I assume he wrote this from the cart on the way to the guillotine?
I find this all so foreign. I was a libertine, and I often was disappointed to find that I was approaching sex very differently from my partner, but I never, ever experienced anything like what I constantly hear described now: doubt in the aftermath of sex over whether I genuinely "consented." Those were hard-drinking days, too. I always knew the difference between "yes" and "no," and so did everyone around me. What's so difficult about that part? Other parts, I grant you, are difficult, as Mansfield ably points out.
I was never a libertine sexually, although I certainly was when it came to drinking! But though I was more than occasionally invested with both drink and female company, never once did I take advantage -- as it is said -- of any of these ladies.
Once one of them did kiss me, though. I will always have a special place in my heart for her. She was a very fine young woman, of whom I always thought a great deal.
There is actually an interesting philosophical argument in Mansfield's piece, which is here:
"The trouble is that the two do not work in concert. If “woman” is defined by society, by social construction, then women are dependent on society and not independent. They are defined not by their voices but by their voices’ being heard, not by their accomplishments but by being recognized for their accomplishments..."
One of the positions Aristotle considers and rejects early in the Nicomachean Ethics is that the receipt of "honors" is the end of ethics. It was commonly believed among many Greeks, he argued, that the point of ethical behavior was to receive the admiration of the community -- respect, adulation, awards, to be promoted to positions of influence and dignity.
This won't do, Aristotle said, because the receipt of honors doesn't depend upon the ethical person at all. It depends on the community. A person could then do all the right things, and not get any of the rewards (a problem Plato raises in the opening books of the Republic).
He says:
"But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a person and not easily taken from him."
Now, it remains for Mansfield to prove that he's right in his characterization -- although he has given an argument, I think he's subject to the counterargument that not the whole of the Feminist movement believes that femininity is merely socially constructed.
But at least the form of the argument he's making is valid: if your final condition for "what right looks like" has to do with how other people receive you rather than how you are yourself, you're falling into the trap that Aristotle identifies. A just society can't be about 'being heard, rather than speaking.' Nor can a just society be about 'being approved-of'. Those are both things the actor can't really affect: finally, the end of ethics is doing what's right, regardless of whether anyone listens or whether anyone approves of it.
Of course, as always in Aristotle, it's more complex than that. In the end, a just society will listen as well as speak, and will approve of those who do right. But they'll do those things not because they've set up a system to force them to do them, but because they've set up a system to develop themselves into the right kind of people.
What Texan99 said. Although I wonder about one thing. Back in my college days (40 years ago), we (my college classmates and I) weren't living by our mothers' rules but we knew what they were. Perhaps we were making decisions about what we were doing while the young women who end up unsure about consent are simply doing what they think is expected or normal or natural or inevitable. There may be a difference between making a decision to have sex despite the old rules and trying to negotiate the minefield of sex without any rules to guide you, whether by adherence or by rebellion.
If my stepmother had views on the subject, she didn't communicate them to me, not that I would have cared either way. I was sure she was as nuts on that issue as on any other (from my perspective as a know-it-all teenager). I can recall being afraid of pregnancy, but otherwise I was more or less swimming around in the attitudes of my peer group. There must have been some element of "nice girls don't do that," but what I mostly remember is "cool kids don't hesitate." Being a "prude" was social poison.
Nevertheless, if I didn't want a guy, he didn't get anywhere with me, and if that meant he thought I was uncool, it was the least of my concerns--an annoyance at most. I couldn't get away fast enough. My difficulty was in figuring out how to proceed with a guy I did want. Anything goes? Hold back out of caution and self-preservation? But those weren't questions of consent. Consent was always crystal clear. It was kind of like "consenting" to eat a banana split: I might know it wasn't a good idea, but no one else was overriding my free will about it.
I thought my mother was silly on the subject too but I knew what her views were. I hit college when there was still a strong camp of "nice girls don't" - or at least don't with a variety of partners or before getting engaged or before dating for a long time.
