Remember our friend Tom Martin, the MRA who is suing LSE for being unfair to men? He just sent me a message to let me know he’s done an interview with two other MRAs so that I could listen to it if I wanted to. Nah, I don’t. But I looked around a little and found that after his chatting at my place he did some chatting at Cath Elliott’s place. Oh boy; treats.
I’ll give you some highlights.
So ‘male-dominant’ cultures, are more likely female-powerful.
It’s a skanky, whorish, back seat-driving type of power which leads to economic and cultural ruin and war – a whoriarchy.
We know for instance, that women tell men what to do in marriages 90% of time – that is the same everywhere in the world.
Right out of the gate, you assume that women just pick the colour of the curtains, but ask any estate agent, and they’ll tell you its the woman of the couple who has the final say on whether to buy the house or not.
Women make 90% of couple decisions big and small, according to a 2007 Harvard Study I can’t find, but is out there somewhere.
The next thing you’re doing, is presenting the domestic sphere as separate from the political sphere.
Women in the home have access to more political debate than men do in the workforce, as women at home have more access to media.
…
But yep, restricted movement and the veil are the price some women think is worth paying, as long as they don’t need to get a job.
Women can’t drive in Saudi, but they do have chauffeurs.
And most of those who can afford it, choose a chauffeur.
Muslim women are really the boss in the home, and fascism starts in the home.
In a whoriarchy, in the same way you don’t need to drive to control where the car goes, you don’t particularly need an education either, as long as you know how to steer a man, but these whores don’t, which is why their countries and cultures are failing.
Feminists sometimes tell the truth, in which case, no court case.
As soon as people lie, in order to make women look like bigger victims than they are, or men bigger perpetrators than they are, then that is no longer feminism, but anti-male victim-femalism.
It is a negative stereotype, which is harassment.
It is bias, which is not protected under the academic immunity principle.
It is a breach of university regulations, which makes it a breach of contract.
It is misleading advertising, if this agenda wasn’t made clear in the prospectus.
You cannot reason, with the unreasonable. Those addicted to the unreasonable assertions that men are bad and women are good – who refuse to acknowledge any new positions, even in light of overwhelming evidence, should not call themselves feminists.
Furthermore, I did not sign up for a degree in feminism, but one in gender – which LSE personnel acknowledge should be about men and women – but which behind the scenes, they try to make all about women.
LSE legal team please note.
Wow; I better not let my partner find out that 90% of the decisions made in our household are supposed to be made by her….Hope she doesn’t come across that Harvard study that’s “out there somewhere”.
Thank you Tom Martyr -er- Martin for setting the record straight for all of us poor oppressed men! Next he can show us how African Americans really run the USA and how the poor really own everything.
I do hope the LSE are cataloging all this stuff.
Now that’s an authority one can’t easily dismiss. I’m sure when he wrote that he waved his hand in the general direction of wherever.
It is very easy actually. If you can’t get along with women, if you feel opressed by them, all you have to do sit in front of you ‘puter, watch som porn and jerk off. That action actually describes the “Mr.” Martin to the letter.
The real men, those who accept women as partners and not second grade citizens enjoy their ever deepening relationships.
I have been married to the same women for almost 40 years and we have gone together through an immigration into Canada and starting to build a live here from scratch when we were in our early thirties.
I really resent this idiot talking out of his arse because he thinks he is kingshit that women should duly admire.
He is is a pathetic whiner who never seems to come to grips with the fact that a successful relationship is build on a partnership of equals.
What a sorry excuse for a “male” that guy is.
In a whoriarchy, in the same way you don’t need to drive to control where the car goes, you don’t particularly need an education either, as long as you know how to steer a man
I find this metaphor to be somewhat confusing. Perhaps he means you don’t need to know how to drive to control where the car goes. Either way, suggesting that women don’t need educations is disgusting. Also, suggesting that women are manipulative and men are easily controlled is, I think, untrue and offensive to both sexes.
“Women can’t drive in Saudi, but they do have chauffeurs.”
Perhaps every Saudi woman has a personal chauffeur. I don’t know, except that so far no film producer seems to have shown interest in the possibilities.
But in Pakistan I am told, the town markets and supermarkets are quiet by day. Then after sundown it is bedlam, with traffic jams and throngs of women, all doing the family shopping at the same time. The reason is that the women have to wait for their husbands to get home from work before they themselves can go out, as Islam says they must always be escorted by a male relative. So the husbands spend the rest of their waking day escorting their wives, or at least keeping an eye on them while standing around talking to other husbands. By about 10 PM, husbands, wives, children – the lot are totally worn out.
Like most Islamic societies, Pakistan is a basket case.
When I was in India, I couldn’t go out without a male escort. Sometimes the male escort took the form of the 5-year-old nephew of one of the women who was hosting me there.
For some reason, I felt no sense of overweening power. Rather, being forced to rely on the pro forma “protection” of a 5-year-old felt insulting and constricting.
I wonder what it is I was missing…
“Whoriarchy”?
*sigh*
Really?
The irony is that Tom Martin is more guilty of misandry than LSE could ever hope to be, judging by his assertion that men are so easily manipulated by women into making obvious bad decisions.
What conclusions could we make about men who so completely surrender their sovereignty, especially in societies where women are property and possess virtually no rights?
The implications are clear. Tom Martin thinks that men are immature moronic cowards.
And I take exception to having my gender insulted in this manner.
Holy crap, what infantile wannabe-victim verbal diarrhoea. “Nothing in my life is the way I want despite the fact that my society is geared towards my success. I choose to blame the vagina!”
You complete & utter two-fisted wanker. The only thing you’re a victim of is male privilege and MRA propaganda. And your own severe mummy issues, one would assume!
As we say in Australia: harden the fuck up.
I’ve seen honest-to-god nematodes with more spine. The last time I saw something as soft as you, my 10-month old was sleeping on it. If I ever saw you in my house I’d assume you were there to be stuffed into a quilt. Comparing you to a sweet fluffy kitten would be a grievous insult to the structural integrity of fluff and the ferocity of the kitten.
Etc.
@8– You may wish to consider the implications of this reasoning when applied neutrally rather than when directed only at your preferred target.
I suppose I have to believe that the power balance between genders is perfectly equal, else I’m a misandrist or misogynist, depending on whether I think men or women, respectively, are getting the short end of the stick.
Well, at least we know that Tom Martin would be suing even if the LSE were run by Al Bundy. Nothing short of ripping women’s tongues out and chaining them to the treadmill would ever satisfy TM.
You know, I’m starting to suspect that Tom Martin may not be the rigorous academic or the towering advocate he imagines himself to be.
Is he mentally ill? Does he really believe the shit-he-makes-up?
Obviously his thinking stinks, but I can’t help thinking he might have a point in his last paragraph.
It was supposed to be a course about gender, not just feminism. If it was only studying the latter (and there doesn’t seen to be much push-back from the LSE to argue that it wasn’t), then it was a flawed course – or at least it was mis-sold.
There is (or should be) a distinction between feminism as a political campaign, and gender studies as an academic discipline.
I just wonder how a person with such severely flawed mental processes was admitted to a post-secondary institution in the first place. But then, it was LSE after all. They’re probably used to that.
He has got to be trolling.
What he’s saying is just too perfectly stupid.
Also, wouldn’t Whoriarchy be rule by Doctor Who?
Is the LSE meant to offer a point-by-point rebuttal to the horseshit that Tom Martin is spouting, given that he has been unable to provide any real detail himself?
If you want to see for yourself what the course looks like, then simply check the LSE website for details. (The 2012 course.)
Apologies, but I’m not trolling – at least not deliberately.
I’m not claiming to be an expert on this episode; if the LSE has indeed made a demonstrable case that it wasn’t a degree in feminist studies, but one in gender studies, then he has no grounds for complaint, and I certainly hope he fails in his challenge.
Nor did I demand that the LSE provided a point-by-point defence. All I was saying that the defence I have seen from the LSE hasn’t been ‘the course was a balanced inquiry into gender relations’ but:
‘the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men.’
This may well be down to partial reporting. If however, the LSE doesn’t dispute that the degree was essentially a feminist one, then there is an problem. Whilst I profoundly disagree with his political stance on gender, as a matter of academic freedom, he should be allowed to take that stance – and study similar ones – within an academic setting which should be about studying an area (i.e. gender studies) rather than advancing a political cause (however much I agree with it).
As an analogy, a Masters course in the Israel-Palestine dispute would be a highly political one. My sympathies are normally more with the Palestinians, who by any standard have suffered more from, and lost more because of, Israel than vice versa. That said, if the reading material was overwhelmingly consciously and explicitly pro-palestinian, then I’d consider that to be a major problem. A defence which said:
‘the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both Jews and non-Jews to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against Jews.’ would be a worrying one.
Hopefully this is just a case of bad journalism, and the LSE are indeed denying that the course was unbalanced, and that have credible grounds for doing so.
