Posts Tagged ‘misogyny’

Emma Watson Starts HeforShe Campaign

Posted in Women's Rights on September 23rd, 2014 by Jim Newman – Be the first to comment

emma watson at UNEmma Watson gave a formal invitation for men to support women, calling it the HeforShe campaign. Watson stated the high level of suicide in men as indication that sexism and misogyny hurts men as well as women. It’s not one side or the other but a unified front. Sadly too many do see it as an us or them situation. It’s not surprising that many men feel like it’s an over reach. When maleness so predominates in a culture the assumption becomes that it’s normal, has always been that way, or treat it as a quaint attack against what’s already been overcome.

It’s the not me, or not all men, syndrome; I’m fair, balanced, and equal; it’s them dudes. Of course it’s not. If religion poisons everything, its henchman gender inequality and opportunity are its relics that persist in poisoning after people have left.

Atheism has had a long issue with sexism in its ranks, and still debates whether its so called thought leaders are sexist or whether there has really been stated cases of sexual abuse–it’s not abuse unless it can be legally proven beyond doubt in a court of law, and the women are shown to  have drunk, drinking,sexism  abdicating any possible victimization. Women rightly point to how there still is even in small things like atheists wondering who the next four horsemen will be, not getting that the language itself implies it will be men (horse people?) and further promoting the patriarchal system of leaders, authority, and social status.

Of course, immediately afterwards 4chan threatened to post naked photo’s of her. Its not odd that when men say be equal there are no threats of posting naked photos of them. The Telegraph talked about her wardrobe choices.

Online abuse is a war zone, including oblivious sexisms. A blog follower was abusive and another blogger asked for support. It took several tries before a *stop that*  was issued but no direct action. Meanwhile other followers said it’s not his job to police his followers. But it is. That’s the point. When we see or hear of abuse it is really our moral imperative to stop it or we are accepting it as normal.

It’s a good video. It continues efforts to raise awareness and introspection.

Jim Newman, www.frontiersofreason.com

Appreciating Women

Posted in Women's Rights on June 6th, 2014 by Jim Newman – Be the first to comment

encourage othersZaron Burnett writes a really nice overview of rape culture and how men can dismantle it: “A Gentlemen’s Guide to Rape Culture.” Towards the end he lists examples of rape culture.

  • Blaming the victim (“She asked for it!”)
  • Trivializing sexual assault (“Boys will be boys!”)
  • Sexually explicit jokes
  • Tolerance of sexual harassment
  • Inflating false rape report statistics
  • Publicly scrutinizing a victim’s dress, mental state, motives, and history
  • Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television
  • Defining “manhood” as dominant and sexually aggressive
  • Defining “womanhood” as submissive and sexually passive
  • Pressure on men to “score”
  • Pressure on women to not appear “cold”
  • Assuming only promiscuous women get raped
  • Assuming that men don’t get raped or that only “weak” men get raped
  • Refusing to take rape accusations seriously
  • Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape

Followed by a list of things men can do.

  • Avoid using language that objectifies or degrades women
  • Speak out if you hear someone else making an offensive joke or trivializing rape
  • If a friend says she has been raped, take her seriously and be supportive
  • Think critically about the media’s messages about women, men, relationships, and violence
  • Be respectful of others’ physical space even in casual situations
  • Always communicate with sexual partners and do not assume consent
  • Define your own manhood or womanhood. Do not let stereotypes shape your actions.

Burnett elaborates a bit on what men should do which is basically confront, correct and if necessary tell xenophobic, sexist, or misogynist manspeak to shut the fuck up. Ending with the point that there are social standards for men, all men, and if you plan to deviate do it in private with consent.

I can’t find much more to say except for more specifics of this paradigm. Well, that’s not true. I would say the single most important thing men can do is to learn to like women. Odd that this has to be stated. The specifics of this vary. I say this, for example, because this piece seems to be written by a white, urban guy who doesn’t experience either poverty, commingling with people of color, or rural redneck culture, all of whom will have different takes and ways of expressing these issues. Not to mention the question of honor and its perverse issues that transcend even the desire for food and life in many men across the world.

