Idiot Men and Wise Women

Consider your average commercial.

As the scene opens, some moronic clown of a man, usually a husband, is struggling to figure out how to do some basic task correctly and is failing miserably. It doesn't really matter what he's doing (laundry, sweeping, doing the dishes, even something as simple as eating lunch...), he's doing it wrong.

But don't worry about him, he's covered! For sure enough, an all-knowing woman (usually his wife but sometimes his co-worker) is there to pull his bacon from the fire. Rolling her eyes and shaking her head in pity, she saves the idiot of a man before he utterly ruins everything. And of course the product being peddled is usually part of the solution. And afterward, the all-wise woman gathers with some of her fellow women (all of whom are wise) and has a nice laugh about the guy, who can be seen in the background messing something else up.

And, by the way, did I mention that the man is stupid?

And of course we’re all supposed to laugh: “Ha, Ha, Ha look at that stupid guy. What an idiot! Good thing all that women were around, right? Because men can't be trusted to breathe and chew gum at the same time without messing it up!"

Now, sometimes there is a variant of this commercial in which it is a pack of children, almost always led and spoken for by a girl, who are the all-wise rescuers of the helpless idiotic father figure. They (the children) step in with the product and save the day.

You know, I have no idea who these people are trying to sell things to, but I know its not me, because commercials like this tend to make me boycott those products. I refuse to give my money to any company that, in their commercials, says to me "Buy our product, you stupid schmuck!"

Now, this is not to say I lack a sense of humor or I lack the ability to laugh at myself from time to time, but I have to tell you, after the thirtieth or fortieth time in a single day I see the "Idiot Man/Wise Woman" style of commercial, I'm tired of laughing and am getting irritated about what is clearly a problem.

You see, I think these commercials are actually hurting our society. They are helping to promote and continue the sexist (not to mention false) attitude that men are all incompetent doofuses who need someone smarter and wiser (not to mention female) to watch over/control/guide them before they hurt themselves or someone else.

Even worse, what are these commercials teaching to children? From what I can see, they're teaching children (especially male children) that adult men are idiotic, crude, foolish, lustful, and untrustworthy. A steady diet of disrespect for a single gender served up in commercials that adult men (especially their own fathers) are to be laughed at, abused, and generally disrespected.

What a healthy message to teach any child, much less a young boy. How does constantly being told that when he grows up, a boy will be a man who is lazy, unfaithful, inappropriate, rude, addicted to beer, unclean and unkept, inattentive, addicted to beer, and an utter moron help that boy become a decent human being?

The "men are idiots" message in these commercials might have a certain humor about it (it is fun to make light of the honest differences between men and women, after all) but in the end, its not the attitude we need to be cultivating. Women do owe men respect, if only as fellow human beings, in the same way that men owe women respect.

Constant ridicule of one segment of society is not helpful for anyone.

I've spoken on this subject before and people have responded with "Yeah, well, its just a joke." Yeah, well, its not funny anymore. One woman told me that "These commercials reflect our culture." Really? You mean to tell me that you think the men in your life (your fathers, your husbands, your sons, and your friends) are truly like this? That they are all idiots and morons who can't be trusted to tie their shoes correctly? What a wonderful opinion you have of them.

Try reversing the roles in these commercials and making the women the butt of the joke and see how funny you think they are after the twentieth time you see women depicted like that. See how soon you decide to boycott the product they are selling in the commercial.

Commercial advertisement, like all forms of public media, not only reflects our common culture but helps shape it. So I ask one more time, how does all this negativity toward men and boys affect the public perception of male human beings in general? I can't see it affecting them in any way but harmfully.

The truth is that its not just the commercials.  There are almost no healthy, balanced portrayals of men in our current popular culture. Its not just the morons displayed in the commercials, its the fact that men are generally portrayed as over-aggressive, overly violent, crude, dirty, and hyper-sexualized. In popular media, the "heroes" are often amoral, out of control, and bordering on criminal when they aren't seen as unintelligent, weak, and ineffectual.

None of which helps anyone become good, caring, attentive, and most importantly responsible husbands and fathers.

Feminism's False Dichotomy

"I'd like every man who doesn't call himself a feminist to explain to the women in his life why he doesn't believe in equality." -- Louise Brealy

Ladies and gentlemen, let me direct your attention to this statement by British actress, writer, and journalist Louise Brealey.  I call your attention to it because it is indicative of modern feminist thought.  It is also a perfect example of what intelligent people call the "False Dichotomy Fallacy."


Putting it quite simply, the False Dichotomy Fallacy is when a person frames their arguments as if there is only two possible options to choose from.  That is, they frame their argument so that either A is the truth, or B is the truth, as if there are no other possible options, despite the fact that its perfectly possible for any of the options C through Z to actually be true.


In this case, Ms. Brealey is saying "If you do not support feminism (Option A) you must oppose gender equality (Option B)."  Her statement makes it quite clear that, in her opinion, at least, you cannot believe in and support gender equality if you are not a feminist.  And the reason why this is a fallacy (that is, the reason why it is bad logic) is simple:  it is absolutely possible to not favor "Feminism" (a specific political movement) and yet still be in favor of "gender equality" (a specific political ideal).


If you're wondering how such a thing is possible, I beg of you:  open your mind and stop drinking the Kool-Aid for a moment and listen.  It is possible for several reasons.