If not though, there may well need to be greater respect for the differences between political campaigns and academic disciplines.
P.S. Does that make me a misogynist?
As I say, take a look at the course description and see what you think.
I would say that it is demonstrably obvious that the course is typical of Gender Studies, and you can compare it to other Universities’ prospectuses to confirm this.
If there is a majority of feminist texts in the core reading list, then it is probably because that is the longest standing area of study within the field. The origins of Gender Studies lies in Women’s Studies, which was an attempt to systematically address the utter dearth of historical, social, and cultural analysis from a female perspective. The change in name reflects the broadening of the field to more inclusively represent complex concepts of inequality, gender, and sexuality that were not well served by that earlier term.
The LSE is presumably not making much comment because of the ongoing legal case, but anyway Tom Martin’s public outbursts range from opinions that are trivially self-refuting, to allegations which are difficult to respond to simply because they lack detail.
I’m not sure why you would ask.
Cross-purposes here – Steffan, nobody said you were trolling. #15 was about Tom Martin, not you.
Careful Ophelia, you may turn B&W into Manboobz. Actually, come to think of it, that would be awesome. Butterflies and Boobz.
I’m sure the authors of that Harvard study–you know, that one? *waves hand*–totally meant for their conclusions to apply to Saudi society just as much as Usonian, English, Swedish, French, Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Congolese society. What relevant difference could there possibly be?
Nah, that’ll never happen, I’ve never liked the word “boobs” or variants of it.
Toronto atheist on 8:
The implications are clear. Tom Martin thinks that men are immature moronic cowards.
Too true, it is the same thing with antisemitism, they are simultaneously weak, feeble and whiny and also megalomaniacal power heads of everything that ever existed.
Martin pretends that man were though and fought and worked and gals just sat back and enjoyed the ride, while at the same time whipping them with their oppressive vaginas.
This much cognitive dissonance is appalling.
Ophelia,
In case the LSE’s legal team is not as proficient at Internet searches as they should be, or in the event Google fucks up, have you considered emailing the LSE to let them know there is some wonderful evidence of Martin’s mysogony to be found ?
To to be more consise, are you going to rat on the bastard ?
Matt, yes I’ve considered it but so far been too lazy to look for a contact address and collect the links. I have no qualms about ratting him, especially since we’ve been talking about just that and it didn’t prevent him from commenting or emailing me to point out new material. He seems to be a good deal more keen on attention than on winning his “case.”
It’s the irony that gets me time after time again:
Us feminists are accused of hatimg men, of seeing them as inferior, yet we are the ones who think them capable of being fantastic, sensible, emphatic, rational, caring people with the capability to control their urges and the understandig of why certain things are harmfull.
They think that men are driven by their dicks which means that they either cannot be expected to control themselves whenever they see a piece of desireable flesh or are totally controlled by the “gatekepresses” of the desired moist hole (I know the word doesn’t exist, but I couldn’t resist temptation)
It isn’t entirely false. He says:
“You cannot reason, with the unreasonable.”
True that.
Men let woman select the drapes and the house because they will be, on average, spending more time there and men usually suck at selecting drapes. Men, being one I know how it is, are usually quite content to dominate the TV clicker and the BBQ grill while leaving the fiddly bits, and balancing of financial and social priorities, to the lady of the house.
If it was up to men the furniture would consist of a huge widescreen TV, Stratolounger/s, refrigerator, a grill set up in the living room and a Farrah Fawcett poster. We would spend our time napping and padding around in our underwear. The house gets cleaned annually with a pitchfork, leaf-blower and pressure washer. Men can live like that.
It is only through our better natures, brought out by the ladies, that we avoid such Spartan lives.
Sounds like Tom Martin needs to get laid more often. Unfortunately, based on his postings, I doubt he could get laid without violating a restraining order. One look in his eyes and even the most hardened hooker, Jonesing bad for a fix, would decline.
Dude. YOU are not ALL MEN.
I’m sure there are plenty of men out there who resent this facile, juvenile characterization. A characterization which was, incidentally, invented about men BY MEN, in order to excuse their learned helplessness when it comes to housekeeping. Seriously, stop reinforcing patriarchal stereotypes.
Idiot.
Also, please stop spreading the pernicious lie that asshole men are assholes because women refuse to have sex with them. You know what happens when you have sex with an asshole? He continues to be a fucking asshole, and then Nice Guys moan and complain about how women only love Bad Boys and why won’t those uppity bitches realize what’s wrong with them.
Misogyny ahoy!
You mistake one form of therapy for the disease. He could have sex with a male, or a sheep, and either way the oxytosin mellowness might allow a little self awareness for him to get back in touch with his humanity. There are also various psychoactives or therapy. But if I mentioned any of those you would have been confused as to my meaning.
But hey, this was a great time for you to swat at shadows and show how much under normative control via assumption of reference frame you are. Things are the way they are because you can’t talk around it and they won’t let you climb over and leave it behind.
It’s like not thinking about elephants. You can’t do it from within the system. You can’t talk about it because all new references are unknown, useless for communication, and all the old ones are booby-trapped.
Neither women, nor gay men, nor even sheep deserve to be treated as some asshole’s therapy. I’m not confused to your meaning at all. You think that misogynist assholes just need “oxytosin mellowness” to stop hating women. You’re wrong, and the rest of your post reveals that you’re not overly bright as well.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I think a whoriarchy would be a darn sight better than most other -archies I can think of. Parliament would be a lot more interesting, for one, and Mr Martin seems to forget that there is such a thing as a male prostitute, so it would probably be more gender-inclusive than most alternatives.
“I’m sure there are plenty of men out there who resent this facile, juvenile characterization.”
For what it’s worth, I certainly do. Art’s comment was pretty much one fail after another.
Okay, I’ve read all these comments, and I will deal with the one I found of substance.
Yes, it is true, that men in whoriarchies do deserve to be criticized – not for being ‘patriarchs’ but for allowing themselves to be duped into funding the whoriarchy.
In these men’s defence:
There religion encourages whoriarchy, pretending men are the stronger sex for it.
Imams indoctrinate similarly.
The dominant western discourse, victim-femalism, does the same.
Laws, in line with religions, make paying women a requirement for marriage – including marriage gifts, and including an expectation that the man must always bring a wage in. So economic inactivity for Muslim men in marriages, not allowed.
Muslim women are ruthlessly economically inactive, so Muslim men have a hard job getting that dog to hunt.
Muslim men are not used to being sympathized with, or encouraged to stop funding the whoriarchy.
So do I hate men? No, I hate the funding of prostitution.
If muslim men have the incite, that they should
stop giving women money and gifts, and women will close all remaining pay and achievement gaps thereafter – and if those muslim men then choose to reject it, then I would hate their rejection of it (I don’t hate people, but actions or inactions).
I find, the muslim men I speak to are very recepttive to my message, because they’ve never heard it.
The muslim men commenting here seem somewhat supportive.
Some women are going to have a problem with it – the prostitutes.
End the whoriarchy, and sex segregation will be ended, and religion will evaporate.
Women of all races and religions can for their part, stop charging money for sex, and renounce all forms of prostitution.
Feminists could give it a try too.
Other than that, all these other commenters, could do with reading the following document:
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Anti-male shaming tactics are used when arguments fail.
I’ve read all the comments, and the following one’s include familiar anti-male shaming tactics: 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 26, 30.
Hey Tom!
You’re a complete fuckhead.
Yes, I know this is just namecalling; that’s all you deserve, fuckhead.
Tom Martin, you are a disgusting, sick, sorry excuse for a human being.
12 year old muslim girls who are married to 40-something year old men without ever being asked if they’d like to are not trading sex, you misogynist rape apologist, they are raped. Can you even understand that concept? RAPED. They don’t get to visit a school, a prerequisite for them to have any kind of career. They aren’t even allowed to make pies and sell them on the street, let alone work as nurses, scientists, mechanics.
Tom Martin; the increasingly incoherent, intellectual stub of a human being.
(If you are indeed who you claim to be, and not the obvious troll you seem to be)I can only really assume that in order to qualify for postgraduate studies your first degree was in macaroni picture making. The utter lack of rigour in your arguments, the unsupported opinion, and your inability to systematically present even those, suggest no talent for academic learning.
Many of those supposedly anti-male shaming tactics are not quite so, being the kind of labels which are used to shut down debate when wrongly applied to anyone. The list is an almost exhaustive set of free-passes out of an argument, since you could apply those to even legitimate criticism.
Someimes, those labels are applied because they are true.
For my part, I question your mental health not because I’m trying to shame or silence you. I actually cannot believe that your strange and scattershot arguments, if made in good faith, are born of a healthy mind. Your screed above is a case in point. It makes very little sense, and where it does, it reflects no reality that I can recognise.
