Commander Vimes Does Not Approve

wanderinggay:

Woke up and read the responses to my post on misandry. Most of the responses have been positive, but I did get some negative ones. All of the ones from MRA’s called me stupid and that I had no idea what I was talking about. Ummmm, I’ve working on two degrees, one in psychology and the other I’m justice studies, for the last 7 years. I emphasized in sexism and gender issues. So for the last for years, I’ve been doing nothing but studying theories related to this kind of stuff. I’m not even going to respond to them. Instead, I’m going to listen to Ke$ha and eat some pancakes.

First off, I called your argument stupid, not you. If I had called you stupid, I would have tagged the post “idiots”, “stupidity” only refers to the one post.

Second, you do not understand the MRM. Just because you are studying something does not mean that you understand everything about it. I have been studying physics for three years and I can’t explain all the concepts. You are actually being both close-minded and arrogant by refusing to open dialogue with people who have differing ideas. 

wanderinggay:

Men’s Right’s and Misandry are two things that I have seen coming up more and more lately, and as someone who is interested in and wants to pursue a career in Social Justice, I think it’s important to put these two concepts under the microscope.  First off, a little self disclosure.  I am a gay male feminist, so I look at these issues through a very specific set of lenses.  

So the basic premise of Misandry is that men are being systematically disenfranchised and hurt by women and to an extent, feminism.  And Men’s Right’s Activists (MRA’s) are trying to bring about true gender equality.  In complete and utter honesty, I think this is total bullshit.  But stick with me and I’ll try to give reasons behind my madness.  First off, I am not a man hating feminist.  First reason being, I am a man.  It’d be a little silly for me to hate men.  Second, being a gay man, I LOVE men.  Third, feminism is not about hating men.  Feminism is about fighting for equality between the genders, for both women AND men.  Feminists (at least most feminists) don’t hate individual or groups of men.  What we hate and are trying to fight against is patriarchy and rape culture.  These are the concepts that create divide and inequality between the genders.  

First off, you misdefined misandry. MRAs use it to mean “the hatred of men”. It is the same as misogyny, just used in application of men instead of women. We do not believe women are the problem, but we do believe that in a lot of cases feminists reinforce the system that they claim to hate. Second, your definition of feminism is wrong. I am not saying that because I hate feminism (though, don’t get me wrong, I HATE feminism) but because the definition that you are using is not accepted even inside feminism itself. I have heard that it is for equality, to make women equal, and about female liberation. These three definitions are in conflict. And considering that a myriad of famous feminists have quotes that directly challenge the idea that feminism is not misandry, I would also contest the idea that feminism is not about the hatred of men.

I’m sure you’re thinking, “Great! That’s what MRA’s want too!”.  Not so much.  Most MRA’s and misandry discussions I’ve seen, spend more time talking about how badly they’ve been treated by feminists than having any kind of thoughtful discussion on sexism.  I’m not trying to say that MRA’s are bad or stupid or anything, just that what they’re trying to do isn’t helping.  By talking about misandry, they are pulling attention away from other issues.  

You are using an argument that is rather similar to “People have it worse elsewhere, so you cannot be sad!” Talking about misandry does not remove attention from other issues. There is not a finite amount of attention in the world nor is everyone required to pay attention to every issue. If a person is fighting for the homeless, would you yell at them for ignoring the hungry? Likewise, how does a person who is focusing on men ignore women? They are two separate problems. What we are trying to do is raise awareness of issues that face men, like rape and domestic violence, male genital mutilation, the draft, unequal prison sentences. How does that take away from other issues?

And frankly, the MRM views feminism as a problem. Feminists in India blocked the inclusion of female perpetrators and male victims in rape laws, claiming that it would make it harder for female victims. The Tender Years Doctrine, the law that made women be the ones to receive automatic custody in event of divorce, was put in place by feminists in the 1800s. Feminism has frequently passed over men’s issues or reframed them, most commonly with the draft. And while some feminists claim to fight for men, so far there has been no widespread feminist movement to actually help men in the areas where they are worse off than women.