First, it is entirely possible to be a proponent of gender equality, yet not agree with the methods by which the feminist movement goes about achieving gender equality.  Remember the push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, back in the 70s and early 80s?  There were several pro-women groups -- groups made up of women campaigning on behalf of the rights of women -- who opposed the ERA because they opposed the specific language involved in the proposed amendment.  They were not opposed to the idea of gender equality -- they just didn't like the fact that the Amendment, as it was written, infantilized women and implied that they (women) were second class citizens.


In addition, several of those women refused to describe themselves as "feminist" and did not support the ERA because they didn't go for the "sexual politics" part of the movement (and by that they and I mean the actual "sex" parts of the politics -- the free access to birth control, the support of abortion, and so on) while supporting the "gender politics" parts of it (equal pay for equal work, no second class citizen status, and so on) involved in feminism,  These women still supported gender equality, but didn't agree with the entire platform built by organized feminism and thus would not identify themselves as feminist.


Second, it is entirely possible to dislike the "enshrining female privilege" aspects of the modern feminist movement without wanting to end equality between the genders.  The modern feminist movement opposes -- and I am not making this up, they actively OPPOSE -- any attempt to bring more public awareness to male victims of rape or domestic violence, or equal access to recovery resources for male victims of rape and domestic violence.  The movement apparently sees such efforts as "taking the resources away from women", who are apparently more important than men simply because they are women.


They also oppose doing anything about leveling the playing field for men in Family Courts (thus giving men the rights and consideration already enjoyed by women) or the problem of false accusations of rape and abuse being used as weapons in divorce cases (to put it bluntly, the feminist movement claims that there are no false accusations, and that women would never stoop so low as to use a rape or abuse claim as a weapon against a man).


They oppose doing anything about the fact that the percentage of men graduating from college is dropping swiftly.


And they oppose -- and this one get's me fucking angry, guys -- they actively lobby against the increase of governmental funding for research into so-called "men's health issues" like testicular cancer and the like despite the fact that men's health research is only funded to the tune of a tenth (1/10th) of how women's health research is funded.


And remember, while they are fighting to stop anyone doing anything about these problems, they are screaming to the rooftops about how society as a whole is ignoring "women's problems".  Which makes their opposition to men's causes a little suspect to me.


Now, realistically, I cannot say that every single feminist on the planet opposes all of these things.  As individuals, I'm sure that they don't; I'm sure that there are feminists out there who are perfectly willing to campaign for more assistance to male domestic violence victims, or to level the playing field in family court.


But...


However...


That said...


Unfortunately, the feminist movement -- organized feminism as an overall whole -- actively and effectively does oppose these things.


And on that basis alone, it is perfectly reasonable for a lot of people to look at the actions of the organized feminist movement, think about it a little bit, and then come to the conclusion that they just can't get on board with that.  It is perfectly reasonable for them to say "Sorry, but I am not a feminist if feminism means treating male rape victims as jokes to be ignored at best and insulted and abused at worst."  Or say "Sorry, but I am not a feminist if being a feminist means thinking that there's no reason to do anything about men dying ten to fifteen years earlier than women, or committing suicide four times as often, or dying of cancer twice as often."


Which, to bring it back to the point I started on, means that anyone saying "You're either a feminist or you're a bigot who opposes equality" is either an idiot (which Ms. Brealey isn't) or has some sort of agenda that would benefit from people not thinking about just how much damage the feminist movement is truly doing to our society.


Think about it.

The "R" Word

So it seems there is a formal movement to outright ban the word "retard" from public discourse, and to shame anyone who does use it.  When the subject came up amongst some of my friends, I told them that I absolutely would not support such a measure, because while I agree tormenting some poor mentally disabled person with hate speech is wrong, people have the right to say things that you or I might find offensive.


In response, I was told that banning this word wouldn't really be censorship, because its not really about the word, its about respecting other people.  Its about not hurting other people.  Its about being decent people.  And, I was asked, why am I so in love with calling people retards, anyway?  Because apparently, no one could ever desire to just defend freedom of thought and expression without wanting to insult someone.


Obviously


As the saying goes, believing in freedom of thought and freedom of expression isn't just being able to believe as you like and saying things you want to say.  Its also standing and defending the right of someone else to think and say as they like, even if what they like to think and say makes your blood boil.


That's freedom.  That's true freedom.  The right to disagree is the entire fucking point of freedom of thought and expression.  And that includes some jack-hole's right to be an offensive dumbass.  That other thing?  Yeah, that's censorship.  Simple, traditional censorship, in which one group wants to tell another group what to think and what to say against the wishes of the other group.


Sorry, but fuck that.  I won't tolerate censorship, even when its against someone using hate-speech.  Even when what they say makes me want to lay into them with a 2x4, I won't stop them from talking.  Because I respect the rights of others.  Also, while it might be "about respect" to my friends, there are others out there who are behind this "ban the R word" thing for whom its all about the censorship, the political correctness, and the urge to punish people they don't like for the crime of existing.  I am not in the business of banning words to soothe the bruised emotions of other people.  And if you truly believe in free thought and free expression, then you shouldn't be, either.

"Its not about censorship, its about respect."  Horse shit.

I really get tired of people and their empty platitudes.