If you would like me to withdraw my charge of an unsound mind, simply to allow you space to further shred your own credibility, then fine. We can simply assume that you are an utterly vile, self-serving idiot instead.
Is that suitably uncontroversial?
Your willingness to blame lazy, selfish muslim women for their plight as kept hedonists, fecklessly maintained by gullible muslim menfolk is noted.
I suppose we can therefore add a charge of general bigotry and ignorance to your narrowly sexist specialism.
You now need to address the dynamics of forced marriage, the inequality of Sharia with respect to the different sexes, adultry as a crime, Islamic divorce laws in particular, the ownership or property, property rights after the death of th male head of the household, and the obviously patriarchal nature of the Islamic hierarchy, explaining how each of those is maintained by women for the benefit of women.
BTW, I’ve got a pretty good idea at what the ellusive Harvard study would tell us if we could only find it.
Let’s take the example of an ordinary family dinner.
I get to decide what’s for dinner: What would be a healthy, tasty, affordable meal for a family of 4 that is acceptable for all members of the family (or would it be indeed ok to have a bit more of a posh meal?).
I get to check the weekly offers and then decide where to go shopping.
I get to decide what food in the fridge is still OK and what needs to be disposed of and replaced.
At the supermarket I get to compare the differnt goods, evaluate the quality of the different products, what bunch of bananas has the right size and grade of ripeness and then get to decide what to actually buy.
When I get home I get to decide what needs to be stored in the fridge and what can be stored in the larder.
I decide when it’s time to start cooking so dinner is ready at 7.
I decide how much salt, pepper and other things to use.
Then I tell Mr. Giliell to please lay the table because dinner will be ready in 10 minutes.
Then we sit down and have a family dinner.
Tom Martin’s version: She took his money, made all the decissions and bullied him around.
Tom, your analysis of the slave trade would conclude that slaves owe reparations to their owners for conning all that free transport and accommodation out of them and the way that they distorted labour relations.
That link that TM gives is interesting. It reveals that all the “code grey” “code black” nonsense is not his invention. (One helpful commenter gave a list of things to say to women [aka “bitches”]. One of them was almost word for word something that Abbie Smith said to me. Startling.)
Translation: The comments that disagree with Tom are “anti-male”.
We think men are rational, capable adults. You think men are weak, stupid cowards. You hate men. Own it and grow up.
Not really. She tap dances so desperately for male approvla, it make perfect sense she’d say whatever they tell her say, or would merely repeat what they say.
They’re meant to hurt, humiliate and demean the woman they’re said to reminding her of how worthless she is as a woman. It fits with Ms Smith’s approach and the general attitude of nothing is off limits against an ‘enemy.’
Well I think it’s startling that a woman gets material from MRAs, if that’s how she got it. It’s less startling that she thinks exactly like them, you’re right about that, since she’s been demonstrating it for weeks. (Or maybe years, I don’t know.)
Plus it’s a familiar thing – “I shouldn’t be surprised by this but I am.” It’s not surprising but it is. You know.
I find the MRAs’ fascination with “shaming tactics” hilarious. They’re basically admitting that they do sort of feel bad, a little bit, for being horrible misogynists. They just think that if people would stop pointing out that they’re being horrible misogynists, they’d stop feeling bad about being horrible misogynists.
Probably not consciously. Probably just repeating what one of her raging misogynist “friends” said, cuz it’s totally edgy and cool to hate on other women for some crumbs off the menz table.
But you are right with this: “It’s not surprising but it is. You know.”
Its surprising in a depressing way – i.e. its hard to have such clear evidence of tap-dancing desperation coming from a (pseudo)skeptic.
Which, really, makes it a little more cleat that they are merely bigots. This is the same as “you’re the racist for calling me racist” thing. We must be “misandrists” because we argue against them, instead of stroking their egos, like mommies* are supposed to.
*Mommies being any female who has yet to reveals her “bitch”ness to the MRA. Mommies are for doing all the chores, taking care of the babies, kissing MRA boo-boos and always agreeing with them. Mommies become bitches when they: 1) don’t want to date (or when they leave) the MRA, 2) dare to disagree with the MRA, 3) call it rape/abuse/stalking/coercion, 4) want him to support his own children, and/or 5) don’t want to be stepford sexbots who cook and clean, etc.
Numerous are the ways for a mommy to become a bitch, few are the ways for a bitch to become a mommy.
(I hope this makes it clear I’m not insulting actual mothers).
I’m now in pre-production for a video, which will make everything as lot clearer, so don’t have time to unpick your comments one by one, but in the meantime, renounce prostitution in all its forms, and I’ll get back to you with the video by Thursday of next week.
The video will make things a lot clearer? That must be one magical video.
Aha, so you admit that “everything” is not clear now. You got that right at least.
I assume this is code for the sentiment that is often otherwise phrased as, “The bitch expects me to pay for dinner before sex!” Anyone have their MRA to english dictionary available?
ckitching (@50)
Yup. That’s about how it read to me, too.
Tom wants his sex for free, no strings attached.
You know, Tom Martin, when people say, “pay attention,” you do realize that’s a metaphor, right? Attention isn’t actually like money.
Well, who can answer this more beautifully than Tracy Chapman?
But I’m waiting for Mr. Martin’s explication as to why underage Pakistani girls in forced marriages are lazy whores.
@Giliell (#25):
This, exactly! How exactly is it anti-male to think that people of all genders are capable of being good and treating others with respect? Whenever feminists point out a way that women are being hurt, they’re accused of hating men. Whenever they say that men are capable of being great, and not acting like the negative stereotypes of men, then they’re accused of trying to control men.
@Tom Marin (#33):
I’m not buying your nonsense, because I’ve actually grown up in a Muslim family. Both men and women have been tricked into thinking that women not being allowed to work outside the home is actually “respectful” towards the women (similar to the way that Christian fundamentalists here in the US talk about how men and women have different roles in the family).
In fact, denying women and education and not letting them work outside the home is taking away their freedom. Many women have no choices in life and forced into arranged marriages, and they can’t do anything about it, since they’ve been denied an education and opportunities. You portray this as “economic inactivity” on their part while ignoring the circumstances that lead up to it. They’re not just sitting there being lazy — they have been taught that women are not supposed to have a job outside the home, and some cases forced by law or by threats/manipulation from family to live their lives a certain way. There are Muslim women who have to fight to get an education and are then considered bad wives and mothers when they do so.
Women have had their freedom taken away and then are being told that they’re actually getting special treatment! They’re expected to not make any of their own decisions in life in exchange for being economically taken care of by their father and then husband. Often, this isn’t a choice; it’s forced. It’s not special treatment, but manipulation.
Comment #37 by Giliell is relevant here, as that’s what many of the ‘women are in control’ arguments boil down to. People who make these arguments overlook (or automatically expect) women’s contributions to the marriage while considering any contribution made by men to be a great sacrifice.
Ignorant religious leaders have convinced some men that they should make all the decisions, have all the control, and not let their wives make any decisions. And some of these men have become convinced that their wives are controlling them, when in fact, their wives have little power in their marriage. The reason that men in “traditional” marriages like this have to bear the burden of paying all the expenses is not because women are using them; it’s because society has ridiculous ideas about “gender roles”. The people who caused the problem by taking away freedoms from women are the same ones who then convince these women’s husbands that they’re being used by their wives. Some of these men blame their wives for “using” them while not realizing that their wives were forced in the role they’re in by society.
Fortunately, there are plenty of men in the world who realize that all of this is nonsense. They realize that they should have an equal relationship with their partner.
@Ophelia Benson: I realize my comment is really long. I hope you understand why this issue gets me worked up like this.
No problem, Ani – it’s not all that long and anyway I don’t mind long comments here (as opposed to the former location). Not sure why…I guess because the aesthetics are out of my hands so I’m not control freaky about comments.
Plus yes of course I understand why, and feel the same way.
Anni,
You’re not reflecting the true power dynamics of these arranged marriages. Most typically, the man must bring gifts, of money, or assets, indicating that it is the woman/girl who is in the driving seat, all be it, if that driving seat is in the back, and she hasn’t passed her test.
Apparently, it cost the average Saudi man $20,000 to get married.
Nobody ever talks about the mahr. Google it if you have to.
It’s Islam’s dirty little prostitution sweetener.
I never heard of any real slave being given such a huge gift.
Who has the power in a relationship where one is paying the other, then promising to keep up those payments until the next life?
Get real.
@Tom Marin (#58):
As I wrote above, he gives money and then gets to make all the decision in the marriage. Meanwhile, she has no way out, because she’s been denied an education and may not be allowed to work outside the home. He can treat her any way he wants, and it’s considered acceptable. (If an employer was treating his employees badly, would you excuse that just because the employer is at least giving them money?)
Also, as I wrote above, and what Giliell pointed out, the wife’s not just being lazy — she’s doing all the work inside the home. Also as Giliell pointed out, these marriages are forced at a young age. The woman is often not manipulating the other person; she’s being forced into an arranged marriage as her only option, as she’s been denied all other options in life by her family and society.
I’m against these dowry-type payments as well. However: Do you really think that the person who has to give a gift at the start of the marriage is in a worse position than the person whose entire life is being controlled because of her gender? Do you really think giving a gift at the beginning of a marriage is a worse position to be in than not having an education and, in some countries, not even being able to go out of the house without a male relative? Your arguments portray outright abuse against and manipulation of women as special treatment for women.
And by the way: I’ve actually seen arranged marriages. The vast majority of my family members are in arranged marriages. They are not as bad as they are in other countries, because we live in the US, but the inequality is still there.
It’s strange, but my aunts being in the “driver’s seat” seems to entail them taking care of all the household responsibilities. It entails being in a situation in which brothers/sons are expected to get a college education while education is considered unimportant or optional for sisters/daughters.
A lot of my female relatives in my generation are eager to get an education, have a job outside the home, etc. as am I. If the situation of arranged marriages as you describe it is so beneficial for women, I wonder why they would not want to continue down that path. Perhaps because it’s your portrayal that isn’t true to reality.
Oh my nonexistent gods, are you really that fucking stupid, callous and repulsive a human being you believe what you just wrote?
Jesus on fucking methamphetamines, you are a walking, breathing and entirely disgusting example of why we still need feminism.
Ani
I think what most people, normal people and religious fundamentalists alike, aren’t aware of is how many decissions are indeed made on a daily basis. Well, scientists are. They count each one of them.
What people like Tom Martin discount is the fact that most decissions are indeed absolutely trivial. Really what does it matter if I buy the slightly more green or yellow bananas. They also discount that indeed those decissions are made by the one who does the job.
Usually my husband is in charge of the laundry, so he decides what to wash when. Ohhhh, the power he gets!
Tom Martin
you are aware that those payments, gifts and the marriage contract are between the husband and his father in law? Tell me, what benefit has the woman?
And again, I ask you, how does that apply to 12 year old girls, children whom we not deem to be able to buy more than a chocolate bar?
I wonder how Tom rationalizes his idea of “whoriarchy” in the many regions where dowry is paid by a woman’s parents to her future husband. [1] (The dowry system in South Asia has not only contributed to the deaths of untold thousands of girls through selective infanticide, but also to the phenomenon of dowry murders, in which a new bride is killed, usually by burning alive, so that her husband and in-laws can keep her dowry without supporting her. I know, what lucky whores!)
[1] Technically this is what “dowry” means; the mahr is called a “bride price” or “bride gift” by anthropologists. You’d think that Tom would have learned this as part of his gender studies courses.
For all those who seem to think I should read a bit more gender studies, remember, I tried to do a masters in it, but the course was so full of ant-male bias, that it was not practically possible. Remember… the little court case thingy.
If you expect me to be the finished article, then support my court case to eradicate the elements of gender studies which make it so intolerable for all but the most masochistic and apologetic of men.
But anyway, one of those core texts does actually mention, albeit briefly, that it is women who really wield the power in these ‘patriarchal’ marriages where gifts are given either from the man to the woman, or from man to man, in order to continue keeping her in a sty she has become accustomed to. The core reading in question refuses to develop this moment of candour, instead, reverting to the sort of victim-female strategic frames being deployed here, despite mentioning ‘in truth’ that women had the power. A will to mention the truth, but then ignore it to be biased in continuing to falsely blame men.
Now consider, that even the core texts which I’m suing, mention the truth, and look back at these comments, trying to make out I
am not well read enough, or don’t know what I’m talking about, and consider, that comments in support of my stance may have been blocked, on this site and others, and consider how sheepish
you’re all being.
Wakey, wakey.
Wow, I didn’t even know this was possible.
I really would like to be in court that day…
Still no comment on underage girls who are raped in their wedding night?
Dowries paid are not intended to keep a women in “a sty she has become accustomed to”. It’s intended to weed out those who would be unable to provide for maintaining a family or to establish a financial tie when it comes to arranged family alliance marriages. The women in either case is either property or liability, being bought and sold.
That there are codes on the responsibility of a husband should not surprise you. There are codes on the responsibility of a slaveholder, as well. The Bible is full of these, as well.
What happens in many Islamic societies when a women with “the power” “in truth” decides she wants to leave her husband? Death seems to be a reoccurring theme there. Does this seems like she has power to you? How about those who are liable to be raped, savagely beaten or killed if they dare venture outside unchaperoned by a male family member; do they have all the power, too?
I’m having difficulty telling: Is this dumb innocence, or wilful ignorance you’re displaying?
@63: Oh Tom, I’d really like to despise you, given all of the virulent misogynistic garbage you spout, but I really just feel sorry for you, because I think you’re probably too stupid or just have your biases and privilege too deeply internalized to understand the nuances of Gender Studies. It’s a very challenging field, as it draws from literally every academic discipline (meaning for a thorough understanding you need at least a familiarity with just about every area of human knowledge) and engages with cutting-edge work in especially the fields of ontologies, epistemologies, and experimental methodologies (challenging all of the underlying assumptions of the traditions as a matter of course and therefore challenging the most basic organizing forces of human self-recognition and behavior, concepts like identity, community, the self, the individual, free choice, etc.). I’d be really, really curious to see specific examples of anti-male-student bias in the program. As an upper-level Women’s Studies student myself, I find it highly unlikely. See, you need to be able to understand the distinction between a social category/archetype/ideal/discourse (terminology obviously depending on your particular framing of analysis) and an individual. ‘Male’ and ‘man’, as social discourses, ARE extremely problematic, certainly oppressive, and arguably destructive. Positing them as such based on available evidence is bias in the same sense that mathematics departments are biased toward mathematical interpretations and frames that treat 1+1 as equal to 2 and not 3.
The bit that’s difficult, in my experience, for some people to understand, especially if those people subscribe to highly-essentialist interpretations of human societies, is that saying the social category ‘man’ is extremely problematic or even harmful isn’t the same thing as saying any given man is a problem or harmful. Now, in your case, given you obvious defensiveness to having your privilege challenged, it may well be the case that you experienced the program as antagonistic towards YOU. If it wasn’t, even more kudos to the program, but since you’re a pro-patriarchy asshole, I would be amazed if some or many of your own beliefs weren’t called-out as bad, harmful, or wrong. That’s not bias, that’s you being treated exactly as you deserve to be treated based on your views and actions.
You also seem obsessed with the idea that the program somehow “blames” men. This is clearly a case of projection, as gender studies isn’t concerned in the slightest with assigning “blame”. “Blame” and “fault” as concepts are not the concern of Gender Studies, they’re the concern of coercive moralizing proscriptive behavioral directives, like those attributed to Yahweh or a coercive legal system based on punishment and retribution. Gender Studies recognizes that social imbalance is rarely if ever caused by a given individual or even a specific group of individuals, so saying even “men” collectively are to “blame” for the problems of women is absurd within our analytical frame.
This is the same situation as FOX News claiming that not having public Christmas-only holiday celebrations, displays, whatever is somehow persecution of Christians: the lack of bias is framed as itself bias, in that it’s biased against a system that privileges Christians, in FOX’s case, or men, in your case. I know that when you’re so used to privilege that it is your baseline, your zero-point, it can sometimes feel like challenges to that privilege are discrimination, but they’re not, and if you want to be happy, you’re going to need to move past that mode of thinking, because things are really only moving more and more toward dismantling privilege at this point.
Anyway, I feel sorry for you because you’re obviously not a very happy, secure person. If you were, I can’t imagine you’d be reacting to challenges to male privilege so violently. It’s too bad that you’ve adopted such an antagonistic posture, too: had you gotten through a decent amount of the curriculum, it might have helped you come to terms with your privilege and feel more secure even in its absence. Basically, you’re not being discriminated against, you’re just plain wrong, just like people who think evolution or global warming don’t happen are wrong. Not all ideas/interpretations/opinions are equally valid.
P.S. I’m not a masochist, I just don’t buy-into the false binary that somehow not being vested with with the social privilege to exercise power over other classes of people somehow means that I then become powerless. Agency is cool, because, although social systems can restrict the ways in which you can exercise it (or at least provide coercive norms that promise punishment or retribution for exercising it in certain ways), no one can actually take it away from you.
Giliell said:
Still no comment on underage girls who are raped in their wedding night?
What Giliell’s typical perspective fails to acknowledge, is the part of the mothers, in arranging the marriages, be they underage or not, arranged, or forced – and Giliell fails to acknowledge the role of mothers in spending or consuming the reward (they are housewhores themselves remember – so are quite used to spending other people’s money).
As with so-called ‘honour killings’ we know that it is the female elders, desperately trying to keep up with the Joness, regarding what class of family their off-spring should marry, mothers who deem it a crime against the family’s honour when their off-spring choose a mate from the wrong class, then it is the young men of her clan who are ordered to carry out the honour-killings. Pure back-seat driving, and backward victim-femalist thinking, to pretend the women who are financially served, are not the ones calling the shots, stabbings, and burials – in order to maintain the whoriachy they’ve grown accustomed to.
Responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies primarily with the queen whore mother, then the obedient father, the wannabe whore daughter, and finally, the blamed for everything son.
Ckitching goes with the old:
The women in either case is either property or liability, being bought and sold.
Well, money does change hands, between men, to be spent on the upkeep of these idle women – who will concurrently provide sex – but that’s what being a whore is all about, and the women AND GIRLS are smart enough to have worked this out.
A survey I will dig out of necessary shows Muslim women across Arab nations report a range of issues they are concerned with, but traditional gender roles are not something they complain about. They like being whores.
The trouble with bog-standard victim-feminist research, is nobody even bothers to ask the men how they feel about traditional gender roles.
I have done it, and can tell you, Muslim men are much more keen to reject the violently-enforced “patriarchy” than Muslim women.
But maybe now I’m calling a “patriarchy” a whoriarchy, the Muslim women I speak to will reject it too – rather than say ‘it’s a man’s world. What can I do?’ they can say ‘It’s a dirty old whore’s world, maybe I’ll get a proper job.’
I’ve tried it, and it works (although they always shoot the messenger).
but if people here think the job of feminism is just to blame the males, then I don’t think they’re old enough to remember what feminism was supposed to be about.
Shorter Tom Martin: Rape is OK, domestic violence is OK, honour-killing is OK as long as men don’t have to “pay” for anything.
Belonging to the same species as you makes me somewhat ashamed.
But on the other hand, you’re living in a different reality, that’s a bit of a comfort.
Oh, nd I see, there’s another mysterious you’re going to dig up *yawn*
You’re not even fit to be a chew-toy
John,
I only got half way through your post.
You claim I’m not well-read enough. Okay.
Then, you’re going on about me being reluctant to acknowledge or relinquish my ‘male privilege’ – which is a code blue anti-male shaming tactic. Looks like you’re not well-read enough to stick to the argument without making all the hoary old mistakes.
Then, you claim I’m ‘pro-patriarchy’ – when I liken ‘patriarchy’ to whoriarchy, and ask all women to renounce prostitution.
I am for equality of opportunity, and outcome.
Somebody should throw John a biscuit though. He is very obedient for someone who presents himself as well-read.
Giliell,
You’re just making stuff up now.
I am for equality of opportunity and outcome – which leads to a reduction in rape, underage marriage, crime, disease, war, and stupidity.
We need to accurately identify the nature of a problem, if we are to do anything about it.
Traditional gender-rolled societies are full of girls and women who do not want to pay their own way.
It is well known, and acknowledged among the gender elite – but they choose not to advocate so truthfully, as they have a ‘men bad, women good’ bias to maintain in their rhetoric.
John again,
I actually didn’t read the second half of your long post, because the first half used an anti-male shaming tactic, and you falsely framed me as pro-patriarchy – and the point is John, if you’re going to mislead people by being down on men, then they will not feel comfortable learninga about whatever else it is you have to say, be it valid or not.
Hence the court case.
I now have read the other half of what you have to say, and it is basically sticking to the idea that men are privileged, and that I don’t get something.
Okay John. What men’s rights movement literature have you actually read?
Name the book.
If the answer is, ‘er… Bob Connell?’ etc, then you’re only looking at half the argument.
Which of the following top three men’s rights movement books have you read? Spreading Misandry (Nathanson and Young), The Myth of Male Power (Farrell), The Woman Racket (Moxon)… ?
Further, what anthropology or experimental psychology have you read on women’s tendency to elect men to positions of dominance?
Female Power and Male Dominance (Sanday, P.R. 1980)? Men and Women in Interaction (Aries, E. 1996)?
Tell the truth now John (and the rest of those who would dismiss me as being unread). There will be a test later.
I’ve read victim-feminism, along with more practical feminisms, but I don’t think many of you have actually read egalitarian men’s rights activism – and it shows.
Tom Martin,
No, cupcake.
You have, although you have been asked several times, failed to utter any word of condemnation of the rape of girls and women in arranged and forced marriages.
All you come up with is that allegedly the mothers take the money to wrap their lazy asses in luxery without ever doing a day’s work.
Throughout this thread you have also failed to acknowledge the work women do in traditional marriages within the house and the value of said work (again, compare the price of a meal in a restaurant, having your laundry done, having your children cared for by a nanny and having your flat cleaned by a jaintor to what traditional housewives do). You simply act as if those women weren’t working hard within the house.
Of course, you have also failed to answer the simple question as to, if patriarchy were indeed a “whoriarchy” in which lazy women control weak men, why throughout history it was the women who tried to abolish it, who fought for women’s education and their possibilities to work out of the house.
In short, you are an ignorant, privileged rape-apologist and misogynist who doesn’t have a leg to stand on, let alone an argument to make.
You speak of “female victimhood”, yet you are the one acting throughout this whole affair as if the world was so terribly unfair on you and, of course your fellow men who seem to be too damn ugly and disgusting that they have to buy women and pay for their upkeep in order to have access to pussy. Because those damn women wouldn’t give it to them if they actually had a choice.
Giliell,
Now you’re going for the ugly charge (a Code Tan):
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:
“I bet you are fat and ugly.”
“You can’t get laid!”
“Creep!”
“Loser!”
“Have you thought about the problem being you?”
Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Giliell,
My answer to your charge that men can’t get laid, is as follows:
My argument screws your argument.
Furthermore, Giliell, as far as you are concerned, I am taken.
Now, to the issues:
Rape is bad. Forced marriage is bad. Arranged marriage is bad.
The work women and men do in the home should be shared equally, as with the work outside the home.
Childcare, should be 50/50.
Women hog the home and childcare. Regardless of how hard we pretend this work is, women should share it with men 50/50.
Sell it how you like, but don’t just cry about it – because that gives women the excuse of fatalistic defeatism, and research shows women will cling onto that kind of inertia with all the whorishness they can muster.
Some women have fought for more access to outside work for women, and some against it, as with men.
I read some research by the Fatherhood Institute, with interviews with British Muslim men who showed up at playgroups with their pre-school kids – and the reactions of the Muslim mothers, where they tried to barrack the men out of that space, telling them childcare is for women only and that he should get back to work.
Given the attitude surveys I’ve seen of Muslim women across Arab countries, where they’re not anxious for change on gender roles,
and given in the UK, where Muslim women are legally free to choose any profession, thanks to the work other women and men have done in opening up virtually all work arenas to women but, circa 2007, 75% choose not to partake, with not so much as a part-time job between them.
When I say ‘patriarchies’ are more accurately described as whoriachies, I think I’m telling the truth.
Elite victim-feminists acknowledge they are lying, telling stories, using false flag strategic frames and so forth.
Tom Martin:
That is not the case. Don’t make claims like that.
Boy, I sure hope LSE appreciates this, because I’m not sure I can take much more of it.
Oooh, Tom, I do wish you would talk to my male roommate about how I’m evilly hogging all the housework. He really should stick up for his right to clean up after himself.
I note that you’ve completely ignored my comments on the dowry system versus the bride price system. If I didn’t already have evidence that you are ragingly ignorant in you chosen field, I’d assume that your misuse of terminology was just a misstatement.
Ophelia,
Yes, my apologies for saying comments in support of me might have been blocked here. They have been blocked at Cath Elliott’s blog, according to a supporter of mine who emailed me with his comment instead.
Anyway, I’ve been looking at female economic activity stats around the world, and on one scale, there are only 5 muslim countries in the world where women have lower economic activity rates than muslim women in the UK at 25%. Iraq, Palestine, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Libya are lower – but all those other 18 or so muslim countries, which are so ‘patriarchal’ compared to the UK, with so much less opportunity for women in the workforce than in the UK, and yet their women still manage to get a job more frequently than the Muslim women of the UK.
Which hints, that claiming women are kept out of the workforce,
by discrimination and unequal opportunity, is not true.
True, UK Muslim women who don’t speak the lingo very well are at a disadvantage in the jobs market, but second generation, young UK Muslim women are four times less economically active than second generation Hindus. Only 50% of Young UK Muslim women say they even want a job – despite evidence their parents are generally supportive.
Nepenthe,
There’s research out there which shows women lie about how much housework they do, over-egging the facts, and that they downplay what men do. I think you might be an over-egger.
Also, a lot of housework studies include women applying make up, as work – it get’s chalked up as hours worked.
Also, telling husband what to do – chalk it up. Even better, get husband to chalk it up.
Watching TV with children? Some studies count it as work.
Blow jobs? Never count as work. Faking orgasms because married for money and not love? Well it’s not my idea of leisure – so that should be included in the data.
As for whose family gives who a gift, it doesn’t matter. The question is, who earned the money for that gift?
Stop all financial gifts in marriage. Perfect!
Men will save money!
And women will marry for love!
Who pays who doesn’t matter? But up there you said that women are whores because their husbands pay to marry them. Wouldn’t that imply that when women’s families must pay to marry men, that men are the whores?
South Asia, the land of the male whore.
@Ophelia
After a certain point of insanity, it’s fun, the way that poking insects with a stick was fun as a child. But this is much more humane.
Then again, maybe I’m just a bad person.
Nepenthe,
Renounce prostitution and move on.
Ah, I thought you didn’t have an answer. Thanks for the confirmation.
PS I’m a dyke, you dumbass.
Nepenthe,
It doesn’t matter if the bride’s father is compensating her new keeper, or whether the bride is being compensated directly herself. The bottom line is, money is changing hands, on the understanding that women are economically inactive and will be a financial burden to others.
It also doesn’t matter that you’re a dyke.
Valerie Solanos was a Dyke, but still a man-hater and a prostitute.
I think Andrea Dworkin tried her hand at prostitution too, yet was a lesbian, and a man-hater.
So when I say renounce prostitution in all its forms, it is up to all women, including asexual virgins, to say ‘no means no – we will never seek or accept financial gain, either directly or indirectly, through sex.’
More women might actually start enjoying sex a bit more thereafter.
There seems to be a bit of moral ambivalence in the comments here, about whether women should be prostitutes or not. In The Red Queen, Matt Ridley mentions a study which found that leading female feminist authors were even more likely to be gold-diggers, marrying up, hypergamously, than the average woman on the street – so elite feminists have ultimately not practised what they used to preach.
Rosie Boycott for instance, used to work in a clip-joint – so there seems to be this misandric attitude among some, that it’s a ‘patriarchal’ man’s world – and therefore justifiable to steal or scrounge men’s money.
I have noticed, in interviews with prostitutes, or clip joint workers, or mothers of murdered clip joint workers, how quickly they like to say ‘Men!’.
This court case is helping us kick that hoary old blame game.
Well there’s also health concerns, mildew, rodents, bug infestations that spread, the smell coming out a week’s worth of pizza boxes…
The list goes on.
I would LOVE to live on the planet where this is true. Whichever one it is, it sure as shit isn’t Earth.
Wow,
If you switch some of the key words around, TM sounds just like my KKK cousins who swear the world is run by Jews and Black men.
Is this level of delusion and hate a psychological condition? Because I must hold out hope that the condition is reversible/treatable.
Sparky.ca says,
“Wow,
If you switch some of the key words around, TM sounds just like my KKK cousins who swear the world is run by Jews and Black men.
Is this level of delusion and hate a psychological condition? Because I must hold out hope that the condition is reversible/treatable.”
I refer Sparky, and the rest of you sheep, to the following anti-male shaming tactics:
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge
[rest of comment deleted – OB]
Ok I’m tired of the code color thing. No more of that, Mr Martin.
Ophelia,
There are only 15 anti-male shaming tactics. When your readers stop using them, I’ll stop pointing it out.
Perhaps you should encourage your readers not to use anti-male shaming tactics – unless you think that such an approach is a suitable modus operandi here.
You are tired of it? Guess how men’s rights activists feel when they’re demanding equality in whatever area and have to face these time-wasting, off-topic, or disingenuous attacks.
None of your readers appeared to know about the anti-male shaming tactics before I pointed out they were using them, so I am doing them a service.
Feminism needs to grow out of the male-bashing bad habits – so expect a few growing pains along the way.
Oh, and have any of you read any men’s rights literature?
The Myth of Male Power?
Spreading Misandry?
The Woman Racket?
It wouldn’t kill you.
Mr Martin,
Given that you keep calling women “whores,” I’m not interested in your repetition of someone else’s color-coding of “male-shaming tactics.”
I’ve read a good deal too much MRA literature, especially lately.
This guy really is a piece of work. Holy hell, how does one get so incredibly fucked in the head that they actually believe that there’s some secret conspiracy by women to keep teh menz down?
Ophelia,
Ophilia,
I call economically inactive women who leach off men whores.
That is not all women.
There are higher rates of economic activity among blind people in the UK (34%) than there are among Muslim and other women in the UK and several other countries. Do blind people face more obstacles to employment than Muslim women, or the women of Malta for instance?
No. Blind people want to work. Too many women want to whore.
What popular or influential men’s rights movement books have you read?
Then Kitty comes in with another shaming tactic – this time the code White (the padded cell charge):
Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:
“You’re unstable.”
“You have issues.”
“You need therapy.”
“Weirdo!”
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Kitty does ask if I think there is a conspiracy against men.
Well, within elite gender academia circles, there is a refusal to include men’s equality discourse – and the gender elite acknowledge this. So, yes – that is a conspiracy, according to them.
Dude, since when is it a “shaming tactic” to point out that someone is in dire need of professional help?
Get thee to a psychiatrist! Please!
I’m not playing your silly game. I have have small kids, I play enough games I find intellectually a bit unsatisfying.
But it’s not my argument at all, it’s yours, because you imply that obviously men need to buy women since they seem to fail on a “market” for relationships grounded in mutual love and respect.
(I generally hate the comparission of relationships with markets, but it fits here)
You bring up those muslim men who have to pay for the women. Tell me, why do they do it? As opposed to the women, they are not forced to marry. Expected perhaps, but not forced. As you seem to imply they would fare economically much better if they remained single.
Wow, it only took you about 2 weeks and several reminders to actually answer that question!
Now, tell me, is the 12 year old who doesn’t get an education, gets sold by her father to an older man, who is raped at 12, pregnant at 13, who has given birth 4 times by the time she’s 18 a victim or a whore? And tell me further, who is the wrongdoer?
Wow, cool, you know, people here agree with that. Now, please tell me what have you actually done to ensure that women don’t get discriminated against in job search because they have children, what are you doing against the social prejudice against working mothers, what are your plans to make sure that men and women can engage in out of the house work while they have small children?
Well, and you’re clueless (again) as to why that is the case. Those women have been told all their lives that they’re only good for making children and taking care of them. That’s the only role they are allowed to take. And then some men come and want to take even that from them, leaving them with nothing.
But instead of building up those women, in giving them a chance to find a life outside of the home, you go on calling the whores.
So, when you claim yourself that only 25% are actually working, what happens to those 25% that want to work but don’t?
Is unemployment 25%? Or are there other factors that keep them out of the work-field?
Some more studies you can’t bear to present but that you have of course read and which we are to take at your word? Given our experience with your reliability in that area, you’re asking too much.
Apart from the fact that you’re lacking concrete sources again, you also demonstrate once more that you are absolutely clueless.
You know, few adults actually like watching “Spongebob”. But responsible parents know that it is very important to monitor your children’s media consumption. A TV is not a device to park the kids in front of, so watching TV with them, making sure that the content is age-appropriate, checking that they understand what’s going on and are not going to suffer nightmares for weeks is actually a part of parenting.
Emphasis by me.
So now you are the absolute arbiter of what is work and what isn’t?
Just for your inforation, a lot of women (me included) actually like giving blow jobs. It’s called giving pleasure and experiencing pleasure through that. They enjoy stimulating their partner, making him happy and satisfied and they don’t do so because they want to get him in the mood so he’ll buy them another pair of shoes, but because they truely care for his well-being.
As for faking orgasms: Not having an orgasm =/= enjoying sex, not having an organsm =/= not loving one’s partner.
You should learn about the basics of human interaction before opening your mouth.
Tom Martin,
By the same token, when someone here says you are [whatever it may be], that is not all men.
You don’t represent all men. You are not a stand-in for all men. You are not a sign or symbol or metaphor for all men. Pointing out that you are ignorant or reactionary or misogynist or all those is not “an anti-male shaming tactic” because it’s not about all males, it’s about you.
Ophelia,
When people make anti-male shaming tactics about one man, they are still anti-male shaming tactics.
Am I calling you a threatening, mentally unstable, lesbian, who can’t get laid, and who is probably a right wing supremacist, with anger management issues, who hates men? I have better standards than that Ophelia. So should your readers.
Want to talk about men’s equality issues, in any country, or defend the status quo, trying to shoot the messenger(s) with all the tired hoary old favourites?
I am an eternal optimist.
Your position is not based entirely on malice, but ignorance too – both things which can be reduced for you and your followers, with a more balanced gender curricula, including some men’s rights movement literature and perspectives for instance.
It is a fact, that top male men’s rights activists have read far more feminism than top female feminists have read men’s rights movement literature – and it shows.
I shot a video today, on LSE’s campus, and spoke to women who had done three years of gender studies, and never even heard of the men’s rights movement. They are so insulated, and ignorant!
Lucky them. I’m kind of jealous actually.
Julian,
What men’s rights movement books have you read?
Didn’t think so.
Mr. Martin if the arguments you’ve presented here are any indication of what’s in those books there’s no incentive for me to read them, is there? I read for fun and to try and educate my mostly ignorant self. Given how entirely absurd and, frankly, stupid your arguments have been why should I read anymore MRA gibberish?
Julian,
There are two types of victim-feminist. There’s the vast majority of victim-feminist sheep, who just believe, on a literal level, what they’re told to believe about women and men. A tiny minority of victim-feminists though, are actually responsible for spreading the misinformation to fool the majority. They know they’re lying.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you can probably guess which category you’re in.
You’re unread Julian.
The Myth of Male Power (1993)
Spreading Misandry (2001)
The Woman Racket (2007)
– and you might have a bit more of a clue.
For acknowledgment by a feminist, of the stories feminism concocts, and the refusals it makes [on men’s issues], read Why Stories Matter (2011)
or of course, Who Stole Feminism (Hoff Summers)
Google ‘Top Ten Feminist Myths’
Try LSE’s Dr Catherine Hakim’s Myths and Magic Medicine for some more clarity.
These are not all men’s rights books, but they will help you realize, feminism is awash with shit.
Giliell,
I refer you to the following video:
There are two types of victim-misogynists. There’s the vast majority of victim-misogynist sheep, who just believe, on a literal level, what they’re told to believe about women and men. A tiny minority of victim-misogynists though, are actually responsible for spreading the misinformation to fool the majority. They know they’re lying.
One such man is Tom Martin. Anothere is Paul “Hooray Rapists!” Elam.
I’ve read a few of the books Tommyboy wants you to read, Julian. Its exactly like reading a creationist book. You begin to wonder what fucking planet these people are from, then you start to worry about their mental health.
nearly nothing Tom’s book suggestions contain have anything closely releated to reality in them, but there is an unending supply of whining, pouting, misogyny, and when you read between the lines, justifications for violence, rape, etc.
If you want to read books by useless crybabies who think women exist solely to do everything for useless crybabies read Tom’s books.
if you’re actually interested in reality and sanity, avoid them.
Tom Martin
Wow, that’s your scientific basis? Some misogynist wannabe comedian who, most probably, never changed a poopy diaper?
I made it to 0:50 then my bullshit-o-meter exloded.
You really need more than that to make a point.
BTW, being a parent is a difficult and hard job.
Not only you get neither to call it a day, nor sick leave, also if you screw up ypu screw up your own kid.
But why do I keep talking to you? It will take 2 more weeks for you to answer my questions…
Illuminata,
You’re using a code black, by claiming I’m a misogynist.
I don’t normally hate women.
Then you go for a code white, claiming elite men’s rights activists are mentally unstable. There’s a subtle code green in there also, by referring to me as a boy.
Then you go for a code blue, another code black, then a code orange.
Then a code blue again, then another code white.
Try and construct a sentence which does not contain any anti-male shaming tactics (and do not give up your day job).
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
Giliell,
If you want men to do more childcare, then campaign for it.
I want men to do more childcare, but the gender studies curriculum completely ignores the fathers rights movement, and its egalitarian demands. One of the many reasons I am bringing this court case.
Bill Burr nailed it, with
‘Any job you can do in your pyjamas, is not the hardest job in the world.’
There are lots of studies I’ve seen that indicate women gate-keep childcare and housework, exaggerate how much they do, blame men for not doing it right, and even send men away with non-verbal ques to go and find some money.
Meanwhile, v-fems are pretending a woman’s work is never done, and that women work ‘a second shift’, leaving general population with false impression that women do 20% more hours work all told, when evidence is, men and women do roughly same hours across the world, but 95% workplace fatalities male. Men start work earlier, have to pay for their education more than women do, retire later, pay more taxes, receive less pension – and are expected to take it.
Stick it up your arse you lying whores.Tom Martin – stop that.
Stop supporting the covert prostitution ethic of many people claiming to be feminists.
No no no no no. There is no equivalency here. You stop talking like that. That’s all.
I’m so confused. If I’m a prostitute, why am I not seeing any revenue from it? And, equally importantly, how do I stop being one when I never consciously started?
And these color codes are all wrong. Tom should at least know the three critical psych ward codes. Code blue: someone’s dying. Code green: someone’s escaped, all burly orderlies to the exits. Code brown: someone’s crapped themselves.
The majority of feminists can lay little claim to egalitarianism on childcare these days.
I heard Glenn Sacks mention that the largest feminist organisation, The National Organization for Women, changed their policy in 1982,
dropping the principle of shared parenting after divorce, to one of ‘the primary caregiver’ single custody model.
That, is maternal gate-keeping.
Women complaining about the extra childcare they do, as evident throughout this comments section, are not telling us how they’re going to get men to do more. They simply want to bash men, and change nothing.
The truth is, the same percentage of women work in uninterrupted full-time paid employment today as did 150 years ago (10 to 15% of women) (Moxon 2007).
The percentage of new mothers who go back to full-time work after having a baby, is a genuinely pathetic 10% (Moxon, 2007).
Yes, breast-feeding ought to be done 5 times a day – and that represents an inconvenience – but it is not an excuse to take three years off sisters.
Muslim fathers… have to prey 5 times a day, and in some places, should attend the mosque whilst doing it, and yet they still manage to put in 60 hours on the rickshaw or in the cab.
If you want to blame men for the inequality in childcare hours, but then do nothing on advocating for equal childcare (or oppose it), then you know what that makes you.
The political elite, branding themselves as feminists, know from focus groups et al, that women are on average swing voters, with dismally anti-equality work ethic (Hakim 2010), and so they court women with policies which protect the home-life for women.
Gate-keeping childcare for women is not feminism – even if people claiming to be feminists are offering you that status quo.
<snicker>
(fatwa envy revealed via Freudian slip!)
John Morales,
Your using a Code Brown anti-male shaming tactic. Keep up.
If you think it’s funny that Arab men have to put their head up to the guy in front’s ass 5 times a day, then please move to an Arab nation, and then report back about how snicker-worthy you think it all is.
Tom, you were the one who wrote that, I merely quoted you. 😉
(You could take your own advice, methinks.
I’m pretty sure most Saudis would be most amused by your reference to their coolie status. Best of all, you’d not have to deal with their women!)
—
PS What’s with this male-shaming conceit you have?
(Your persecution-complex is noted)
@John Morales (112) — He feels shame for his actions/words, and refuses to take responsibility, thus this schtick about “male-shaming”. He needs to place the blame for his bad feelings on others, preferably on us “evil whores”.
Tom, cupcake, you’re the one lying
And tell you what, I can prove it, not by saying that “there are studies out there”, I can actually dig them up:
Hodgkins et al 1987
http://www.jstor.org/pss/352307
South/Spitze 1994
Hersh/Stratton, 1994
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2117814
Here’s my favourite one concerning your claim that women greatly exaggerate their housework time:
Kan, 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c10424443u847374/
But of course you’ll now explain how all this is women’s fault. They actively keep men form doing housework, even when they’re working a 40 hour shift themselves.
We’re not your sisters, cupcake. It’s embarrasing enough to share a planet with you. In case some aliens landed here tomorrow, we’d have a great deal of explaining to do.
Oh, btw, what should parents do? Lock the children in the flat with a bottle of water and a bowl of cornflakes?
Evidence, please?
It’s not that I’m saying you’re lying, but…
Well, actually I am saying you’re lying. I’ve proved it above.
If I had any impression that you actually ever listened to anything anybody says apart from the voices in your head that invent studies nobody else has ever seen, I’d adress the “workplace fatalities” claim, but you’re not worth that much of my time.
You know, next time one of the kids has a belly bug and vomits from 2am to 6am constantly while spreading poop around, I’ll turn around in my bed and tell that to their father.
I’m going to tell him that I got this from a MRA and that I would not want to gatekeep the children or the housework in any way from him.
I will also tell this to all the people who work a 60 hours shift from home. Since they don’t have to get dressed, they’re not doing work.
WMDKitty, as you say; “The wicked flee when no [one] pursueth”.
(The original has the usual embedded sexism, so I took a liberty there. That said, the sentiment is most applicable)
For my part in not “gate-keeping housework”, I put the full bag of kitchen trash that my roommate had stashed in a corner in his bed. I haven’t had to do his dishes for three days now! (I mean, I still have to clean all of our common spaces, including the bathroom, on my own, but hey, at least I’m not scraping plates that he’s left in the living room.) But I’m not sure if this make me more or less of a prostitute, alas.
@John
Appreciating puns requires abstract thinking skills, so your comments may be lost on your audience, if you know what I mean.
#101, is this an idiot agrees with me, therefore I’m right. That is one of the least amusing comedian I’ve seen, thanks for the information; I can avoid the rest of his routines.