One of the most common examples that MRA’s use for trying to illustrate misandry, is the treatment of male victims and survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence (IPV).  These are serious issues and should be better addressed by the justice system and service agencies.  But, framing them as a men’s issue and an issue of misandry is not the correct way to start the discussion.  These are feminist issues, not MRA issues.  ”But, that doesn’t make sense! Feminists only care about women!” No.  Feminism is about equality between the sexes and fighting patriarchy, not making women better than men.  In a patriarchal society, men and women are condition and expected to fill out certain roles.  Men are expected to the saviors and women are expected to be a victim and to be saved.  When men violate this norm (through no fault of their own) and become victims, they are mocked and treated like liars.  

It is misandry. It is misandry to force men to fit their societal obligations just as it is misogyny to expect women to fulfill theirs. Mocking male victims does not stem from the idea that women are victims, it comes from the idea that men cannot be. Just as women are mocked when they do things that are associated with men (hard sciences, short hair, certain sports), men are mocked when they do things associated with women.

That being said, claiming that male victims are a feminist issue is a slap in the face to any man who was ever victimized. You reframed the issue from being about men and the real struggles that they face when attempting to come forward about abuse to women. Feminism has done nothing to make life easier for male victims and has even fought against expanding the law. Or you can watch this video about Earl Silverman, the man who attempted to run the only male DV shelter in Canada, only to eventually kill himself.

This is not an issue about how men are systematically disenfranchised or regularly discriminated against.  This is an issue of rape culture. Which feminism is already trying to address and fight against.  

Wouldn’t you say that a society that outright mocks people when they attempt to come forward about their victimization might be, you know, slightly disenfranchising to that demographic? Or a society that, for example, will arrest the victim because they are larger than the abuser? Or does not, by law, consider the people who rape them rapists? Feminism has done nothing for male victims of rape or domestic violence. In fact, in California there was a law change that made it so the primary aggressor was arrested, made to arrest more men in DV calls. Surprisingly, the arrest rate for men dropped while for women it increased alarmingly. This would lead to the conclusion that women are the primary aggressors in more DV cases than is expected. Rather than accept that women are not perfect, Californian feminists forced an arrest policy that made police arrest whoever they thought would do the most harm. The arrest rates went back to “normal” after the change. Feminists would much rather demonize men than accept that women are just as bad.

Now, the final reason (and the one I am going to get the most hate about) I am against MRA and misandry as an actual form of social justice, is that I do not believe that someone can discriminate against someone who has privilege.  I do not believe that you can systematically disenfranchise and discriminate against someone who has privilege whether it is in the form of being male, white, rich, christian, abled, or any of the other forms of privilege that people are afforded in this society.  So basically I don’t believe that reverse racism, misandry, heterophobia, or the ‘war on religion’ actually exists.  It is all bunk and bullshit in my opinion.  

Sorry, but what would you call sentencing men to longer sentences for the same crimes as women? Or consistently awarding custody to mothers, despite their capability as parents? Would that not be discrimination against men? All discrimination is is a judgement based off of outwards characteristics. In fact, despite your claim to not hate men, you do not seem to be doing much to help them either. You claim that joining feminism will help, despite feminism’s underwhelming response when it comes to uniquely male issues. Male privilege is not nearly as nice as you make it out to be. Infact, I would encourage you to look into female privilege. Just because men make up most of the government does not mean that they do anything to help other men.

I think that if MRA’s truly cared about these issues (the ones that really exist, not the ones in their minds), they would sit down with feminists in a valid discussion and figure out how to address them as a community.  Instead, they are sitting in the corner crying because they are being adversely affected by a system that they’ve helped to create.  

We’ve tried. Feminists pulled the fire alarms on us, and then mocked male suicides. I am one of the more open minded ones, and I have given up with feminism. I want egalitarianism. I want people to realize that hating people because of their gender is wrong, and it does not matter what they are packing. I want people to stop reframing MALE RAPE AND DEATHS into a female problem. And, fun fact, the patriarchy evolved with the help of both men and women so laying the blame with men is not only laughably wrong, it also makes it so you are blaming all men for their problems. I think feminists have a term for that, victim blaming.

You know nothing about the MRM or male issues. Feel free to ask me questions, but in the future do not talk about what you do not know about. You only make yourself look silly.

Anonymous asked: Hold it, you were afraid of Buttons? ...Have you seen Coraline yet?