Yes, your intentions are good.  I've already acknowledged this.  But I've also already acknowledged that the worse offenses in history have always been committed in the name of "social justice".  That's why this "ban the R word" disturbs me so badly.  There is an entire section of our society who are quite willing to step all over other people if it means that they can be seen to be "doing good" about some social issue.  And they take to these causes with self-righteous fervor, especially when they can step on people en masse rather than one at a time.  And for some reason, this issue stinks of people doing just that.

What do I mean?

Ponder this question:  just what does banning the word "retard" from public discourse actually accomplish?  Is it going to end the vile behavior some people put the mentally handicapped through?  No.  Is it going to stop hate crimes against the mentally handicapped?  No.  Is it going to stop parents from abandoning their mentally handicapped children at orphanages?  No.  Will it stop such parents from abusing their mentally handicapped children?  No.

The only thing this will accomplish is allowing a bunch of self-righteous assholes to pat themselves on the back because they "made a difference" without actually doing anything important.  And then these same self-righteous assholes will go on to their next "noble cause" and the entire "R word" thing will be swept under the rug and no more will ever be mentioned, much less done, about improving the treatment of the mentally disabled.

The truth is, its all about context anyway.  You don't call mentally handicapped people "retards".  You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded. There is a difference between goofing around with your friends and intentionally hurting someone else with your words.  But even then, I don't think those words should be banned outright.  Doing so is the first step on the slipper slope that leads to having our freedom of speech rights taken away entirely.

The word "retard" isn't the issue.  Treating the mentally handicapped with human decency is.  Do something about that and you'll have my full cooperation.

NAFALT!

You know what I hear when a feminist tells me that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT)? Here's what I hear:

"Hey, I know we feminists are all on the same team, and wear the same 'uniform', and I know how even moderate feminists give tacit approval via their silence (and strength in numbers) to the radicals, but that doesn't mean you can paint us all with the same brush.  I mean, I know some of us are actively throwing our fathers, sons, and brothers under the bus, and I know some of us are actively taking away the basic legal rights of men, dehumanizing men, and demolishing their futures.  I know some of us are manipulating the system so it benefits women and demolishes men.  And I know that in addition to the ones doing active harm to men, there are a whole other bunch of us cheering them on from the sidelines. But not all of us are like that. Some of us stand around and do nothing but telling men who complain about the treatment those other feminists are giving them that not all of us are like that."

Believe it or not, I realize that, technically at least, not all feminists are like that. Feminists, like all human beings with a dogma, exist on a spectrum of belief like anything else. A few feminists, I am sure, believe as I do. They are truly egalitarian and are interested in things like a level playing friend before the law for everyone regardless of gender. The majority are only mildly toxic and self-serving in their rhetoric, agenda, and notions of female superiority. But the level of toxicity landslides quickly until you get to some truly evil, deranged people who are authentically calling for the mass murder (or at least the mass castration) of men. Rather than telling me that "not all feminists are man-haters, you'd be more accurate to tell me that not all feminists are actually interested in anything remotely resembling gender equality. Most feminists (especially most vocal feminists) absolutely believe they are egalitarian, but when push comes to shove they really, really aren't. And that's the problem, because these people are capable of justifying and promoting almost any sort of anti-male prejudice under the banner of "equality" in the same way that conservatives twist the words "liberty" and "freedom" in their rhetoric. When you scratch the surface of even the most reasonable feminist, what you find is some combination of gynocentrism, essentialism, misandry, and in some cases even misogyny. You find beliefs of female superiority and unchecked female privilege, none of which are compatible with the idea of "equality". That's what mainstream feminism is. That is what it has become. Once upon a time, I considered myself a feminist. Unfortunately the contradictions, fabrications, the fact-spinning, the outright disregard for the lives of men (except as they exist as privileged oppressors), and to put it bluntly the outright hate finally convinced me to separate from that movement. It convinced me that Feminists are no different from fundamentalist Christians in their inherent persecution complex and self-righteousness. Feminism offends my sense of what is objectively true, and I value objective truth more than I do subjective truths any day. Women only determine half of all subjective truth, and for that half to be imposed on men is not "equality". I still believe in the ideas that led me to feminism in the first place, but the movement itself no longer does so. And yes, I have "educated" myself, thanks. A far higher proportion of feminsts are "like that" than men are rapists, but this doesn't stop feminists from tarring all men with a broad brush that asserts that all men are potential predators. Male rapists do not represent, act on behalf of, or even claim to act on behalf of all men any more than female rapists represent all women. These vocal, hate-filled feminists, on the other hand, do claim to represent Feminism as a whole (and by extension, claim to represent all women, everywhere, because they can't tell the difference between "Feminism", a political movement that includes both men and women, and "Women" a demographic containing, for the most part, the genetically female population) These are not just a few bad apples in the barrel who are useful for stereotyping and demonization, like the rapists you use to demonize all men. These are your spokespeople. These are your heroes. These are the people you rally around. So do not begin to talk to me about how "not all feminists are like that." Conceded. I'll admit that not all of you are, in fact, like that. My point is this: so the fuck what. When the radicals are the ones driving the bus, the radicals are the ones deciding which way you're going. And lady, they're taking you with them because you refuse to get off the damned bus.

Bad Comedy: Conservatives and Small Government, Part 2

In my earlier blog, "Bad Comedy:  Conservatives and Small Government", I restricted my thoughts on conservatives and big government to the corporate conservatives, the rich and powerful among us for whom greedily grabbing up as much cash as possible from as many sources of possible is a reason to exist.