It was kind of like "consenting" to eat a banana split: I might know it wasn't a good idea, but no one else was overriding my free will about it.
Great analogy and I'm not arguing that anyone is overriding the free will of young women who are experiencing retroactive consent questions. What I'm wondering is whether they are living in a world where no one has so much as suggested that eating a banana split every time someone offers one might be a bad idea. Or, more strongly, living in a world where they are repeatedly told that eating banana splits is good for them.
I'm not arguing that takes away their responsibility for eating the banana split; I'm just wondering if that may be why they don't seem to understand the concept of consent - they have no sense that accepting or declining the banana split is up to them.
In the end, a just society will listen as well as speak, and will approve of those who do right.
I suppose what I'm arguing over at Cassandra's is that if one lives in an unjust society one can attempt to persuade society to become just but one cannot make ones own right behavior dependent on society's doing so.
Exactly--that's the part that confuses me. I completely understand what it's like to be adrift in a culture that no longer forbids sex of any kind and even talks it up as a healthy daily activity like running a mile in the morning or eating a multi-grain cereal. What I don't understand is why anyone reacts to this advice or social pressure by actually doing it if they don't want to. I guess I've never responded well to advice about healthy daily activities I should be participating in, if I don't happen to want to do them. I might think I ought to, but I never find myself driven into them against my will, or wondering after I've done them whether I was forced somehow. And yet it seems to be a common problem.
I only wish all it took to get me to diet and exercise was constant social pressure! There's certainly enough pressure of that kind around me. Perhaps I'm not good at detecting most kinds of social pressure.
On re-reading the social construct section of the article, perhaps what I'm really arguing is for the existence of individuals rather than social constructs. My feminism was about allowing women to be individuals, not about changing them from one kind of social construct into another.
I might think I ought to, but I never find myself driven into them against my will, or wondering after I've done them whether I was forced somehow. And yet it seems to be a common problem.
Good point. Perhaps the idea of sex as a healthy daily activity is different from exercising because there is someone else involved, urging one on in sex - sort of like having a personal trainer or a running buddy. That sounds flippant but I'm quite serious.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how common a problem retroactive consent questions really are. We are hearing a lot about them but we don't really know what percent of casual and/or drunken and/or other sexual encounters result in a woman publicly expressing her conviction that she was taken advantage of or sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a hot topic right now; it will be interesting to see how many such stories are circulating a year from now when something else will be a hot topic.
Incidentally, I read the Harvard Crimson piece that Mansfield is referencing. This is not a case of a drunk woman sleeping with a guy and having regrets. I'm not sure what this is - I don't have enough info - except more proof that college women who have been or believe they have been, sexually assaulted should not be talking to their schools; they should be talking to the police and to a rape crisis hotline.
And to go back to my original point, the guy involved actually used a version of the line my mother warned me about in her very brief talk about sex. She asked me what I would do if a guy started telling me how much he had to have me, couldn't I see what I did to him, c'mon baby? (I told her I'd tell him that was his problem.)
On re-reading the social construct section of the article, perhaps what I'm really arguing is for the existence of individuals rather than social constructs.
That's just what I meant when I said that I think Mansfield is vulnerable to the charge that his characterization of Feminism can't be completely accurate. What he's raising isn't a problem for Feminism as such; it's a problem for those who adopt that particular strand.
The "c'mon baby, can't you see I'm hurting" approach was of all approaches the least effective, especially when issued by a guy I didn't want in the first place. I didn't particularly expect the reciprocal approach to work: it seemed unlikely the guy would act against his better interests and his strongest inclinations just because he perceived, for instance, that I was dying for some affection he didn't feel and some security he wasn't prepared to sacrifice to create for me.
My instinct is to recoil from any human being who tries to use his own misery to manipulate me. If I'm generous to such a person, it's by sheer force of will. As a matter of romance, ain't gonna happen: it's an instant buzzkill.