In the fifth grade, I read Coraline. Rather than worsening what I admit was a strange fear, I instead developed a fear of getting chased by disembodied hands. I actually just saw the movie a few weeks ago. Though no longer afraid of buttons, I can admit that it didn’t endear them to me.

hellolinzie:

Boyfriend: -Comes back to the car after popping into the store; notices I locked the car doors-
Me: -unlocks doors for him-
Boyfriend: Why’d you lock the door?
Me: I’m a woman, alone in a parking lot.
Boyfriend: What? You think someone would attack you?
Me: Uh, yeah. It happens to women with unsettling frequency.
Boyfriend: In front of a Staples?
Me: Enjoying your male privilege much?

Just for a quick reminder, men are something like four times more likely to get attacked by strangers/mugged and at roughly equal risk for rape. Perpetuating the idea that women have more to fear is not good for women or men. I used to be afraid that buttons would kill me (I was a strange kid) but that does not mean that I was more at risk of button-related death. Likewise, your fear of attack and your boyfriend’s lack of fear does not make him more safe and you less.

Acting as though lack of fear is a male privilege, especially when it has been found that men who have been attacked actually have less fear than women who have not been, is a fallacy and is in fact not a privilege at all. Fear and risk are not the same thing.

goodetogo:

misandryisalie:

 

Oh my god. Of course I care about women, but I focus on men because men are more at risk. It is like how I care about all suicide victims, but focus on men because men are more at risk. Men are more than ten times as likely to die on the job and you are asking me why I focus on that. You are being sexist, you are infantilizing women, realize that you were in the wrong, I clarified the earlier argument, please stop.

1. i was talking about the op and his post, not about your personal stance (which i do not know and did not ask for)

2. how is wanting to make the workplace safer for everyone sexist

3. how am i relegating women to infants

4. do you care more about rape victims or the men falsely accused of rape?

1. Then you needed to make that clearer. I am not a mind reader, I can only interpret what you write.
2. It is sexist to reframe the issue in terms of women, as if they are the victims and not men. Men die more, men are the ones that I am going to focus on. Women are doing pretty well, overall. If you did not mean to make it sound that way, I am sorry, but it really makes me angry that we as a people cannot see men as the victims even when four thousand of them died.
3. You are acting as if women’s deaths are more important than male deaths. Women are grown adults. Their deaths, though tragic, are no worse than that of a man. Equality means equality. It means women are not better or more special than men.
4. This has nothing to do with anything. I care about both. I want to see rape victims get justice, I want to see the falsely accused get justice. I want to see the awful people who commit both crimes get adequate jail time.
5. And because you asked me an inane question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Are you a cat person or a dog person? 

goodetogo:

misandryisalie:

goodetogo:

goodetogo:

mr-cappadocia:

smashingcontrolmachines:

I’m not interested in a world where men really want to watch porn but resist because they’ve been shamed; I’m interested in a world where men are raised from birth with such an unshakable understanding of women as living human…

why, then, does he want to see only a decrease in male work death? he doesn’t seem bothered by women dying in the work force. again, i would ask why he hates women.

you do not get to dictate which is a more important issue.

why do you demand that the sole issues be involving men? do you really need to be the center of the universe that badly?

most people are adults and can focus on more than one issue at a time.

if you cannot, that is not anyone’s fault but your own.

Because in 2011, 4,208 men died and a whopping 385 women died. Women are really not at much of a risk at all for workplace deaths. If men are dying in the literally thousands and not even 400 women died, which do you think we should be focusing on?

People dying is much of a more important issue than a frankly misogynistic argument against porn (Women can’t decide what they want to do! Let me, a man, tell them what is good for them!). I was clarifying his argument, and I even said that this was not the place for it. Saying that you want women to be a higher percentage does not mean you want more women to die, it means that you want less men to. Why is that so hard to grasp?

i’m not saying workplace safety isn’t an issue. i’m saying it should be fixed, period.

how do you not see it as misogynistic when you specifically state you do not care about women dying in the work place.

like

what

Oh my god. Of course I care about women, but I focus on men because men are more at risk. It is like how I care about all suicide victims, but focus on men because men are more at risk. Men are more than ten times as likely to die on the job and you are asking me why I focus on that. You are being sexist, you are infantilizing women, realize that you were in the wrong, I clarified the earlier argument, please stop.

goodetogo:

goodetogo:

mr-cappadocia:

smashingcontrolmachines:

I’m not interested in a world where men really want to watch porn but resist because they’ve been shamed; I’m interested in a world where men are raised from birth with such an unshakable understanding of women as living human…

why, then, does he want to see only a decrease in male work death? he doesn’t seem bothered by women dying in the work force. again, i would ask why he hates women.

you do not get to dictate which is a more important issue.

why do you demand that the sole issues be involving men? do you really need to be the center of the universe that badly?

most people are adults and can focus on more than one issue at a time.

if you cannot, that is not anyone’s fault but your own.

Because in 2011, 4,208 men died and a whopping 385 women died. Women are really not at much of a risk at all for workplace deaths. If men are dying in the literally thousands and not even 400 women died, which do you think we should be focusing on?

People dying is much of a more important issue than a frankly misogynistic argument against porn (Women can’t decide what they want to do! Let me, a man, tell them what is good for them!). I was clarifying his argument, and I even said that this was not the place for it. Saying that you want women to be a higher percentage does not mean you want more women to die, it means that you want less men to. Why is that so hard to grasp?

goodetogo:

mr-cappadocia:

smashingcontrolmachines:

I’m not interested in a world where men really want to watch porn but resist because they’ve been shamed; I’m interested in a world where men are raised from birth with such an unshakable understanding of women as living human beings that they are incapable of being aroused by their exploitation.

I want to live in a world where a significantly greater percentage of workers deaths consist entirely of women.

so you just want to see women die? rather than pushing for better safety regulations?

how much exactly do you gate hate women?

A higher percentage of women dying does not mean that more women will be dying, it means less men. As of right now, men make up 98% of on-the-job deaths which is too many men dying. If, say, half of those men don’t die this year, the percentage will shift without any more women dying.

For some reference, in Canada a few years ago, women made up a larger percentage of worker deaths, and this was seen as a huge deal. But rather than show an increase in female deaths, it reflected a decrease in male deaths. In other words, less men dying was seen as a huge problem.

And that is what he means. Not that he wants more women to die, but less men. He is (poorly) attempting to point out the absurdity of attacking women’s choices and men’s sexuality while men are dying in huge numbers.

bigotryisntjustice:

Just about every male MRA I have seen on here has, at some point, been told that they have no chance at getting laid/must be a virgin/never seen a woman blah blah blah.

If you’ve made comments like that, or support those who do, I want to make sure you know exactly what you’re doing:

1. Promoting a bullshit gender role. 
A man’s worth is dependent on how many notches he has on his bedpost. A man who hasn’t had sex with a woman, or hasn’t had sex with enough women, or hasn’t had sex in a while…well they have no worth. They don’t matter so why should you have to listen to them? 

2. Setting a double standard. 
If you judge women by their number of sexual partners, you’re a slut-shamer and a misogynist. But it’s totally okay to judge men that way. In fact, if you see a guy that you think is slut-shaming, call him a virgin! Nothing hypocritical there, right?

3. Using a stereotype to avoid actual discussion.
Declaring a man sexually undesirable, and thereby worthless, allows you to ignore what they say, no matter what they’re saying. You’ve deemed them to worthless, which makes their thoughts, opinions, feelings, all worthless as well.

4. You’re generalizing women.
If you find a man to be sexually undesirable, then all women must find him undesirable as well. There is no way for a woman to want this man after you’ve disagreed with him. All women believe in the same thing and have the same politics and goals. Their opinion must conform to your idea of how a woman should think. And if they don’t, then they’re brainwashed so their opinions don’t count anyway.

I have no illusions that this is going to make anyone stop doing this, but maybe you’ll at least be aware of what you’re doing from now on.

(via doyoureallyneedfeminism)

queereserved:

misandryisalie:

If you are having a discussion about victims of rape or domestic violence and consider either

1. the reminder that men are also victims 
2. one or more men bringing up their experiences

“derailment”, you are unfit to be talking about these subjects and need to step down until you realize that literally anyone can be a victim.

i think i agree with this to a certain extent, but there are a few things that bother me. do you have any kind of qualitative evidence that suggests men and women are equally likely to be victims of sexual violence or IPV? i’m not saying that men are never victims; i just questions whether men are as likely to be as women.

just a note, though, it’s a tricky thing to say “men” and “women” because stats could be a little tricky to find once you realize you have to consider the victimization of trans* people, in which case i would wager that trans* men are much more likely than cis-men to be subjected to that kind of violence. anyway, stats?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

http://phys.org/news72113800.html

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

For the love, men means men. Trans men are men. To act as if they are different is, in fact, incredibly transphobic. Knock it off.