But now let me turn to the other type of conservative who, even though they aren't overly-entitled and all about business, would like to severely limit the government's ability to protect the common people just as badly as the corporates.  I'm talking about the social conservatives.

It's weird, but the truth is that the social conservatives are mostly blind to the hijinks that their corporate colleagues are up to.  It's a case of the left hand having no idea what the right hand is up to.  The social conservatives assume, for some bizarre reason, that the billionaire wing of the conservative cause is filled with fellow social conservatives who just happen to be rich.  Not true, but there's no telling them that.  You see, the social conservatives are too busy concentrating on their own idea of government to worry about what the billionaire's are up to.

The social conservatives idea of government has a name.  That name is "theocracy."

What the social conservatives want is a government so "small" that it can sneak into your house through a keyhole, then float into your living room, your bedroom, your bathroom, your hospital room, your library, or wherever free thought and freedom of action might be hiding and kill it.  The social conservatives want the government to grab you by the scruff of your neck and lay down the law to you.  They want the government to tell each and every single one of you how to live your life.

And no, we're not talking about telling you to put on a seat belt while driving, or to not drink until you're 21 or how you have to install wheelchair ramps at your business.  This is nothing so harmless or benign as the so-called "nanny state."

No, this is closer to the "ayatollah state."

This is the big stuff.

These conservatives want to force you to follow their particular brand of religion, their particular brand of patriotism, their particular political ideals, and their particular concept of conformity.  They want to tell you which books you can and cannot read.  They want to tell you which movies and television shows you can watch.  They want to tell you which music you can listen to.  They want to tell you who you can and cannot have sex with (and in some cases, they want to tell you what actions and techniques you're allowed to use while having sex, not to mention whether or not you are allowed to use birth control).

Naturally, doing this sort of dogmatic control over society requires a very big government.

Theocratic America would, effectively, be a police state.  And this is fitting, seeing how much social conservatives absolutely love a huge military, plus lots of police officers, sheriff's deputies, marshals, border guards, FBI agents, and even Texas Rangers.  They think that its never a bad idea to have a posse waiting just off-stage, ready to chase down a n'er-do-well at a moment's notice.  After all, you never know when some of those godless non-conformists might get uppity.  Which is why most social conservatives support the Patriot Act, which allows spying on American citizens without a warrant, and holding suspects for months without charge (and if they are "terror suspects", holding suspects indefinitely not only without charge, but without aid of counsel, either).  These civil rights violations are all perfectly legitimate in the minds of social conservatives.

Similarly, social conservatives are really huge when it comes to the idea of punishment.  They are almost hoping you do something that breaks the code of conformity so they can call down the full force of law on you and force you back into the tiny little mold they have prepared for you.  These conservatives want the government to poke and pry and intervene in the most private aspects of your life, and then lower the boom if they find anything that even hints at you not following their rules.

They believe that their morality should be the state morality.  They believe that they -- and only they -- should have the power to determine whether it is legal or illegal for you to enter the country, stay in the country, get a job, vote, build a church (if you follow the same religion as they do, okay; if you don't, forget it), wear a head scarf, smoke pot, learn about science (especially evolution), make the art you're inspired to create, allow your brain-dead family member to die with peace and dignity, allow yourself to die with peace and dignity in the face of a painful and terminal illness, have an abortion, or get married.

And if you do anything they deem illegal, you're dragged to the courthouse where a judge sits in front of a huge representation of the Ten Commandments will oversee your case.  If you're a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Shinto, an aboriginal or tribal, an agnostic, or worst of all an atheist, you shouldn't hold your breath when it comes to getting a fair and impartial trial in this theocratic police state.

That is the wet dream of the social conservatives.  And it would be impossible without big government.  The wars waged by social conservatives on immigration, women' rights in general and specific, abortion, science, civil rights for minorities, the LGBT community, the atheist community, artists, actors, writers, musicians, video game manufacturers, and anyone else they don't like are the most visible symptoms of what kind of big government the social conservatives want to impose.

They want big government to put big restrictions on all of these, and they want those restrictions written into law.  Preferably, they want them written into the US Constitution and forever after enforced by the great big theocratic police state.

Let me tell you a story that reveals, in my opinion, a perfect insight into the true agenda of the social conservatives.  It is a stunning portrayal of the social conservative's notions of "small government" in action.  This is the story of Michael Schiavo and his wife, Terri.

Terri Schiavo collapsed with a heart attack on February 25th, 1990, while she was in her Saint Petersberg, Florida, home.  She was not discovered immediately, and unfortunately suffered massive brain damage due to lack of oxygen to her brain.  She spent two and a half months in a coma, and was then diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.  The doctors did everything they could to rehabilitate Mrs. Schiavo, but were unable to change her condition.

In 1998, Michael Schiavo, her husband, petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Florida to remove Terri's feeding tube persuant to Florida law, allowing the body of his wife to pass away rather than linger as it was.  He was opposed by Terri Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, who argued that Mrs. Schiavo was actually conscious and responsive (despite doctors' statements to the contrary).  The court determined that Terri Schiavo had left instructions saying that she would not want to continue living under such circumstances, and her feeding tube was removed on April 24, 2001.

But then in swooped the conservatives, led by professional shit-stirrer Randal Terry.

Terry's hand-picked "experts" argued that Mrs. Schiavo's case might not be so helpless.  They insisted that they had a right to butt into this most painful and intimate family decision on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo's parents.  They talked about how Michael Schiavo had "betrayed" Terri by moving on with his life, and thus had no right to make such decisions (despite the fact that, under the law, he was the only person empowered to make such decisions).