Grim: sure, there's no single "Feminism" any more, if there ever was one, but he's reacting against the one that's particularly prevalent in his milieu right now. It's certainly the one that informs all this business of fragile young women discovering after the fact, to their shock, that they've had sex without consent.
What he's raising isn't a problem for Feminism as such; it's a problem for those who adopt that particular strand.
I think Mansfield covered himself on this point when he said:
The two [principles] are maintained without proof and to the exclusion of doubt, and are not subjected to debate. If someone wants to call them “radical feminism” as opposed to moderate feminism that merely wants to improve the status of women, I do not object as long as it is clear that these two principles are the ground of today’s feminism.
Although it saddens me a great deal to finally admit this, I think Mansfield is correct that what is usually thought of as feminism today is the "radical feminism" of his definition. (It is not at all radical, really, being merely a desire - as Mansfield implies - that feminists, rather than "patriarchal males", be the ones telling everyone who to be, what to think, what to say, and what to do.)
Amen. I take abuse from this on every comment thread where I stake out my ground as a feminist, while refusing to align myself with the Female Supremacy crowd. Lately I'm getting a lot of demands that I stop using the "term" feminist, because it has come to mean something else now, and by adopting it I'm giving aid and comfort to what amounts to Pink Skinheads. And then I usually get blamed for whatever horrible thing some guy's ex-wife did to him in court now that the deck is stacked against men, because people like me ruined everything.
Wow, I am really not in a good mood today. I'm fighting tooth and nail to understand "regular expressions" in search-and-replace text-editing, and how they differ depending on what editing interface I'm in. Project Gutenberg has got some seriously hard-to-search archives for sorting out this kind of thing, which I guess it what happens with a crowd-sourced site. So it's my own fault for preferring a certain amount of anarchy! But right now I could do with a little more order.
I thought Mansfield's disclaimer there, Elise, wasn't well-formed. But probably my sense is that the issue isn't one of "moderation" versus "radicalism," but a real philosophical difference in the basic program on offer. One might object to being called a "moderate," by saying, "No, I'm not at all moderate about this: this is the most important thing in the world to me. It's just not what those other feminists are talking about."
I agree that "moderate" and "radical" aren't helpful. I'm radical in my feminism, and equally radical in my rejection of Female Supremacy. The difference isn't in the equability of my attitude but in the stark difference between two positions: an equal respect for men and women, on the one hand, and a belief that woman are or should be naturally ascendant, on the other. I haven't any more use for female supremacy than for male supremacy, and for exactly the same reasons.
PS, Even so, though he used bad terminology, he was accurately describing the rift between the two traditions, and his quarrel seems to be only with one of them.
Lately I'm getting a lot of demands that I stop using the "term" feminist, because it has come to mean something else now, and by adopting it I'm giving aid and comfort to what amounts to Pink Skinheads.
I used to say I was a Real Feminist rather than an Institutional Feminist. Sommers uses Equity Feminist and Gender Feminist which I think is a good distinction. I also think I'm what is usually understood to be a Conservative Feminist, not in the sense that I'm a Feminist who is also a Conservative but in the sense that, as a Feminist, I didn't want to change the rules of the game - I just wanted everyone to have access to and compete on the same level playing fields. So perhaps I'll pick one label (I kind of like "Equity Feminist") and call myself that. It won't really help with the guy who blames me for his ex-wife's failing but you can't have everything.
Grim - I agree there is a difference of kind rather than degree between what Mansfield calls "radical feminism" and what he calls "moderate feminism". I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he does too and was simply using a kind of shorthand nod to feminists like me before getting on with his critique of the "other" kind of feminist.
I would react badly to being called a "moderate feminist" - hence my use of the terms I describe above. I do like your response to being so called and hope you won't mind if I use it should the need arise.
I suppose what I'm arguing over at Cassandra's is that if one lives in an unjust society one can attempt to persuade society to become just but one cannot make ones own right behavior dependent on society's doing so.
