Friday, September 19, 2008

The One Thing I Hate About MRAs

A very wonderful man that goes by MarkyMark has this little thing.

It's flawed logic, really, but he holds to it nonetheless.

You see, in his opinion, anyone who even ATTEMPTS to claim that women really aren't that well off - or ever were not well off - is accused of Feministic Brainwashing, or of being a feminist.

You know that little post I wrote about "I Hate Feminists" and it's follow-up? He's done the EXACT SAME THING.

When him or any other MRA (or anyone PERIOD) makes that assumption, I'm going to start lumping them in the Feminist group.

Sure, they probably don't care that I've black-balled them on my list, but they need to get their head out of their little whiney asses and grow up.

This was written by someone who I usually strongly disagree with on BiblicalManhood:
You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".


She is 100% right on that one.

7 comments:

Elusive Wapiti said...

There was a time where I tried to convince everyone I met how much worse guys have it than gals do.

And on most items, I do believe that the life of a male in our society these days is marked by much more danger and hardship and risk than that of a woman.

Whether I am right or wrong, I realized after a while that the sexual 'urinary olympics' doesn't solve much. Which is why I try to show how certain societal features underserve men, women, or both.

Many MRAs have become what they hate...they act just like feminists...just as shrill, just as impenetrable to logic, and shut down debate in the exact same ways.

Thus, I cringe at the label MRA, although I think it may technically apply to me and my site.

Christina said...

You are by far the most respectful out of all I have come across.

You are the ONLY one who took what I said on your blog and gave it a FAIR and IMPARTIAL review, never slamming my opinions...even though you made it clear to me that you disagree.

For that, I continue to read your blog and you have my respect.

When I wrote this, the title is ACTUALLY "The one thing I hate about *most* MRAs" but the way I wrote the title, it didn't show up when I posted (its in html brackets...)

Though I consider you an MRA, your not one of the ones I was referring to here. You are actually one of the reasons I even take the concerns of men's rights even remotely seriously.

My purpose for this blog when I first started it had absolutely nothing to do with men's rights. I had never even heard about it. It was to write about biblical womanhood and what that means - sacrifices, politically incorrect views, and everything.

I know that feminism is prominent everywhere...and I know that not everything I have been taught is biblical. For the most part, I hardly know how to seperate the wheat from the chaff. This blog was to explore the possibilities and the reasons and the gains that can be had from following what seems to be blatantly degrading roles for women (the silence thing).

But I also want to be fair...actually BEING a biblical woman and fully embracing it requires a lot of trust in the male half of the species. In fact, all of our responsibilities outlined in scripture are founded severly on trust - trust in God, being the most important; but trusting the men and women in our lives, as well.

Culture at large has not fostered a trusting atmosphere, only making it a thousand times worse. And MOST MRAs continue to do just that, continuing to seperate and not doing much to bring it back to where it was supposed to be.

Personally, I think its an excellent battle ground for men to get their leadership roles back and stand up in such a way that gains respect.

Bhanu Prasad said...

--You see, in his opinion, anyone who even ATTEMPTS to claim that women really aren't that well off - or ever were not well off - is accused of Feministic Brainwashing, or of being a feminist.---

The conflict arises in the definition of being "well off".

Is it having a favorable position in power hierarchy and striving for it?

Is it having loads of material wealth?

Is it spending more and more time with your loved ones?

Feminists equate being "Well off" to proportion of positions in the power hierarchy.


When you claim that women are not that "well off" or ever were "not well off", you need to mention the reference group. Is it men of those times?.Or are you comparing the status of women in the past to that of today's women?If it is the latter there is not an iota of space for argument. If you subscribe to former view, I can accuse you of being sympathetic to feminist folklore.

This is where a fight crops up.

Christina said...

I would define "not well off" as not having a respectable position in society without being/having been married (old-maids were not highly respected). Widows had the ability to become mid-wives. Married women were respected and looked up to for what I'd consider a biblical reason - educating young women on manners of caring for the household, children, etc.