The conservative-controlled Florida legislature quickly passed the so-called "Terri's Law," that allowed then-Governor Jeb Bush (younger brother of then-President George W. Bush) to intervene directly in the case.  He ordered Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and sent state troopers to remove Terri Schiavo from her husband's guardianship.

A judge quickly struck down "Terri's Law" as unconstitutional.  The conservatives appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, where once again it was struck down.  Conservatives around the United States were absolutely outraged.  Not at this blatant case of big government interfering in the private life of a family, but by "activist judges" who wouldn't let the conservatives butt in.

(These activist judges were, by the way, just following the law.)

The affair went up the conservative chain of command, all the way to the Republican-controlled Congress and then-President George W. Bush.  Both Michael Schiavo and his wife, the persistently vegetative Terri Schiavo, were subpoenaed to testify before Congress!  Republican congressmen and senators had a grandstand-a-palooza, demanding the ability -- no, not the ability, the right -- to take control of the case out of the hands of the State of Florida and into their own.

So much for states rights, which is usually a standard fallback position for social conservatives when they can't get their way nationally, all the way back to when they refused to give up their ownership of slaves.  Congress passed a bill usurping Florida's jurisdiction, and George W. Bush flew back from vacation just to sign it.  So this was twice in this single case that social conservatives changed or created brand new laws giving them unprecedented power in order to pursue their need to impose their own sense of morality and justice on other people.

It was at this juncture that a private yet amazingly explosive memo was leaked to the press in which the leadership of the Republican party suggested that the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" and that the Republican party could use it to "stick it to" the Florida Democrats.  Suddenly sympathy for those on the side of keeping the brain-dead Mrs. Schiavo alive seemed to fall off.  After "Terri's Law" was struck down and the US Supreme Court quite intelligently refused to get involved in the whole mess (unlike when they decided unilaterally who won the 2000 presidential election), again Jeb Bush ordered Florida state troopers to take Mrs. Schiavo from her husband's custody with the intention of spiriting her out of state.

No one has ever actually revealed where they were planning on kidnapping her to, but personally I suspect that she would have surfaced somewhere in Texas, a state where the Bush family has a metric fuck-ton of political power.

The Florida Supreme Court instructed the state police to stand down and ordered Governor Bush to shut up or be held in contempt.  Bush reluctantly, and with much gnashing of teeth, complied, though there was enormous pressure from conservatives in the state and elsewhere on him to just defy the law already and damn the consequences.

Shortly thereafter, Terri Schiavo was mercifully allowed to die, and the whole sordid affair came to a conclusion.

An autopsy later revealed that Terri Schiavo's brain was way too damaged and atrophied for any possible consciousness to have ever existed.  She really had been in a vegetative state all along.  The whole hullaballoo had been unnecessary and cruel.  And not only had the conservatives been shown to be wrong -- again -- they revealed precisely the lengths they would go to in order to stick their faces into other people's very personal, very private affairs.  They pulled every nasty trick in the book, hurriedly writing and passing new law and plucking the highest strings of government, from the president to the Supreme Court, in order to impose their very small version of morality upon a single innocent family.

This example should flash a warning to anyone who believes that social conservatives really want a "small government."  Because it is clear that their compulsion to govern the most private and personal aspects of our lives shows up in their beliefs concerning abortion, gay and lesbian rights, religious freedoms, science and art, and many other facets of our lives.  And the irony is that apparently social conservatives can't see how contradictory their own belief system is.

Recall that these same people are the ones who chirp the loudest about freedom and the rights of the individual and self-determination when it comes to their own affairs.  When its them, they want Big Government to keep its damned hands off.  But that goes out the window when they find out someone else isn't conforming to their narrow-minded views regarding proper behavior.  When that happens, they want Big Government to step in and shut that shit down.

Hypocrisy writ large.  Its sort of crazy, when you think of it.

Jumping on the Bandwagon

So I've been watching the continual, ongoing manufactured outrage over Women Against Feminism.  If you don't know what this group is, its just what it says:  a group of women (of all ages, walks of life, backgrounds, ethnicities, and so on) who have basically said "I've had enough of the Feminist Movement's bullshit" and are making public statements to that effect.

For those who are unfamiliar, these women regularly produce selfies where they are holding up signs that declare that they don't need Feminism, followed by a variable-length list of reasons why.  (One of the most popular reasons being "Because I think both genders are worthy of respect, not just the one that has all the uteruses".)

The signs have all been polite, and have stated these women's public disagreement with the accepted dogma of modern feminism (that is, the don't believe all men are rapists, they don't believe we live in a rape culture, and they don't believe that not getting your way all the time equates to being oppressed).

The reactions from feminists has really tweaked my appreciation for irony.

Seriously.

The fury displayed at the thought that there might be some woman, somewhere, who thinks Feminism might be a bad thing has been hilarious to watch.  These women have been called whores, traitors, and brain-washed self-hating misogynists.  They've been threatened with death, and even more amusingly, threatened with rape by feminists who otherwise are busily accusing every man who even looks at a woman funny as being a rapist.