Elise, that is *exactly* what I object to in Dr. Helen's writing and that of so many of the MRA crowd :p
Individuals and humans with free will make their own destiny and path, but 68% of humans are little more than zombies. They, literally, need society and an Authority to tell them what to do, or else they won't do it.
It's not feasible for everyone to become a warrior-king. Who, then, will be the subordinates? And a lot of people like obeying orders, not giving them or deciding things.
Yikes. I wasn't familiar with MRA, but I figured the MR was for Men's Rights, so I found an MRA website. There's an irony-free environment.
And this: "You can debate whether the original goal of feminism [was] to bring men down, or if it was an unintended consequence," - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/10/#sthash.z3E8i32e.dpuf"
That's tame compared to the stuff I see all the time. The only way I see it is that right leaning bloggers link to that nonsense approvingly.
I'm sure there must be MRA types who don't hate women and spend their time telling men that women secretly control them with the mystical power of our hoo-has (ummm... if that's really true, there are some pathetic excuses for men walking the streets) because... WAIT FOR IT! ... every single thing men do is for sex.
Apparently, you 5th appendage-havers have no brains and are completely self-centered whiny babies. One wonders how math and engineering and science and philosophy came into being, but the answer's always the same: sex.
If men do something good or smart, that proves that men are innately superior to women. If you do something bad, it's a woman's fault. Most likely, she either:
1. Had sex with someone she shouldn't have.
2. Refused to have sex with someone who wanted to have sex with her.
Based on the awesome ensmartening power of these geniuses, I have decided not to treat my husband as a thinking, rational human being any more. I will just use my amazing hoo-ha to control him.
Even though he's superior to me.
I'm sure if I were smarter, I'd be able to resolve the apparent contradiction...
26 comments:
I assume he wrote this from the cart on the way to the guillotine?
I find this all so foreign. I was a libertine, and I often was disappointed to find that I was approaching sex very differently from my partner, but I never, ever experienced anything like what I constantly hear described now: doubt in the aftermath of sex over whether I genuinely "consented." Those were hard-drinking days, too. I always knew the difference between "yes" and "no," and so did everyone around me. What's so difficult about that part? Other parts, I grant you, are difficult, as Mansfield ably points out.
I was never a libertine sexually, although I certainly was when it came to drinking! But though I was more than occasionally invested with both drink and female company, never once did I take advantage -- as it is said -- of any of these ladies.
Once one of them did kiss me, though. I will always have a special place in my heart for her. She was a very fine young woman, of whom I always thought a great deal.
There is actually an interesting philosophical argument in Mansfield's piece, which is here:
"The trouble is that the two do not work in concert. If “woman” is defined by society, by social construction, then women are dependent on society and not independent. They are defined not by their voices but by their voices’ being heard, not by their accomplishments but by being recognized for their accomplishments..."
One of the positions Aristotle considers and rejects early in the Nicomachean Ethics is that the receipt of "honors" is the end of ethics. It was commonly believed among many Greeks, he argued, that the point of ethical behavior was to receive the admiration of the community -- respect, adulation, awards, to be promoted to positions of influence and dignity.
This won't do, Aristotle said, because the receipt of honors doesn't depend upon the ethical person at all. It depends on the community. A person could then do all the right things, and not get any of the rewards (a problem Plato raises in the opening books of the Republic).
He says:
"But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a person and not easily taken from him."
Now, it remains for Mansfield to prove that he's right in his characterization -- although he has given an argument, I think he's subject to the counterargument that not the whole of the Feminist movement believes that femininity is merely socially constructed.
But at least the form of the argument he's making is valid: if your final condition for "what right looks like" has to do with how other people receive you rather than how you are yourself, you're falling into the trap that Aristotle identifies. A just society can't be about 'being heard, rather than speaking.' Nor can a just society be about 'being approved-of'. Those are both things the actor can't really affect: finally, the end of ethics is doing what's right, regardless of whether anyone listens or whether anyone approves of it.
