch-22

 

claim: women do the exact same work as men, same quality, same hours, same level of experience, same everything.

claim: women will do this exact same work as men for 70% of the cost.

reality: labor costs are a major expense for most companies. They would jump on the opportunity to hire workers at a discount.

reality: all companies are not staffed by women doing the exact same work for a fraction of the price.

Either that patriarchy puts bros before dolllars (which isn't born out by all that outsourcing) or this claim is bogus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #294)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:20 PM

295. Overly simplistic thinking there.

Salary is quite obviously not the only factor employers & interviewers consider when deciding whom to hire. I thought that would be obvious enough for even the most casual observer to notice. Perhaps not.

The fact is more men are unemployed than women. Draw whatever conclusions from that you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #295)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:36 PM

296. And yet this greater unemployment shouldn't factor into wage gap discussions?

 

Does the average male worker (meaning in the workforce - either employed or unemployed) capable of qualitatively the same job make more per hour than a female?

It is admittedly hard to accurately answer that question, and impossible to assign a cause.

Salary is quite obviously not the only factor employers & interviewers consider when deciding whom to hire.


Sure. On the one hand, it's good to hire someone willing to work 60 hour weeks - men generally are more likely to fall into this category.
On the other hand, it's good to hire someone who is hesitant to negotiate for salary or willing to change jobs to get an additional 50 cents an hour - women generally fall into this category.

This all presupposes equal number of male and female candidates for the jobs. Unfortunately, the real world is not like that. Women choose some kinds of careers, and men choose others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #296)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:44 PM

298. How did you get that from my statement?

Look, I accept that you deny that there is any unfair wage gap, and you think it's all due to reasonable and rational reasons that women are paid less.

We'll agree to disagree.

Furthermore, due to the fact that you support and defend and are a fan of an apologist for rape and molestation, I will no longer interact with you at all.

I won't go wailing and bleating and crying in meta about how awful and terrible it is that you back this scumsucking asshole up, and that you should be PPRd for it, because unlike the fact that Dworkin inspired NO ONE to go out and murder men with her SATIRE (yes, it is), this fuckhead puts forth his defenses of rape and molestation quite earnestly (and it's defended on this very thread, surprise surprise) and surely enables many child molesters and date rapists to rationalize their actions, so it is an entirely different and MUCH more disgusting and horrible situation... but your support for him is what it is, and we're done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #298)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 09:29 PM

302. Phew. I'm glad there's no "wailing, bleating and crying".

 

In a credibility contest between the one who reads (and recommends) the books written by phd's who advise to the president, and one who pushes the books of a violently sexist, schizophrenic attempted murderer, I'm comfortable with the high ground.

You can ignore/interact with anyone you wish. I will continue to call bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #295)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:42 PM

297. That is not true

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/jobs-report-women_n_1253092.html


Salary is quite obviously not the only factor employers & interviewers consider when deciding whom to hire. I thought that would be obvious enough for even the most casual observer to notice. Perhaps not.


So women aren't paid less then?

You keep dancing around the issue. You have claimed women get paid 70% of what men get paid for the exact same job/quality of work.

Now you're saying that it isn't all about salary.

Make up your mind. Are women oppressed by the evil maleocracy via lower wages or are they oppressed by the evil maleocracy via other means? I'd like to know exactly how I am oppressing you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #297)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:46 PM

299. Good god.



You should be embarrassed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #299)

Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:48 PM

300. I rarely get embarrassed for other people

 

I figure they are adults and can say what they mean.


Thus far you have stood by this claim about the 70% myth but failed to actually defend it other than with ad hominems.

An unbiased source would be nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #247)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:58 AM

256. You know, date fraud, when the women says no, but her body is saying yes.

 

Or vice versa. It doesn't really matter. A real piece of work, this guy. And, by piece of work, I mean piece of shit.

It is disgusting those in this thread defending, apologizing for and singing his praises. Just sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #256)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:04 AM

257. Oh, God...



I was afraid it was something like that.

It is truly sickening and disgusting that this man has actual fans and defenders here. Outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #257)

Mon Jul 9, 2012, 12:35 PM

303. Welcome to the new DU!

 

More proof positive that this site has taken a serious rightward lurch and is virtually unrecognizable as the site many of us sought refuge at in the days after the Bush selection.

Much of this place is "sickening and disgusting" these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #256)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:31 AM

262. When a feminist says the same thing, is it still disgusting?

Sometimes it's handy to understand context. Who knew?

Ferrell was referring to a study authored by two feminists:

Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex.
Muehlenhard CL, Hollabaugh LC.
Source
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-4235.

We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex--saying no but meaning yes--and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate the importance of 26 possible reasons. We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once. Their reasons fell into three categories: practical, inhibition-related, and manipulative reasons. Women's gender role attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and other attitudes and beliefs varied as a function of their experience with token resistance and their sexual experience. We argue that, given society's sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences, including discouraging honest communication, perpetuating restrictive gender stereotypes, and--if men learn to disregard women's refusals--increasing the incidence of rape.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #262)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 02:40 PM

265. Oh look, the fanboy is back!

 

Where in your cite is date rape or date fraud described as exciting? You are strarting to look bad with your sad apologia. ewwww.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #265)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:06 PM

267. Maybe look up "erotophilia" and get back to us. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #265)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:08 PM

268. Sorry to disappoint, but namecalling and false allegations have no effect on me

I see them as more of a reflection of the character(or lack thereof) of those who choose to use such cheap rhetorical tools.