What's truly remarkable, though, is that, amid the the cat-calls and insults and rape threats and the statements that these poor deluded women who are committing the crime of not marching in lockstep with the Feminism Sisterhood just do not understand what Feminism really means and thus need to educate themselves, there has been an upswelling of support from older, more established, professional women who apparently have been harboring bad-feelings about "the movement" and how its been actively and intentionally hurting men for years, but who have never had the courage to say anything in support of men's issues before now.


I find it very, very interesting that it took a bunch of women vocally rebelling against the usual Feminist ideology to get prominent (and not so prominent) Feminists all over the world to finally start paying attention -- if only for a moment -- to the very same issues that men in the Humanist community have been talking about for decades now.  Apparently when these issues were brought up by men, they weren't actually worthy of consideration.  Men who complained about the problems with modern Feminism and how it is hurting both men and women were brushed off and ignored, or worse yet slapped with the insidious "Misogynist" label simply because they were men.  Feminism was thus able to refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful debate with men about these problems.  But now that it is women making these comments, its a bit harder to dismiss men's issues as the product of misogyny.  No one is buying the idea that the women making the comments are all brainwashed.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Modern Feminism.

Not that the Feminists aren't trying.  The utter outright bloodthirsty rage displayed at these women who have broken with the official party line by Feminists is, in a word, disgusting.  These women, whose only crime is to hold a dissenting opinion, are treated as air-headed bimbos, know-nothing uneducated, stupid, brain-washed, sluts who are only disagreeing with Feminism because they desperately seek a man who will take control of their lives and return them to the status of chattel.  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the women involved in #WomenAgainstFeminism are highly-educated college graduates who've simply made decisions based on the evidence provided.

If I could be excused for a moment, I'd like to "mansplain" something to all those Feminists who go into a red-eyed rage over these women, because they are clearly missing the point.  Over and over and over in the Feminist-generated critiques of these young women, I kept reading accusation after accusation of how these women apparently did not understand what Feminism was "all about".  I saw dozens of complaints that these young women simply "did not get it."  Feminism wasn't about the things these women were complaining about, whatever that happened to be, it was about EQUALITY.  These feminist critics would quote the dictionary definition of the word "Feminism".  They'd quote great feminist minds of the past.  They'd cite actions done back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s that led women to the positions and rights they now enjoy.


Except not everybody is buying what the feminist critics are selling, and apparently that's not only angering feminists, its enraging them.

I'm not going to lie to you.  Among the small community of people who give a damn about men's issues, there's quite a bit of gloating and sarcastic laughter going on about how Feminism is now being devoured from within over this.  A lot of us predicted this sort of thing, and damned if we weren't proven right.  But we're not really gloating.  We're just basking in our collective vindication.

The reason why Women Against Feminism is truly getting under the skin of Feminists about all this is because while Feminism is a political ideology, in a lot of ways its become very similar to a religious cult.  Sure, the inner circle, the great minds, have been preaching equality and tolerance and balance and all that good stuff.  But in the mean time, the more aggressive, antagonistic, utterly misandrist wing of the Feminist movement has effectively become the public face of it.  The public image of Feminism has been tarnished by women whose agenda isn't "equality" but really, truly is "hurt the men because they're men."

Not all feminists are like that?  Conceded.  So the fuck what?  When the loudest and most politically active feminists are like that, I don't care what you say, they are the ones driving the bus.  Let me be blunt for a second:  what has happened to the Feminist movement is the same thing that has happened to the Republican party at the hands of the Tea Party.  In an effort to appease the loudest voices and to maintain the appearance of unity, the Feminist movement has allowed those loudest voices, the ones belonging to the real man-haters out there, to dictate the direction in which the entire movement would move forward.

Or at least that's how it looks like, and perception is everything.

There's a reason why less than half of all adult women in America now identify themselves as Feminists.  Its because Feminism has become so associated with man-hate that even those Feminists who want no part of that particular kind of poison end up painted with it.  And even worse, three decades of systematically demonizing men and masculinity has managed to drive nearly all men away from the banner of organized Feminism.  There was a time when I would have proudly declared myself as a Feminist, because I believed (and still believe) in equality for all.  But I believe in full equality, which means that you have to take the good with the bad:  if women want to enjoy all the benefits of society that men do, then they have to allow men to enjoy all the benefits of society that women do.  That means we have to end the practice of giving women lesser criminal sentences for the same crime; we have to give men an equal footing with women in family courts; we have to give equal respect to male victims of sexual violence; we have to spend just as much time and money researching men's health issues as women's health issues, and so on


You know... all those "imaginary" men's issues that most Feminists brush off with a casual dismissal, when they acknowledge they exist at all, because the Feminists don't see them as unimportant.


Yeah, well, they're important to me, and to a lot of other people.  Which is why we don't want anything to do with Feminism.

Since the 80s, individual Feminists and organized Feminist organizations have made it quite clear that they don't want men along for their ride.  After all, we were the problem, and as the problem we could not be part of the solution.  The more men tried to not be part of the problem, the more men were demonized for merely being men.  Whether they intended to do this or not, organized Feminism, as a movement, became associated with the callous disregard of all things masculine, and with a deep disrespect for men in general.

And let me tell you, it has grown so bad that men cannot get together in a public forum and discuss issues like the epidemic of male homelessness (over 80% of all homeless people are men), or male suicide (over 75% of all suicides are men), or work place deaths (over 90% of all victims of workplace deaths are men) without having Feminists organize protests, make death threats and bomb threats, and threaten boycotts against the venue that dared let these meeting happen within their halls.