As a specific example of cultural myopia, if Burnett feels safe walking alone at night he doesn’t share a number of male experiences where predation is near universal. Having lived in some of these circumstances I automatically scan every room I enter, always know an exit, and apprise everyone I meet carefully and track all movement. I can’t help it anymore though I learned it long ago and no longer need it so much now. Nevertheless, wherever it is bad for men it is worse for women.

My first temptation in reading his article was to translate it to “A Rude Boy’s Guide to Not Fucking with Women.” The word gentlemen always raises my shackles as it was used as a means of differentiating class, and putting women on a pedestal, an impossible gilded cage that choked the life out of women. Yet more euphemisms for silencing women.

Interesting that most of the advice, excellent though it is, reveals a male protectionist view where action is defined as a negative ontology of correction, what not to do, even when stated positively. This is good but I want more.

Men need to like women. This basic assumption sounds facile like “do unto others” or “don’t criticize until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes” or most simply “be good to others.” Yet, if men basically like women they will seek to support women and enjoy their relationships with women. On all levels if men find ways of enjoying women positively everything else follows. Yes, it is also about rights but the core of rights, their reason for existence, is a positive affirmation of their existence and presence.

It is too easy to view pretty much everything as competition and correction, even when bantering with “unconditional positive regard.” It’s not a competition, it’s a partnership. To counter this otherness it is popular to seek empathy. I’m saying go further and appreciate. It is far richer and more satisfying for everyone.

I don’t mean some superficial positivity. I mean something you truly and sincerely like and appreciate, and then act on it. Do it often and do it with care. It’s easy to muck about in finding common enemies or relating to horrible things as a means of garnering mutual sympathy and admiration. Go further. Appreciate what you admire and ascern that women, and others, all others, have done well.

Well, I considered using the term people for men, women, trans, and everyone so know that this process works for all relationships.

It has often been said that it is impossible to just be friends with the “opposite” sex(es). That really doesn’t matter. It’s not true anyway. Many things get in the way of relationships. As a man, getting a hard on, being distracted by nakedness, or stuttering when physically attracted does at least mean you appreciate them on a visceral and intuitive level. Take this further.  Women often have the same kinds of reactions. Get over it and find more. If you don’t feel attraction, fine as well, take your appreciation further. The point is to not let anything get in the way of forming relationships of appreciation.

Aaaah, I am correcting. Apologies. Learning to like specific women leads to liking women in general. Building positive relations with individuals allows you to establish relationships with groups.

I won’t discuss the mechanics of appreciation as their variance is manifold. We all have to figure it out based on where we live and what we believe. Of course there will be things that run counter to your core values that are difficult to appreciate. Seek bridges and means of relating to your own values in some way. Often we have more in common than we think.

The process of appreciation cuts through socioeconomic, class, race, and culture differences. It does means paying attention or being aware. A mindfulness towards others. Yet, the process becomes so engaging that you will seek it out naturally, instinctively and without effort .  The “goal” discussed often seems to be not to harm women but it’s really to appreciate them for themselves. Not for ourselves alone.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Elliot Rodger, Rationalized Murder

Posted in Women's Rights on June 5th, 2014 by Jim Newman – 2 Comments

handmaidIt’s been awhile and I’m still disgusted at much of the public’s responses to the murders committed by Elliot Rodger. None of it is surprising if you have lived a few decades or are familiar with social issues but nevertheless it’s not enjoyable witnessing. Thank goodness so many women, and others, have risen to the occasion to insist this is not madness but the ultimate expression of male entitlement, a world view driven by patriarchy.

Any definition of patriarchy shows its near universal adaptation in the world after the development of agrarianism, animal herding, and city-state development. The structure to have power over women is the root meaning of patriarchy. Whether it’s benevolent or not is irrelevant as it’s never really benevolent. The concentration of resources requiring more time with the need to raise children for many years before they become functioning adults often creates a disparity of power against women. The loss of leisure time when egalitarian forager societies had to create infrastructures made male labor more valuable. Especially in the light of resource pressure where fighting in groups was valuable to maintain at first sustenance, then status, and finally honor where no resource issues need be present. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Everyone bears the responsibility of patriarchy but women get the worst of it by definition. Sympathetic men may indeed become misandrysts or even misanthropes by sheer empathy towards those abused. Misogynists can hate men as well for their implicit advantages in power for control over women. Too long have men coming home from war or hunting been rewarded by more food and wives. Especially as resources dwindled during extreme climatic events–what used to take 2-4 hours a day became all-day work.