Of course, as always in Aristotle, it's more complex than that. In the end, a just society will listen as well as speak, and will approve of those who do right. But they'll do those things not because they've set up a system to force them to do them, but because they've set up a system to develop themselves into the right kind of people.
What Texan99 said. Although I wonder about one thing. Back in my college days (40 years ago), we (my college classmates and I) weren't living by our mothers' rules but we knew what they were. Perhaps we were making decisions about what we were doing while the young women who end up unsure about consent are simply doing what they think is expected or normal or natural or inevitable. There may be a difference between making a decision to have sex despite the old rules and trying to negotiate the minefield of sex without any rules to guide you, whether by adherence or by rebellion.
If my stepmother had views on the subject, she didn't communicate them to me, not that I would have cared either way. I was sure she was as nuts on that issue as on any other (from my perspective as a know-it-all teenager). I can recall being afraid of pregnancy, but otherwise I was more or less swimming around in the attitudes of my peer group. There must have been some element of "nice girls don't do that," but what I mostly remember is "cool kids don't hesitate." Being a "prude" was social poison.
Nevertheless, if I didn't want a guy, he didn't get anywhere with me, and if that meant he thought I was uncool, it was the least of my concerns--an annoyance at most. I couldn't get away fast enough. My difficulty was in figuring out how to proceed with a guy I did want. Anything goes? Hold back out of caution and self-preservation? But those weren't questions of consent. Consent was always crystal clear. It was kind of like "consenting" to eat a banana split: I might know it wasn't a good idea, but no one else was overriding my free will about it.
I thought my mother was silly on the subject too but I knew what her views were. I hit college when there was still a strong camp of "nice girls don't" - or at least don't with a variety of partners or before getting engaged or before dating for a long time.
It was kind of like "consenting" to eat a banana split: I might know it wasn't a good idea, but no one else was overriding my free will about it.
Great analogy and I'm not arguing that anyone is overriding the free will of young women who are experiencing retroactive consent questions. What I'm wondering is whether they are living in a world where no one has so much as suggested that eating a banana split every time someone offers one might be a bad idea. Or, more strongly, living in a world where they are repeatedly told that eating banana splits is good for them.
I'm not arguing that takes away their responsibility for eating the banana split; I'm just wondering if that may be why they don't seem to understand the concept of consent - they have no sense that accepting or declining the banana split is up to them.
In the end, a just society will listen as well as speak, and will approve of those who do right.
I suppose what I'm arguing over at Cassandra's is that if one lives in an unjust society one can attempt to persuade society to become just but one cannot make ones own right behavior dependent on society's doing so.
Exactly--that's the part that confuses me. I completely understand what it's like to be adrift in a culture that no longer forbids sex of any kind and even talks it up as a healthy daily activity like running a mile in the morning or eating a multi-grain cereal. What I don't understand is why anyone reacts to this advice or social pressure by actually doing it if they don't want to. I guess I've never responded well to advice about healthy daily activities I should be participating in, if I don't happen to want to do them. I might think I ought to, but I never find myself driven into them against my will, or wondering after I've done them whether I was forced somehow. And yet it seems to be a common problem.
I only wish all it took to get me to diet and exercise was constant social pressure! There's certainly enough pressure of that kind around me. Perhaps I'm not good at detecting most kinds of social pressure.
On re-reading the social construct section of the article, perhaps what I'm really arguing is for the existence of individuals rather than social constructs. My feminism was about allowing women to be individuals, not about changing them from one kind of social construct into another.
Well, you're just a bomb-throwing anarchist! :-)
I might think I ought to, but I never find myself driven into them against my will, or wondering after I've done them whether I was forced somehow. And yet it seems to be a common problem.