I mean, think about it.  Apparently, the very idea of men getting having the temerity, the utter gall, to get together to discuss male health issues was seen by organized Feminists as some sort of attack on women, and thus organized Feminists decided right then and there that such a meeting had to be stopped by any means necessary.


And by "any means" I mean death threats against the organizers, bomb threats against the venue, false reports to the police regarding criminal activity, physically blocking the entrances of the conference (and physically attacking anyone, male or female, who tried to run this blockade), and other criminal and border-line criminal means to disrupt the conference.

All because someone decided that a discussion regarding men's health issues, and how they are basically ignored in the United States, was necessary.  Classy behavior on the part of Feminism, don't you think?

You know, once upon a time, men were a lot more supportive of Feminism than most of us are today; but what did that support buy us?  Accusations that we're oppressors.  Taunts based on our perceived status as "privileged" that utterly ignored the disadvantages we suffer.  We were made the butt of jokes and casually hateful attitudes so often and so pervasively that these days many of these jokes have become common wisdom.  No effort was spared to heap shame and guilt on our gender merely for existing.  We supported the quest for reproductive freedom and the right of women to own their own bodies, and in return we were painted as closet rapists that needed constant supervision lest we suddenly attack someone.   Feminists savage so-called "male feminists" with particular delight because despite being supportive, they still insist on being male.

And when we realized that there was absolutely nothing we could do, when there was absolutely nothing we could say, that would show Feminists that we weren't the monsters they were accusing us of being, when we realized that there was no use in trying to make Feminists happy with us, and threw the towel in and stopped trying to appease them, we were labeled "misogynist".  So we left the table in disgust.  We're no longer interested in jumping through Feminism's hoops, because there's always one more hoop to jump through with no reward for it at the end.


It is no longer in the best interests of men to support Feminism at all.

Congratulations, ladies.  You've turned a population of willing supporters into people who are indifferent, or even hostile, to your political ideology.  Not because they hate women, but because they are tired of being your punching bags.

Like with the Republicans and the Tea Party, you played to your base and alienated the mainstream.  You have treated men like shit for decades, and some of us take it personally.  A lot of us carry scars from our treatment at the hands of Feminists.

And we're tired of it. 

So Sorry, But No.

"fem-i-nism"  the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.  Which means, ever so politely, you are incorrect.  Your strong belief in the right to political, social, and economic equality between men and women makes you a feminist.  Deal with it.
~ Mark Curlee

Mark Curlee, who is a friend of mine, hit me with this today over on Facebook.

No.  Sorry, still not a feminist.

Just because I believe in gender equality does not mean I have some sort of automatic membership in a divisive and harmful political doctrine whose actions do not live up to its own dogma.

I find too much about modern organized feminism -- the so-called "third wave" feminism -- offensive to want to associate myself with them.  I dislike how they cherry-pick the obvious outrages, like workplace harassment and rape, and then imply that we, men that is, are in favor of such things if we do not immediately fall into complete lockstep with them in every single particular.  Or if we don't start waving the feminist flag and cheering on the women who are loudly denigrating all men, everywhere, every chance they get.  Or, in this case, refuse to have a label imposed on us by others.

I have been wary of both the word feminism and the movement it is attached to.  Not because I am anti-woman, but because I am anti-hysteria.  I am opposed to overbearing, extremist fanatics.

The loudest, most visible, and most influential feminists today are the ones who make public statements that all men are predators.  That we, as a gender, are dangerous animals that need to be leashed and controlled because otherwise, no one would be safe from us.  I'm sorry, but why would I ever want to wear a label that said those sorts of things about me?

And its not just how they treat men.  I object to how feminism treats women who choose to take on the "traditional" woman's role of raising a family full time, or who take secretarial jobs.  Or any of a hundred other "traditional roles" that can be just as fulfilling as other jobs.  These women are called traitors and sell-outs and closeted self-haters.

I thought part of the point of feminism was to allow women more choices.  Apparently its only to allow them choices the third-wave feminists approve of.  Who'd have guessed.

And this is not just me talking.  This is why you seldom see accomplished women rushing to declare themselves feminist anymore.  Several high profile women who are at the top of their profession have refused the label because they don't want to be associated with the fanatics either.

For a long time, feminism has been one-sided.  Despite the dictionary definition Mark is so proud of, feminism ignores -- BLATANTLY IGNORES -- the way gender bias harms men, too.

You never hear feminists talk about the fact that our schools are punishing our male children for the crime of acting like boys.  Or how college enrollment among men is only 30% what it is for women.  Or how men commit suicide more often, or suffer more workplace deaths, or are homeless to the tune of 485% of the female homeless population.

Worst of all, feminism is hypocritically guilty of prejudice itself.  Men are stereotyped as the problem.  We are violent sex-crazed predators who are a potential harm to society as a whole.  Do you really want your sons growing up being told that all the time?  That just because of their gender, they are a menace to society?

I sure don't.

Most men oppose gender bias and the abuse of women.  I certainly do.  But to say I have to go about calling myself a "feminist" because of it strikes me as horribly self-righteous and judgmental.

Sort of like feminism itself.  Self-righteous and judgmental, I mean.

So sorry, but no.  I am not a feminist.  And I won't ever be one.

ADDENDUM

And less than 24 hours afterward, and in response to my explaining why I refuse to wear the feminist label, I get this sort of response:

Thank you for making it abundantly clear to anyone reading that you're just an woman-hating MRA who has absolutely no qualms about propagating the Big Lie technique.