The dehumanizing aspects of patriarchy has led some to call modernism madness. If you consider a society a social cell or organ then the fact that it attacks itself is irrational, madness, even if it is a calculated and sought for ideology. The only personal way out of this particular madness is through pure leisure, lack of any responsibility, something you find at both ends of the economic spectrum. You’re either so poor and disenfranchised that you don’t give a shit or you have so much money and power that you don’t give a shit. Either way, this out is still within society and exacerbates the problem.

Another way is to develop alternative societies. A difficult choice in technologically advanced areas or subsets of society where there is desire for mobility between them, such as the Amish with their 8th grade education. When homesteaders went West or North they still carried with them their patriarchy. The difficulty was also geographic. Hostile environments with low sustenance resources mean a contrary style can exist best in coastal areas of temperate climates where life resource is available on a near daily basis. For a description of this see Euell Gibbon’s “A Beachcomber’s Handbook” as well as Jared Diamond.

This doesn’t mean it is impossible to fight or change patriarchy but it will cost energy. Social justice, restorative justice, economic equality, and greater positive empathy go a long away to dismantling the dehumanizing aspects of patriarchy. The great challenge will be how to maintain capitalism as it is inherently biased towards competition, power, resource caching, and honor status. But it is only right to try and in the long run may allow us to endure longer before extinction. More importantly it will make life better for many more along the way, which is at least my goal and should be yours. This means dismantling patriarchy.

The next thing that feeds the absurd opposing reaction to Rodger’s misogyny fueling his actions more than madness involves responsibility for one’s personal text or narrative. An excellent practice when you feel groundless or have identity issues is to write down your personal narrative. It is a text of your world view. Often it does start as a memoir as did Rodger’s. Listing the events that made you what you are reveals the roots of your individual inculcation. I say inculcation because as Joyce Carol Oates points out we aren’t born misogynists any more than we are born christian. I could also call it acculturation.

This personal text displays your core values, the things you respect, the things you wish to be, and how you see the world affecting them. Some make 5, 10, 20 year, and lifetime plans to meet their stated objectives, goals and processes. Certainly with optimism bias, ego inflation, and confirmation bias this text isn’t wholly realistic but it does well serve to indicate how mad or calculated one’s actions are even when operating under an umbrella of generalized social madness.

Sorry to get all philosophical here but it’s important to understand that murder isn’t unnatural. It is often ideologically driven. Over and over again we see lucid people killing, harming, and slighting many for very rational but unnecessary reasons. If your ideology involves conquest of others it is not surprising when it become physical. It can even be called good faith to the ideology.

In criminal justice personal responsibility involves premeditation. An insanity plea means not knowing right from wrong. Sociopaths are an easy example as they have no empathy towards others whatsoever. But this loss of empathy has a long and finely divided scale. In a crime it doesn’t have to be very long: A couple fights, one of them runs to the car to get a gun, and shoots the other. This action and clarity of vision shows it was premeditated and thought out. The insanity plea is not an easy option. Punitive justice societies depend on free will and personal responsibility to a high degree. In this sense Rodger was clearly sane and rational and personally responsible.

As people understand that circumstances help support actions then the derivation of one’s personal text from a social text as a construction means we can point to causes beyond an individual’s choice. A patriarchal manifesto in a matriarchal society would not be possible except as an extreme outlier world view created as a possibility or supposition rather than taken from experience.

In this sense Rodger was also sane. He envisioned a world more like Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” on steroids, proving that fact is even stranger, stronger, than fiction. It was no fantasy. It is possible for us to see how such a world could be his logical extension of what exists now.

Yet, my personal text is so far away from Rodger’s that I only experience disgust and revulsion when reading near any part of it. In this sense it would be easy for me to say he’s a crazy bastard and has been most of his life. Yet, in respect to “Changing Lenses” by Howard Zehr I also get that I was not raised like him in any way that I can see so how could I possibly relate or do his kind of rationalization of the pros and cons of his value system? His actions were horribly wrong and I long ago lost any empathy towards his issues.

It is incorrect to say that he was just a time bomb waiting to go off; if he hadn’t done this action now he would have done a similar one later. Many kinds of interventions could have occurred that would have prevented his final action. From small to large effects our life trajectory is not fatalistic, even when planned. It is indeed our relations and small interactions with others that can make a huge difference. I have heard from others years later that a remark I thought was either random or of low import had a large effect. These pivot points where we make gigantic decisions are often a final catalyst and exaggerated. A slight or praise can be held for years and can define a large section of text.

The importance of the continued discussion of these horrors, aside from the unfairness to women who were dissed for speaking up, is the need to continually remind ourselves that what we don’t experience is hard to describe or value as lessons. Empathy towards women’s discussion allows many, including women, to understand what needs to be changed.

It would be a shame if every generation had to experience injustice in order to believe in restoration and maintenance of justice. At some point our social text has to be edited such that it serves as a positive guide for the future so personal narratives cannot winnow negative aspects so freely.

Even if you made it this far in this post I apologize for its overly intellectual style. The many posts and comments I have read are so egregiously vituperative that the only way I could maintain some semblance of compassion was to avoid it entirely. Otherwise I would be too tempted to say those bastards that hate women should rot in hell now and a just god would ensure it immediately. Indeed, one can see why theodicy, the issue of evil in so-called benevolent religions, creates a desire for justice in the next world because there sure as hell isn’t any here.

That’s our job. To change the world for the better. It seems hard but I suggest you write or consider your own personal text and see if it echoes the better or worse angels of society, and if necessary edit the hell out of it.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

Don’t Wear Yoga Pants Unless You Want to get Raped

Posted in Women's Rights on May 30th, 2014 by Jim Newman – Be the first to comment

brother deanWhen I lived in Salt Lake City I often heard the advice to women to not wear skimpy or revealing clothing unless you wanted to be harassed or even worse raped. These were my formative young years but I dismissed this as lunatic advice since my own family said it was blatant bullshit blaming women for their abuse. Little did I know that this wasn’t just some Mormon expression towards modesty before god. Often conservative sects of religion emphasize modesty and asceticism as part of material denial, antipathy of pleasure, and revulsion of the body.

Astounding that in this peaceful, white, middle-class high school when I left a math book on a shelf in the school hallway for a minute someone stole it. Was it my fault that it was stolen? Why would anyone want a math book? A teacher said yes, it was my fault. Regrettably she said I would have to pay for it. Regrettably because I was a good student but the lesson remained; I was getting screwed twice. If you don’t guard, lock, and hide everything that is precious to you you should expect it to be stolen in some way. That was the moral. The assumption of crime. It’s banal, droll, to be expected.

My grandmother-in-law thought a woman’s virginity was the bargaining chip in marriage and I was quizzed on my intentions when I first talked to her on the phone. She was trying to protect the biggest asset a woman can offer in marriage. So nineteenth century I thought.

Going to the university I was able to meet and talk with more female students in a way that was impossible in high school and found they echoed the sentiment. Women who dressed revealingly were asking for it in two ways. They were either selling out to objectification or they were asking for it because a smart woman knew what the dangers were. Caught either way.

With the revival of awareness from #YesAllWomen and others I have read some 14,000 links on what women experience. It’s depressing but I owed it my time even as it aggravated my depression. A common experience is the problem women face in public. Where even being polite is a defense against further aggression. Women are not only supposed to be decorative objects they must be polite no matter what. Is it surprising that many women shelter themselves, go in groups, carry defensive items, or become aggressive. Whether flight, fight, or freeze the responses show a siege mentality prevalent in our public and private worlds.

I don’t get siege mentality. I don’t get protectionism. I don’t get the acceptance of predation as the norm. Rupert Read and Nassim Nicholas Taleb praise religion as successful heuristics in intergenerational risk management. How is this even remotely so? Religion has functioned to continue castle protectionism and denigration of personal rights and freedom. It’s the victim’s fault because they didn’t protect themselves the right way. Whatever happened to the freedom to not have to protect yourself? Whatever happened to religion supposedly helping with impulse control? Apparently promises of heaven and threats of hell are the best and only means of ensuring safety. Is it really surprising that religion encourages patriarchal men to fully cover women or not have them leave the house, a greater abuse to prevent abuse. As if home and coverings were safe when it’s privatizing abuse.

Brother Dean Samuel published a video justifying his claims that women who dress revealingly are asking to be molested. Worse is he said “you deserve rape”?

How in hell does anyone in any way deserve rape? Every woman in my family has been raped. I fear for my daughters. They didn’t even have to be wearing revealing clothing to have it happen. This idiotic argument protects our society from addressing the basic religious premise that women are inferior to men. It also promotes the basic religious belief that life is a binary battle of good and evil, where the evil must be punished and the good must be sanctified. Funny how that fits so well with gender binaryism. No wonder Oneism is so popular as a means of convincing that harming another harms yourself. No wonder Pluralism attempts to make diversity safe, moral.

The promotion of the subjective experience as the most important experience encourages a what’s in it for me attitude that extends far beyond any sort of selfish gene protectionism. I had to laugh at Pharyngula’s post, is there a gene for thinking everything is genetic? No, it’s the individualistic concept of personal responsibility for heaven or hell. If going to heaven or hell were based on whether you were kind to others that might help. Until then it’s your fault if something happens to you.

By this measure the only true freedom is to possess nothing. If you have nothing of value you reduce your chances. “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.” I don’t think Janis Joplin was kidding.

You would think with the high cost of raising families we would be more concerned. We aren’t Redwood trees where if one seedling in a million makes it that’s good enough.

Why do I have to teach my daughters self defense? Why do I have to warn them that if they are polite at a party it will be construed as saying yes, a further come on? Why do I have to warn them not to dress unless they are prepared for contest? Why do I have to make them hyperaware of their sexuality? Why do I have to tell them to let men down easily? Why do I have to tell them to always know who is  in their presence, near them? Why do I have to warn them that their Dr Jekyll boyfriends may become Mr Hyde when they least expect it? Why do I have to warn them they may be called cunts if they diss advances? To always watch their glass? Why do I have to tell them they always should have protection? To blame these considerations onto the world is to enable the dismissal that we aren’t responsible for our behavior to others.

Refraining from being cruel to people is not a high bar. Using appropriate words and actions is not difficult. Only ideologies of hate and revulsion can engender this kind of easy abuse.

We must shout down assholes like Brother Dean when they scream their hateful shit. When we hear these idiots on the streets, when we see a woman being abused in a bar by some rejected asshole, when we see a woman who shouldn’t be at the party anymore, we should do everything we can to help. Until then we’re part of the problem.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com

#YesAllWomen and Systemic Misogyny

Posted in Women's Rights on May 29th, 2014 by Jim Newman – 2 Comments

adrienne richAfter nearly a week of digesting the news of Elliot Rodger’s mass murder and reading thousands of articles, posts, and tweets I am stupefied that misogyny is a questioned issue in our society, our world. While we seem more than able to admit that we are capitalistic, religion centered, and materialistic we seem unable to admit that Rodger’s hate crime was created, driven and fueled by misogyny. Further that our society is systemically infected with the disease of misogyny.

Alan Alda:

Regardless of whether or not misogyny stems from nature or nurture, Alda thinks it should be addressed in the same way humanity treats “the common cold” and “cancer.”

“We don’t accept those things,” he said, referring to those sicknesses. “Why should we accept this kind of behavior that leads to death and dismemberment, just because it’s common all over the world?”

“We could eradicate polio,” Alda added. “I don’t see why we can’t eradicate misogyny.”

While the news was obsessed with how mental illness and gun control are the issues the clearly rational and well thought reasons were misogynistic. In the same way that secularists say Islam, or Christianity, or even the belief and advocacy of supernaturalism, is the cause of horrific actions we can attribute horror and terror to misogyny being ever present, ever constant, and all pervasive. As we attack the texts and basic canons of religions for world woes we can attack the text and narratives of the misogynistic canon for abuse of women. There doesn’t have to be a sacred book (there are many anyway) to have an embedded narrative text of misogyny. Rodgers:

“I’m the perfect guy, and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman,” Rodger complained in the video. “I will punish all of you for it.”…“You denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life,” he threatened. “It’s only fair.”

“Perfect gentleman?” He was a damned loser who had no clue how to engage in society because he was stuck in entitlement, thinking women should flock to him because he was owed it. “Only fair?” This guy had money, status, and class yet he deserved more? More than what? To be king pimp or kill.

In Rodger’s case he was as clear as possible, with 137 pages of female hating and revenge screed, many videos, and chatter in pickup artist (PUA) sites. Lindsay Beyerstein.

Rodger told the world exactly why he went on this killing spree. He spelled it out in excruciating detail and sent his narrative of the killings to the media. In case that wasn’t enough, he made a series of YouTube videos to cement his narrative of his own crime in the public mind.

That anyone could read the news and think this is only a case of mental illness or gun control…the man used a knife to kill his three room mates. He crashed his car. Whatever weapon was present he would have used. Whatever therapy was given failed. What worked was the misogynistic ideology that led him through his actions. A PUA site before it went down said that Rodgers just hadn’t gamed properly.

In the long history of mass murder in the U.S., experts could not recall a more personal and minutely detailed explanation of motive than the one Rodger gave. Over the last few days, hundreds of thousands of people have scanned his writings and watched his videos as they try to make sense of the violence.

If someone isn’t getting it from this self avowed and oft repeated premise they need strong therapy themselves. Which means just about everyone in the media.  “Make sense of the violence?” Hell, we get Kamikaze bombers, suicide bombers, men dying for causes all of the time but we are befuddled by why an asshole misogynist might kill women? Simply because he thinks women suck? Do we really need more? Wasn’t it just a month ago some boy killed a girl because she wouldn’t go to prom with him? Don’t boys glorify masculinity and killing things as normative thresholds of manhood? Isn’t hunting women too much like hunting animals, where gaming isn’t wooing but coercion because the end goal is conquest, consumption, and then moving on? Haven’t men been rewarded for aggression since time immemorial? Haven’t women been castigated for impeding men in their freedom while women have to hold the family together? Isn’t paternalism and patriarchy the lived structuralism of sex, status, and power over women? …

Amanda Marcotte:

“Alpha,” PUA lingo for a dominant male, was in the video threatening the mass murder. Rodger identified as an “incel,” which means “involuntarily celibate,” a term that was developed on web-based bulletin boards devoted to PUA enthusiasts that weren’t finding much luck getting laid…

Pick-up artistry is a huge, if generally ignored industry, with self-appointed PUAs selling an endless stream of videos, books, and seminars purporting to teach “the game,” which is invariably packaged as a surefire way for men who learn it to get laid. PUAs like to portray themselves to outsiders as doing nothing more than trying to provide dating advice to men, in an environment where most dating advice is aimed at women. But there’s one major difference. Dating advice of the sort you find in Cosmo magazine and other women’s media usually starts from the premise that the advice-seeker has flaws that need to be fixed in order to make her more attractive. But pick-up artistry argues that men who can’t get laid are fine the way they are, and it’s women—the entire lot of them—who are broken. And that by accepting that women are the ones to blame here, the student of PUA can finally start getting the sex he feels entitled to.

Joyce Carol Oates:

Paradox that misogyny seems to be universal yet, universally, don’t infants unquestionably adore their mothers? Misogyny must come later.

Add to that the near 2 million responses on #YesAllWomen and anyone should be getting that women are pissed for righteous reasons.

  • I shouldn’t have to hold my car keys in hand like a weapon & check over my shoulder every few seconds when I walk at night #YesAllWomen
  • #yesallwomen because “I have a boyfriend” is more likely to get a guy to back off than “no”, because they respect other men more than women
  • #YesAllWomen because even a taped confession admitting to raping me wasn’t enough to put him in jail.
  • #yesallwomen because apparently the clothes I wear is a more valid form of consent than the words I say
  • Not ALL men harass women. But ALL women have, at some point, been harassed by men. Food for thought. #YesAllWomen
  • Because men don’t text eachother that they got home safe. #YesAllWomen
  • a “cool story babe, now make me a sandwich” shirt doesn’t break the school dress code. a girl’s bra strap does. #yesallwomen
  • Because women serving in the military shouldn’t fear getting raped by their colleagues more than they fear the enemy #YesAllWomen
  • #YesAllWomen because we’re taught to fear if we don’t do everything “right” we asked for it if we get raped.
  • When a woman makes a video, most comments are about tearing apart her looks. Or if they’d “do” her. With a man, almost none. #YesAllWomen
  • Because I now wear shorts under dresses in crowded bars after being groped and even penetrated by unseen hands. #YesAllWomen
  • Because a lot of you are reading these and thinking “ugh yeah, we get it. Calm down.” #YesAllWomen

These here are just their everyday issues. Not the horrific descriptions of rape, legal injustice, and domestic battering that at least 30% of women experience.

The pushback by the Men’s Rights Activist’s (MRA) and Men’s Right’s Movement (MRM) to the news was #NotAllMen. Which is total bullshit. I have never met a man who hasn’t in some way bought into misogyny–at best we are all recovering misogynists. Many if not all women as well. It’s part of the fabric of our society and tradition going back thousands of years. Hell, if you want to consider issues of raw, uncivilized power and status through sex and gender, millennia. That at least 70% of MRAs are atheists shows too well how no movement is free of misogyny. Indeed, it is exaggerated in atheism because men who leave religion still carry patriarchal baggage. They wear if with pride oblivious that they are scarred by what they hated.

Spearhead (note the hunter analogy where women are hunted and conquered like animals by manly men)

I’ve been listening to the NPR program Futrelle spoke on for a couple minutes yesterday, and man was it a bore. There’s a feminist named Soraya Chemaly who goes through the interminable feminist talking points, then Futrelle chimes in with his “expertise” on men’s sites, and finally this effeminate little guy named Robert Heasley who sounds like an old lady and somehow gets paid to run a “men’s studies” program.

You might think the point of the program is to single out guys who write on men’s issues or MRAs, but actually it’s almost entirely about how all men are to blame! Ironically, it’s exactly this attitude that pushed me into online men’s advocacy. Being part of the collectively “guilty” class can really suck. It has real life consequences, especially for men who go through divorce/custody disputes. As if having only a 10% chance of getting equal custody of your children is somehow a privilege…

Know why men aren’t give custody more often? Abuse and neglect. Too often children are manipulated in divorce. Too often the divorce is due to abuse or neglect from the father. Too often the father is acting on revenge. Too often paternal custody has failed. Too often it is an issue of conservative patriarchy. There is such a long history of poor paternal custody there needs to be proof that a system is in place that works. It is changing and the liberal arm of the Father’s Rights Movement may gain traction but don’t be surprised if you pay for the idiotic actions of your predecessors. You have to prove you’re the exception.

As if women don’t have real life consequences. 70 of the last 71 mass murderers have been men. Women make less then men. 2% of venture capital goes to women. Women are considered sexual objects and raped far more than men. Women are battered and abused far more then men. Women who happen to be people of color get it even worse. Hell, even the news of pedophilic  Catholic priests talks over the greater abuse to women in Catholicism.

Why did men and some women hijack this time of mourning and expression for women? The inability for women take a turn and have their say without others interjecting or competing for attention is in itself a masculine trope. Whatever the hell happened to listening, respect, taking turns?

Women had to back peddle and say not all men harass but all women are harassed. Bullshit. I have never met a man who hasn’t done misogynist actions. I am a recovering misogynist and I fuck up. The word fuck is misogynistic. Why would anyone wish to take away the message of this incidence. This sick “me tooism” distracts from our focus to resolve the issue. You want to talk about misandry, misanthropy? Fine, but wait until it’s your damned turn. The denialism has been so blatant that its best use was to show that MRA men wear no clothes, naked in their arrogant stupidity, lack of concern, devoid of compassion.

Jessica Valenti:

The reason women mobilized so quickly after the shooting is because we recognized immediately the language and ideology in Rodger’s videos and manifesto: the over-the-top sexual entitlement; the rage against women who “dared” to reject him; the antiquated, but nonetheless terrifying, belief that women should not be in control of their own sexual choices. Regardless of Rodger’s mental health issues – which we still don’t know much about – his ideas were not “crazy” by the standards of the world today. They are the norm.

In On Point Soraya Chemaly is introduced as a “professional feminist.” What the hell is a professional feminist? Is she working for a company that hires feminists to lobby or advocate? Is David Silverman a professional atheist? Is the pope a professional Catholic? Is a professional plumber talking shit about plumbing? Even when bending over backwards men fuck up. Is careless brutality  the best women can hope for? That has got to change.

Listen to the On Point Interview with Soraya Chemaly, David Futrelle, and Doctor Robert Heasley. This is the best summary I have found, at least the first part but then she’s a professional.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersforeason.com

Not Surprised at the Knowles and Jay-Z Fight

Posted in Famous People on May 13th, 2014 by Jim Newman – Comments Off

solange-defends-beyonce-jay-zAside from the horrendous and constant invasion of privacy by security–thanks to cheap technology and paranoid overpriced homeland security–is anyone really surprised at the Knowles-Jay-Z incident? Really? Last winter I bought “Beyonce” her only album I have bought and spent a few weeks listening to it constantly. I saw clips from various shows and followed the many pro and con comments on her “feminism lite.” Yes, you too can interject some feminist philosophy and bow down to a woman’s right to be objectivized as a means to suffer and thrive through rampant and embedded chauvinism. The videos are a blast and great soft porn. Ok, so what, now what?

The song “Drunken Love” proved counterpoint to “Flawless.” The first an anthem to sex and the second a call to do it the way she wants as her choice. Though one has to wonder what choice there really is in the entertainment and media industries.

Many commented on the lyrics of both but the clue is in “Drunken Love” which alludes to Ike and Tina Turner’s violent and abusive relationship. Undoubtedly Jay Z is an ass as he sings and avows (and a lousy rapper on the entire album.) I’m not putting down any particular culture. It’s endemic to our society, all colors.

Hold up
That D’USSÉ is the shit if I do say so myself
If I do say so myself, if I do say so myself
Hold up,
Stumbled all in the house time to back up all of that mouth
That you had all in the car, talking ’bout you the baddest bitch thus far
Talking ’bout you be repping that third, I wanna see all the shit that I heard
Know I sling Clint Eastwood, hope you can handle this curve
Foreplay in the foyer, fucked up my Warhol
Slip the panties right to the side
Ain’t got the time to take draws off, on site
Catch a charge I might, beat the box up like Mike
In ’97 I bite, I’m Ike, Turner, turn up
Baby no I don’t play, now eat the cake, Anna Mae
Said, “Eat the cake, Anna Mae!”
I’m nice, for y’all to reach these heights you gonna need G3
4, 5, 6 flights, sleep tight
We sex again in the morning, your breastases is my breakfast
We going in, we be all night.

So how is it a surprise that Beyonce, a perfectionist that plays the system like a pro, and Jay-Z a classic American urban black male who also plays the system, might embrace negative relationship dynamics?

I mean really? She might be free to dance sexually but she dances around a cold, didactic man with all of his clothes and sexuality intact, power, hidden. The king dick and his bitch. Don’t get me wrong this is progress of sorts. So was gansta rap. Both make good music. Doesn’t mean shit when it comes to moral plays in relationships.

Soraya Chemaly brilliantly lists 50 facts about domestic violence that should make everyone stand to attention but of course doesn’t. Men want to be able to beat their bitches and women think they deserve it until they don’t. 25% of women are abused in domestic violence. Near the same amount will be raped in their college years. At least. Why would we think famous people would be immune? Why would we think money makes you moral? Especially when they sing and posture it? Did people think it was an act, theater of the grotesque?

For many it’s because they assume bad behavior is caused by bad economics. Because she has so much money she has the power money yields? Yet, we rabidly watch all of those TV dramas where the rich and beautiful act like shit. Before labor laws and social services there was more abuse. The solution isn’t money but protection of rights.

Cliven Bundy is a banal example of nihilistic freedom even more common 100 years ago. Donald Sterling blames V. Stiviano and she apologizes for him as a father figure born of the past. Clint Eastwood, “make my day.”

The male king dick and the compliant perfectionist pleaser with the defending sister bitch.

“Solange doesn’t like the way Jay Z controls Beyonce. Beyonce would never speak up to him or defend herself, so Solange does it. Solange is not afraid of him and is fed up with him calling all the shots in Beyonce’s life,” an insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY.

I’m sure the ambiguities and privacy of the situation will cloud the issue. No one is all evil or all good. Let the audience line up in alliances.

The causes may be somewhat complicated but the remedy is not. Abuse stops while discussion and change occurs. How can you possibly have any dialog in an atmosphere of control and fear?

How is this about religion? All of the Abrahamics and most of the rest are patriarchal and demand women to follow, men to lead, with punishment demanded.

Jim Newman, bright and well www.frontiersofreason.com