Good point. Perhaps the idea of sex as a healthy daily activity is different from exercising because there is someone else involved, urging one on in sex - sort of like having a personal trainer or a running buddy. That sounds flippant but I'm quite serious.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how common a problem retroactive consent questions really are. We are hearing a lot about them but we don't really know what percent of casual and/or drunken and/or other sexual encounters result in a woman publicly expressing her conviction that she was taken advantage of or sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a hot topic right now; it will be interesting to see how many such stories are circulating a year from now when something else will be a hot topic.
Incidentally, I read the Harvard Crimson piece that Mansfield is referencing. This is not a case of a drunk woman sleeping with a guy and having regrets. I'm not sure what this is - I don't have enough info - except more proof that college women who have been or believe they have been, sexually assaulted should not be talking to their schools; they should be talking to the police and to a rape crisis hotline.
And to go back to my original point, the guy involved actually used a version of the line my mother warned me about in her very brief talk about sex. She asked me what I would do if a guy started telling me how much he had to have me, couldn't I see what I did to him, c'mon baby? (I told her I'd tell him that was his problem.)
Well, you're just a bomb-throwing anarchist! :-)
Why, thank you. Aren't you just the sweetest thing to say so? (I'm practicing my Alabamian. :+)
On re-reading the social construct section of the article, perhaps what I'm really arguing is for the existence of individuals rather than social constructs.
That's just what I meant when I said that I think Mansfield is vulnerable to the charge that his characterization of Feminism can't be completely accurate. What he's raising isn't a problem for Feminism as such; it's a problem for those who adopt that particular strand.
The "c'mon baby, can't you see I'm hurting" approach was of all approaches the least effective, especially when issued by a guy I didn't want in the first place. I didn't particularly expect the reciprocal approach to work: it seemed unlikely the guy would act against his better interests and his strongest inclinations just because he perceived, for instance, that I was dying for some affection he didn't feel and some security he wasn't prepared to sacrifice to create for me.
My instinct is to recoil from any human being who tries to use his own misery to manipulate me. If I'm generous to such a person, it's by sheer force of will. As a matter of romance, ain't gonna happen: it's an instant buzzkill.
Grim: sure, there's no single "Feminism" any more, if there ever was one, but he's reacting against the one that's particularly prevalent in his milieu right now. It's certainly the one that informs all this business of fragile young women discovering after the fact, to their shock, that they've had sex without consent.
What he's raising isn't a problem for Feminism as such; it's a problem for those who adopt that particular strand.
I think Mansfield covered himself on this point when he said:
The two [principles] are maintained without proof and to the exclusion of doubt, and are not subjected to debate. If someone wants to call them “radical feminism” as opposed to moderate feminism that merely wants to improve the status of women, I do not object as long as it is clear that these two principles are the ground of today’s feminism.
Although it saddens me a great deal to finally admit this, I think Mansfield is correct that what is usually thought of as feminism today is the "radical feminism" of his definition. (It is not at all radical, really, being merely a desire - as Mansfield implies - that feminists, rather than "patriarchal males", be the ones telling everyone who to be, what to think, what to say, and what to do.)
Amen. I take abuse from this on every comment thread where I stake out my ground as a feminist, while refusing to align myself with the Female Supremacy crowd. Lately I'm getting a lot of demands that I stop using the "term" feminist, because it has come to mean something else now, and by adopting it I'm giving aid and comfort to what amounts to Pink Skinheads. And then I usually get blamed for whatever horrible thing some guy's ex-wife did to him in court now that the deck is stacked against men, because people like me ruined everything.
Wow, I am really not in a good mood today. I'm fighting tooth and nail to understand "regular expressions" in search-and-replace text-editing, and how they differ depending on what editing interface I'm in. Project Gutenberg has got some seriously hard-to-search archives for sorting out this kind of thing, which I guess it what happens with a crowd-sourced site. So it's my own fault for preferring a certain amount of anarchy! But right now I could do with a little more order.