The cite demonstrates that at least a pretty large percentage of women do in fact use token resistance in prelude to sex. Now maybe your argument is that women aren't having sex for excitement, but I would tend to reject that argument. Had you actually bothered to read the book (obviously you haven't or you would have known you were making a fool of yourself), you'd also find a cite for a Rosemary Rogers novel, which was written by a woman, for the consumption of women. So the two examples Ferrall gives for his statement you apparently find provocative (which probably was his point to begin with), were of women who find token resistance exciting. So the "we" Farrell was referring to meant women as much as it meant men, if not more.

The "no means no" meme is bullshit. The fact is that no sometimes means yes. Objective feminists know this and teach that people need to understand when no really does mean no. As it turns out, Farrell is directing that same message to men. Had you actually bothered to read the book you'd surely like to burn, you would have found the following in it's proper context:

Date Fraud and Date Lying

If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.

Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work wit hover 150,000 women and men- about half of whom are single-the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. And almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like, “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No.” They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of the most enduring of women’s romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O’Hara to bed, who is a hero to females-not to males- in Gone with the Wind (the best-selling romance novel of all time- to women). It is important that woman’s “noes” be respected and that her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. The danger is in the fine line between fantasy and nightmare.

The differences in each sex’s experiences are so enormous emotionally that I can create understanding only by conducting role-reversal dates: having the woman ask the men out and discover which of the men’s “noes” mean “no” forever, which mean “no” for the rest of the date, which for a few minutes, and which just mean slow down….and having the men feel what it’s like to have their “noes” ignored.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #268)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:29 PM

275. "The "no means no" meme is bullshit. The fact is that no sometimes means yes."

 

I'm done with you. I find you thoroughly disgusting and everything that is wrong with men. I surely hope no women have to suffer being your partner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #275)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:32 PM

276. Brilliant!

Fucking brilliant!

Please don't stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #268)

Thu May 29, 2014, 09:29 PM

308. what the fucking FUCK?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #256)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

272. That's "Date Fraud"?????

 

Jeez, has no one heard of jacking off in the bathroom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #256)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:12 PM

283. you know the old "she was asking for it"

Pro-rape and pro-incestual rape men disgust me, end of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #247)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:13 PM

271. I'd like to know too...

 

Looking online, Date Fraud is scamming through dating sites, often originating in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

I have heard of Warren Farrell - whiney angry white male playing the victim card, just like Scott Adams and Dave Sim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 05:03 PM

214. I can't get sound on my computer but I did look up information about the book

It is my opinion though that it is mostly other men who socialize men to act "like men" in detrimental ways. It is fathers who push their young sons to suck it up and act macho. It is boys who make fun of and beat up boys that do well at school. It is usually other boys and men who encourage other boys and young men to get involved with criminal activities. It is usually male bosses who encourage men (and women who want to be successful) to work long hours and spend less time emotionally on their families. It is mostly other men who think that it is a very male thing to go to war while women should stay away from it.
As far as the role of men and women in relationships, it seems that women are more becoming more likely to take responsibility for becoming self sufficient economically. I think that most women are less likely to require a man to earn more than her than in the past in order to have a long term relationship. I think that Feminism has advanced this attitude.
I think that it is Patriachy that hurts men not Feminism and women in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:15 AM

234. I vote we take this guy...

...and the couple of outright anti-male "feminists" whose posts get mocked at Fundies Say, put them in front of lecterns and let them talk each other to death.

Then the rest of us can get on with actually fixing things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #234)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:19 AM

236. Talk vs. Action

Thinkers are making trouble again, right? Down with thought! Early feminism was received with similar calls tor ignoring troublemakers.

Ahem. The problems with feminist theory are real enough. We're ready for Feminism 2.0. We won't know what needs fixing until we talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 07:44 AM

242. Pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble.

 

You can only find validation in this screed if you desperately want to find validation in it.

Subjugation of women as a survival-strategy is patent nonsense.

Does Dr. Farrell explain how lack of suffrage and denying women the right to vote played into this "survival strategy"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 10:25 AM

251. Can't watch now

 

But will and then track down the book.
Always interested in viewpoints outside the mainstream that ask the tough questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rabid_Rabbit (Reply #251)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 11:15 AM

261. Listening to the brief interview

it is clear what point of view is being portrayed.

And I agree with one of the above comments how males are falling behind in health awareness, education, etc. Feminists would have you believe that women are still weak (which is ironic given what the original Feminist movement was all about *cough*Empowerment, Independence, etc*cough*).

Most younger women are tuning out Feminists because they have strayed from their original message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rabid_Rabbit (Reply #251)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:09 PM

270. It's a good book, but some of the statistics are outdated.

 

In particular, at one time prostate cancer funding was nearly nonexistent, but today they've made great progress due to improved research funding.

However, at the time the book was written (1988), we educated men and women about equally well. Since then the state of men's education has collapsed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 03:09 PM

269. I am familiar with Warren Farrell. Angry white male throwing a tantrum. See: Scott Adams, Dave Sim

 

My guess would be that Farrell is unable to empathize...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 04:30 PM

279. Anyone who calls a victim of incest a "participant",

implying a child has a choice, is true scum.
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm
Had to bust out the ignore feature for the first time on DU3. Not happy about it, but anyone who can remotely defend his views on incest and date rape is a sorry excuse for a human being- much less a progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Thu Jul 5, 2012, 09:18 PM

284. Sorry, but when an author feels compelled to put "PhD" on the cover of his book

My mind snaps immediately shut.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 10:40 AM

288. No one to ignore but a good thread to trash.

Because Warren Farrell puts out trash ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dokkie (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:59 AM

306. yet another guy with mommy issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread