Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guy Talk: How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guy Talk: How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong

    A feminist guy is up to set the records straight to MRAs... and if we though that other feminist woman article lacked self awareness... this one, so much it is actually painful...

    When I was getting clean and sober in a Twelve Step program many years ago, there was one phrase from the literature that always resonated with me. We addicts have been, the book said, the “architects of our own adversity.” Yes, I thought the first time I read that. It’s time to stop blaming others for my own pain. It’s time to take responsibility.
    And this is going to be the main point of this article... men seffer because they are men, stop being men and the suffering will go away.

    Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.
    There, the article say it itself.

    As a professor who teaches courses on Men and Masculinity...
    LOL

    The older, angrier MRAs describe a world in which women (and their male “collaborators”) have usurped traditional male privileges for themselves. Men, they claim, are at a disadvantage in the courts, in the business world, in academia. The MRAs see public space in the Western world as increasingly feminized, and they fancy “real men” (in whose ranks they invariably include themselves) to be under attack from a dark coalition of feminist activists, cowardly politicians cravenly surrendering to the cultural left, and a media that never misses an opportunity to demean and belittle traditional men. It all provides a satisfying sense of being “under attack,” which is why many—not all—men’s rights activists use, absurdly enough, the language of oppression and resistance to describe their movement.
    Sounds fairly accurate to me... so... a debunk of this will follow up?

    The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.
    Oh...

    I wonder if that works the other way around... women issues are there because they are so much women, if they are less women, then the paygap and all that other stuff will just go away... sounds good?

    Whether they got it from their fathers...
    Evil fathers... good thing guys from my generation never had one...

    Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy)
    I have seeing less kindness, sensitivity, intuition and empathy from women, actually...

    The article keeps going over and over repeating the same thing.. but I got enough of it so I am stopping here.


  • #2
    Originally posted by simpleman View Post
    A feminist guy is up to set the records straight to MRAs... and if we though that other feminist woman article lacked self awareness... this one, so much it is actually painful...
    I think you've stumbled over some old stuff.
    AFAICS Hugo Schwyzer writing for The Good Men Project ... probably 4 or 5 years old - certainly before HS was booted both as a professor and a feminist for sleeping with his grad students.
    The GMP itself is a site catering to those men who agree that dismantling toxic masculinity is the top priority for men's wellbeing.

    Nevertheless.
    Picking apart an adversary's arguments can give some insight into how their mind works, including where their mind stops working.

    HS: "Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). "
    There's some truth to that; only, who is doing this divesting? AFAICS, feminist theory does this, denying that men have any human qualities at all.

    HS: "When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness ..."
    Yes, but again, who is doing the defining? Could it be the constant public message, via academia, politics and above all the media, that men are violent and obtuse?

    HS: " 'guy rules' rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others."
    Ye olde theme of "how can I turn my boyfriend into a girlfriend?".
    As if turning into a psychoanalysis patient over jasmine tea in the sofa would solve all men's ills. Event hough we know what happens when men really do that.

    HS: " This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes."
    Agreed. Again again: who is doing this shutting down?



    After this initial warm-up, now on to the point. Here's a chain of carefully crafted half-truths marshalled to swamp the unaware.
    This, too, merits being branded lazy, as well as dishonest.
    I guess I could do a passable job of disentangeling it on the primary verbal level, but are there any other twists?



    "It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. "
    - Denying female power.

    "But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history."
    - Simply claiming A is true, without evidence given. Key word: "umistakeable"...

    "And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group."
    - "Undeniable? No evidence given.

    "The “man laws” or “guy rules” were created by and for men."
    - No evidence given.

    "Historically, winning validation from other men has mattered more than getting sex or love from women."
    - Not if you want to have kids ... No evidence given.

    "(If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.)"
    - And why do they do that?

    "Males are raised to be “homosocial,” which means they’re taught to get their primary affirmation from other men rather than from women."
    - No evidence given. Are women not homosocial, then?


    So, what else?

    M

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

      I think you've stumbled over some old stuff.
      AFAICS Hugo Schwyzer writing for The Good Men Project ... probably 4 or 5 years old - certainly before HS was booted both as a professor and a feminist for sleeping with his grad students.
      The GMP itself is a site catering to those men who agree that dismantling toxic masculinity is the top priority for men's wellbeing.
      Oh well... i neglect to check dates... but... 4 or years doesn't seems tht old anyway... I don't know...

      Fun fact... for a long time I though the GMP was actually a MRAs website... and even today I'm still not sure if it is or not...

      HS: "Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). "
      There's some truth to that; only, who is doing this divesting? AFAICS, feminist theory does this, denying that men have any human qualities at all.
      LOL.... that quote claims that to be a man one have to mutilate himself from femininity??? Really??? So basically we are incomplete women then??? some people...

      Comment

      Working...
      X