I thought Mansfield's disclaimer there, Elise, wasn't well-formed. But probably my sense is that the issue isn't one of "moderation" versus "radicalism," but a real philosophical difference in the basic program on offer. One might object to being called a "moderate," by saying, "No, I'm not at all moderate about this: this is the most important thing in the world to me. It's just not what those other feminists are talking about."
I agree that "moderate" and "radical" aren't helpful. I'm radical in my feminism, and equally radical in my rejection of Female Supremacy. The difference isn't in the equability of my attitude but in the stark difference between two positions: an equal respect for men and women, on the one hand, and a belief that woman are or should be naturally ascendant, on the other. I haven't any more use for female supremacy than for male supremacy, and for exactly the same reasons.
PS, Even so, though he used bad terminology, he was accurately describing the rift between the two traditions, and his quarrel seems to be only with one of them.
Lately I'm getting a lot of demands that I stop using the "term" feminist, because it has come to mean something else now, and by adopting it I'm giving aid and comfort to what amounts to Pink Skinheads.
I used to say I was a Real Feminist rather than an Institutional Feminist. Sommers uses Equity Feminist and Gender Feminist which I think is a good distinction. I also think I'm what is usually understood to be a Conservative Feminist, not in the sense that I'm a Feminist who is also a Conservative but in the sense that, as a Feminist, I didn't want to change the rules of the game - I just wanted everyone to have access to and compete on the same level playing fields. So perhaps I'll pick one label (I kind of like "Equity Feminist") and call myself that. It won't really help with the guy who blames me for his ex-wife's failing but you can't have everything.
Grim - I agree there is a difference of kind rather than degree between what Mansfield calls "radical feminism" and what he calls "moderate feminism". I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he does too and was simply using a kind of shorthand nod to feminists like me before getting on with his critique of the "other" kind of feminist.
I would react badly to being called a "moderate feminist" - hence my use of the terms I describe above. I do like your response to being so called and hope you won't mind if I use it should the need arise.
[Didn't see T99's last 2 comments before posting mine - so Department of Redundancy Department.]
I suppose what I'm arguing over at Cassandra's is that if one lives in an unjust society one can attempt to persuade society to become just but one cannot make ones own right behavior dependent on society's doing so.
Elise, that is *exactly* what I object to in Dr. Helen's writing and that of so many of the MRA crowd :p
So, I agree 100%.
Individuals and humans with free will make their own destiny and path, but 68% of humans are little more than zombies. They, literally, need society and an Authority to tell them what to do, or else they won't do it.
It's not feasible for everyone to become a warrior-king. Who, then, will be the subordinates? And a lot of people like obeying orders, not giving them or deciding things.
Yikes. I wasn't familiar with MRA, but I figured the MR was for Men's Rights, so I found an MRA website. There's an irony-free environment.
And this: "You can debate whether the original goal of feminism [was] to bring men down, or if it was an unintended consequence," - See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/10/#sthash.z3E8i32e.dpuf"
There's an irony-free environment.
That's tame compared to the stuff I see all the time. The only way I see it is that right leaning bloggers link to that nonsense approvingly.
I'm sure there must be MRA types who don't hate women and spend their time telling men that women secretly control them with the mystical power of our hoo-has (ummm... if that's really true, there are some pathetic excuses for men walking the streets) because... WAIT FOR IT! ... every single thing men do is for sex.
Apparently, you 5th appendage-havers have no brains and are completely self-centered whiny babies. One wonders how math and engineering and science and philosophy came into being, but the answer's always the same: sex.
If men do something good or smart, that proves that men are innately superior to women. If you do something bad, it's a woman's fault. Most likely, she either:
1. Had sex with someone she shouldn't have.
2. Refused to have sex with someone who wanted to have sex with her.
Based on the awesome ensmartening power of these geniuses, I have decided not to treat my husband as a thinking, rational human being any more. I will just use my amazing hoo-ha to control him.
Even though he's superior to me.
I'm sure if I were smarter, I'd be able to resolve the apparent contradiction...
*sigh*
Post a Comment