This Tom Martin is either a poe or an unusually incoherent bigot. I have no idea whether or not it is the real Tom Martin, and if so, whether or not he is being sincere. It doesn’t really matter.
I do know that arbitrarily assigning colours to a laundry list of perceived misdemeanors is only almost as funny as it is irritating. Really, what is the point of that?
Code greenish-yellow, farting and blaming it on the dog.
Code dusky-pink, leaving the milk out of the fridge.
Code that-colour-you-get-when-a-toddler-mixes-all-of-the-poster-paints, wearing a novelty tie to a business meeting.
I have a rainbow of transgressions, and so help me if I have to paint you every colour in the spectrum…
What is the actual purpose of the colour codes?
It means that Mr. Martin has run out of even stupid arguments and is therefore trying to shift your attention to your alleged wrongdoings. He wants you to engage in defending yourself against that nonsense and forget about the actual point.
I have a comment with some links waiting for moderation above and I wished I could edit it for spelling…
The last 7 comments digress.
Seems like they don’t want to talk about the issues.
The “stupid” charge should be added to the list of anti-male shaming tactics…
“Stupid breakdown of anti-male shaming tactics exposing our hoary old games”
“Stupid comedian pointing out how easy childcare is”
“Stupid men’s rights books which we haven’t read”
It would be stupid to avoid the issues – and that’s another reason why I’m suing LSE’s gender studies department. Elite feminism’s ‘cultural turn’ away from the issues, has been acknowledged, by the people I’m suing, as a stupid waste of time – and yet they still do it.
Your collective ignorance, is a result of their reluctance to discuss the issues accurately with you.
Anyway, after you’ve finished congratulations yourselves for wasting half a day on the game, I refer you all to comment 109. What is feminism going to do about the whore ethic of some women and some women’s groups? Acknowledge it? Placate it? Blame men? Challenge it?
I recommend calling the whore ethic out as stupid.
Tom, I’ve watched you evade points and avoid answering questions since your appearance here. I directly disagreed with your sentiment that women have not been historically oppressed and even offered you two obvious (and relatively recent) historical examples of systematic disparity. You just ignored everyone’s arguments and started to ask for donations. You haven’t argued in good faith, and certainly haven’t attempted to debate anyone here.
Typically, you accuse anyone disagreeing with you of being in the thrall of the feminist conspirators and thereby completely dismiss or disregard their arguments.
Most of your comments have been either rampantly inaccurate descriptions of Muslim societies or self-serving, self-pitying whining. That certainly is an issue, and not one I’m going to ignore. You keep on posting bullshit, and I’m going to keep on calling it bullshit.
Tom, if you’re posting stupid comments, you’re going to be called stupid. It isn’t a shaming tactic, it is a description of your behaviour, and a value judgement about you based on that behaviour.
You are stupid. The sky is blue.
I recommend identifying whether or not the phenomenon exists outside of your own mind, before setting out to find a solution to it.
You presented a few citations to support your assertion that the symptoms exist (improperly interpreted in my opinion, and others have certainly taken the time to argue that), but you’ve not actually presented any analytical or critical studies to support your reasoning on the causes. In short, you have failed to demonstrate (as others have repeated point out to you) that this whoriarchy even exists. And yet, we are meant to humour you, and allow you to gloss over that, watching you bandying conclusions that are wholly contigent on it being a real phenomenon.
Why don’t you do something decent and actually address all of the substantive arguments you’ve been given in rebuttal of your own? Some nice people here, and I don’t count myself amongst them, have taken the time to respond to your argumentation almost point-by-point. You have ignored them.
You respond with a clip of a comedian above, as though that is an adequate and appropriate thing to do. Don’t pretend to be engaged in academic discussion if you’re going to respond with low-brow video clips. And that is one example where you’ve actually bothered to respond. Typically, you ignore genuine challenges, instead uncritically tossing out unreviewed references and galloping on to your next accusation about whores.
You’re right that I’m not bothering to respond with anything other than condescension, but others have done. Why are you ignoring them?
(Oh, one last thing. Really, what is the point of the colour coding of your list of so-called shaming tactics?)
Bernard,
Say what about NOW rejecting equality in 1982?
The closest anyone here has got to winning the argument, is by pointing to underage females in arranged marriages – passing it off as forced rape.
Well those under-age girls still understand the meaning of consent (unless of course they’re marxist victim-feminists) and they definitely understand the value of marriage gifts – as do the mother whores who arrange these skanky little contracts.
Still, somebody from the West should have a word with them, because the whole set up stinks. It probably won’t be someone from NOW though, because since 1982, they’ve been skanking it up too – refusing to support the principle of joint custody.
A whoriarchy, in every country, it is.
Where have all the real feminists gone?
It’s a rhetorical question. Carry on skanking, regardless.
Quite why Bernard Bumner would buttress that, I don’t know.
Tom Martin – as I said yesterday, you have to stop talking like that here. Make an argument if you can, but do it without using the words “whore” and “skank” and their derivatives. I’ve given you ample opportunity to sabotage your lawsuit here and you’ve done a brilliant job, but now that’s enough. I’ll be deleting any new comments that resort to that kind of vocabulary (so that includes other sexist epithets too, at my discretion).
Emptied for the reason stated above. OB
Tom, why do you need to share these obnoxious musings? Your words are as vile as your ideas are vacuous.
I will now stop feeding you.
Emptied for the reason stated above – OB
Ophelia has censored my last post. It was a good one. I won the argument with it.
It’s hypocritical in the extreme for Ophelia to post an article highlighting my whoriarchy theory, then censor me for referring to whores whilst explaining the theory.
True.
Wow, Tom. You just can’t help yourself, can you? You were told to avoid that specific set of words, and you just can’t, even when complaining about being censored. It’s not normal to be that obsessed with saying a word over and over.
Although, I’m sure I’ll earn a code green polka-dots or something for what I’ve said. Very convenient – a method where you can dismiss and ignore everything said. Much like those who incessantly point out logical fallacies by name without addressing anything else. In fact, given your fondness for these code colors, you might want to study them. I’m sure there must be some strawman arguments made in this thread by people other than you. With some practice, you could completely avoid addressing anyone’s points.
I’ve been censored, so unless the comments are reinstated, then this is my last comment on this website.
You haven’t been censored.
You were warned multiple times about your behavior, and you insisted on continuing with the “whore” comments. You’re the only one at fault, here, kiddo. Only you.
But of course I expect you to find some way to twist it around so you can paint yourself as a poor, oppressed “victim” of the “whoriarchy”.
Kindly sod off, plzkthx.
Tom Martin
With this:
You have excluded yourself from any discussion among decent human beings.
I can take your blaming of adult women, I gave you arguments as to why you’re wrong (which you have consistently ignored), but arguing that children who are not even asked and have no other choice are anything but raped places you in society of the worst kind of pedophiles who buy their victims gifts to shut them up.
Get help.
Oh, and don’t bother responding, in the broadest possible sense of that word, I won’t.
Disgusting apologist of child-rape.
[meta]
Tom:
I find you extremely disingenuous, not to mention ungracious.
You are a guest here, no less than I, and you’ve deliberately chosen to break the house-rules.
Ophelia has granted you great latitude to express yourself, subject to certain clearly-delineated restrictions, on her blog. You were warned more than once about the consequence if you kept transgressing. You went out of your way to do exactly what you were told would not be tolerated… and when it was not tolerated, you whined about unfairness.
Bah.
Prostitution apologists.
Ah so it wasn’t your last comment after all!
Whores!
Deleted. OB
Ophelia,
Heh. I share your amusement at his obvious (and stupid) naked dishonesty.
—
Tom’s puerility is tolerable, it’s his malevolence that’s loathsome.
(Credibility, he has none — needless to say)
What a sad, angry, little man…
Good riddance!
Astonishing virulence.
How pathetic
Posting one insult, not getting the attention he wants, positing another one, no attention at all, posting a third one.
It’s like my daughter sticking her finger into the ketchup, but her excuse is that she’s 4.
He’s a credit to the MRA community.
Deleted – OB
Tom Martin – you can’t comment here any more, even if you do manage to say something without the word “whore” in it. You’re nasty, and we’ve had enough of you.
Deleted – OB
Tom, where is all this coming from? What are your sources? All you’ve mentioned are three extrememly misognist MRA books (and yes, I’ve read all three and consider them intellectually lightweight in the extreme). Where are your primary sources? Your ethnographies? Your analyses?
Before you start hurling terms like “whore” and “prostitute” at us in such an unballenced way, let’s see some solid evidence. Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any.
Tom’s “case” has been dismissed and he’s been ordered to pay LSE’s costs. He’s been busy shouting “whores!” at people on Twitter.
Why didnt I believe about this? I listen to just what youre saying and Im so joyful that I came upon your weblog. You truly understand what youre talking about, and also you designed me come to feel like I really should find out much more concerning this. Many thanks for this; Im officially an enormous fan of the blog