So once again, you cannot criticize feminism without being declared a huge misogynist.  Quelle surprise.

What If the United States Really Was a Christian Nation?

Let's pretend the United States really was the Christian nation that the fundamentalist social conservatives and religious rightists claim it is for just a moment.

Seriously, let's just take them at their word and assume that they're right:  the United States actually is a Christian nation.

So, does America the Christian Nation live up to its lofty religious beliefs?

America, as a sovereign nation, has never once in its history actually acted according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Bible.  Not once.  Oh, sure, America as a nation sends a miniscule percentage of its vast and awesome wealth in aid to assist this or that third world country currently suffering from poverty, rampant disease, and natural disasters, but the very same fundamentalist conservatives who insist that this is a Christian nation want to put an end to that practice, and want to end it yesterday!

The truth is that the primary impulse from most funamentalist Christians in this country has been explotative selfishness, and this has been true since before we actually existed as the United States.

The first colonists from England had barely just arrived to the shores of the New World when they started stealing and murdering the indigenous inhabitants.  You know, that's pretty much the way the Hebrews acted when they entered the land of Canaan now that I think about it.  So perhaps we can call this behavior "biblical", but not "Christian."  Anyway, these English so-called Christian pilgrims quickly expanded their program of exploiting and subjugating the natives, promoting superstition and fear, murdering "witches" (a fad that they shared with a lot of fundamentalist Christians of their day) and establishing, via the Dutch, a lively trade with certain African warlords for that all-important commodity for their burgeoning empire:  cheap labor in the form of slaves.

And when they weren't murdering the natives, hanging and stoning people for being witches, or whipping their slaves into obedience, these enterprising "followers of Christ" were busily chopping down every tree they could find and shooting every animal they came across; both trees and animals were aspects of "nature" they believed they were given dominion over.  Again, we can see Old Testament style ruthlessness, but not a hint of the love promoted by Jesus Christ.

Adding to the problem is the fact that the rise of the corporations as a power bloc in America began almost as soon as the country was founded.  The very same folks that Jesus tossed out of the temple in Jerusalem, the people he warned had as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel had to passing through the eye of a needle, had already taken control of the government and were steering the brand new nation toward their own personal destination:  the Land of Eternal Greed.

This version of America is the same one that is still present today, what with its celebration of filthy rich celebrities who are famous for being filthy rich celebrities, its millionaire athletes, and its lineup of corporate titans who, despite having more money than they could ever hope to spend, drive themselves to acquire more and more and more.  Because enough is never really enough.  This nation is quite apart from any sort of Christian ideal.

The successful conquest of the United States by the corporations ended any concept of the American public concentrating en masse on thoughts of philosophy, art, science, love, or religious devotion.  These things would still be pursued by a few, but the overwhelming majority were lured into another way of living:  that of "consume consume consume."

Jesus said, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise." (That's Luke 3:10, just so you know.)  The corporations say, "If you've only got two tunics, you're worthless; what you need are a dozen of those things!  Get to a mall, now!"  Nothing is too childish, nothing is too silly, nothing is too meaningless to be obsessed over until you purchase it, at which point you'll be told that what you really need isn't what you just bought, but something you need to buy next.  And of course, while you're engaged in this endless cycle of purchase, purchase, purchase, your mind is far, far away from any sort of actual enlightening thought or activity.

Such is the real religion of the United States of America.

Currently, America is exporting some of the most dangerous products in the history of the world, including predatory business ideals, banking practices that highly resemble Mafia protection rackets, and industrial practices that are just short of criminal.  We send pesticides and herbicides oversees that are so toxic we've forbidden their use within the borders of the United States (apparently the rest of the world doesn't matter much).  This, too, is the product of the corporate domination of America.  And yet, we never hear a peep of protest from would-be Christians against this sort of "missionary work" as their so-called "Christian nation" deals evil to the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the American military-industrial complex arose that has never seen a lethal weapon it didn't want to sell to the general public at wholesale prices.  This has had an interesting effect on how the timeline of history has been portrayed in American textbooks.  History actually comes across as a continual cycle of "prelude-to-war", "war,", and then "prelude to war" again.  In its entire 238 year history (as I write this), America the So-Called Christian Nation has only been "at peace" (by which I mean, not fighting anyone at all) for only about 10 years or so.

In only the last 75 years, the United States has carpet bombed Europe, dropped two nuclear weapons on inhabited cities, rained bombs and napalm and agent orange all over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, invaded tiny nations like Grenada and Panama that had no hope of standing up to us, and then proceeded to dump "shock and awe" all over Iraq and Afghanistan.  The level of justification used for these actions varied from definitely necessary to not necessary whatsoever, but regardless of justification, "peace through warmongering" is the precise opposite of what Jesus taught.

It is clear, based on America's culture of consumption and endless military adventurism that America is about as far from being a Christian nation as it can be.  The only time that America ever strayed into the actual ideological territory championed by Jesus in the Bible was when it tries to take care of, and expand the rights and dignity of the disenfranchised and abused:  the poor, women, children, people of color, Native Americans, immigrants, gay, lesbian, and transgender people, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the oppressed, and the hungry.  In other words, those outsiders that Jesus Christ said would eventually "inherit the earth."

America has a special term for such people.  We call them We the People...