I would define "not well off" when your opinion is considered inferior because the reigning scientific theory is that "women's brains are not capable of intelligent thought" (even recently, a harvard professor claimed that women's brains were created in such a way to have inferior processing of logical arguments). This view was only beginning to change when female education started to be allowed. Understand I don't think women need an education outside the home - which is what you would consider "not well off in a power hierarchy" sense - but that women ARE capable of intelligent thought and providing decent, balanced input to family decisions...which is not an unbiblical view. You may think that this is simply me buying into "feminist folklore", but I challenge you to take a look at the rise of dualism and the fall of faith...and see how that parallels the male opinion of female thought and the rise of modern feminism.

I would define "not well off" when the reigning view of women's roles is solely for child-bearing (not even providing sexual gratification to the male populace). This view (given my history that I provided) was a prevalent view in Greacian culture, specifically Sparta. Don't believe it? I've done more history papers on Greek and Roman history than most non-historians have, so I consider myself to be somewhat well versed in these histories. No matter my source, no matter my subject, my research has corroborated this theory. From research on homosexual marriage, Female History (to provide a different one than what my darling feminist professor had to propose), or simply societal and cultural norms. Relationships with women in Athens and Greece was limited to providing offspring. However, homosexual relationships between men was highly encouraged (especially in Sparta).

And yet, at the same time, I'm willing to accept, acknowledge, and relate the parts of history where women actually DID have more power - and to highlight the damage it did to the society. Like Claudia's reign as "empress" (behind the scene of Nero), where the emperor appointed a HORSE (his lover) to a senatorial position...Gee Claudia, while poisoning your husband and usurping your son's power, seems to me like you failed miserably in your chief responsibility - raising decent offspring. And ruling the empire certainly was far from successful - from the great fire to the collapse of Roman civilization...the rise of female political power has spelled demise and destruction to more than just one society.

However, the golden age of EVERY empire has been characterized by a BALANCED view of male and female roles in society...making neither one inferior to the other.

I believe it was Caesar (before Octavian Augustus) that had the best reign of Roman rulers (don't think it was an empire during his rule). And his policies promoted family values, giving more credence to the female populace...without giving them unrestricted mobility within the empire.

Unfortunately, though, balance doesn't last long before women completely usurp all authority. "Give 'em an inch and they'll go a mile"?

I don't think I'm buying into Feminist Folklore. Where I started researching this stuff to find something radically different than what feminism proposed, I didn't. However, I also found the opposite to be just as unappealing and horrific (if not more so). If you want to accuse history books of being tainted by feminism, than go right ahead...but I don't see any chauvinistic historians worth their salt in integrity providing decent materials to combat these opinions.

From scripture to Josephus to Herodotus, I'm thinking history is in my favor on this one.

Bhanu Prasad said...

First of all a disclaimer. I never said that women were pampered rosies through out the history. My assertion is that the male and the female had to sacrifice in unique ways to build this civilization.

The reply is long. But still you have not answered my question. Were women's sacrifices in any way higher than that of men?

The history from "scripture to Josephus to Herodotus" is all about the deeds of few powerful men. It does not have an Iota of truth regarding the life of common men and women. I have one volume of "Histories" by Herodotus. Anyway that looks like a story than rigorous analysis.

The worst part is that loads and loads of money have been spent on studying women. None has been spent on the males. Feminist vehemently object to spending dollars on men's studies. Only a insecure and a dishonest person refuses to search for truth. And these feminists are not so different from those thugs.

Once we spend some resources on studying men and their roles through out the history, I bet that your view would change.

SellCivilizationShort said...

The classic adaptation of debate to this kind of dispute is to say that a claim should be verifiable as true or false regardless of who makes it. I.e., even if the speaker is brainwashed, the claim can be true on its own merits.

A problem, to my mind, is that the questionable claim reduces to: Women have suffered lots of pain, perhaps more pain than men have suffered.

Pain is subjective.

Factoring the problems of doing any kind of history ... well, I'm glad I'm not a professional historian. Answering this kind of question rigorously is hard work.

SellCivilizationShort said...

Actually, on reflection, Christina is talking about power and respect, and IMHO a lot of men are talking about pain. I.e., men have suffered more pain than feminists admit.

So making sure that both parties are addressing the same question is also an issue.

In terms of respect and social status ... that also seems hard to measure objectively, IMHO.