Friday, July 16, 2010

Is Paul Nathanson a Christian WHM and a Homophobic Bigot, a Pro-heteropatriarchy Activist, and an Author Promoting the Misogynistic Myth of "Misandry", along with the antifeminist author Warren Farrell and the super-wealthy WHM supremacist and media mogul Glenn Beck?

 
[image of Paul Nathanson is from here]

MAJOR UPDATE (6 April 2013):

On 26 March 2013, Garrett left this comment:
This is extrremely [sic] misleading Nathanson and Paul [sic] were [sic] used as witnesses FOR marriage equality: http://www.afer.org/news/katherine-young-deposition-transcript/
I didn't publish it because the commenter referred to the person as "Nathanson and Paul"--as two distinct people. This didn't indicate to me he knew Paul Nathanson, or his work, at all. 

Then on 5 April 2013, this comment came in from ceruleanblue:
Paul Nathanson is an openly gay man. You might want to do some actual research before calling someone a WHM.
Given that, I've changed the title of this post, from a declarative statement to a question. The answer to that question appears to be this: Paul Nathanson is a white gay man who has very actively promoted, in writing and speaking, the anti-feminist idea that there is such a thing as misandry (meaning, the systematic oppression of men by women). I apologise to Paul Nathanson for mislabeling him as heterosexual. I also call him out for being part of a North American group of white male supremacists--male and female--who promote that ridiculous idea--as reality--that women structurally and systematically oppress men based on gender.

From Wikipedia:
Paul Nathanson is a Canadian religious studies academic. He has a BA in art history (1968); an MLS (library service, 1971); a BTh (Christianity, 1978); an MA in religious studies (Judaism and Islam); and a PhD (1989). He began his academic career by writing Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America, "about the convergence of sacred and profane patterns in popular culture."[1]
Together with Katherine K. Young Nathanson has published a series of works on the subject of misandry, which the authors assert is a form of prejudice and discrimination against men and boys that has become institutionalized in North American society.

Publications

  • Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001)
  • Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006)
  • Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man [1] (2010)
  • Transcending Misandry: From Feminist Ideology to Intersexual Dialogue [2] (upcoming)
What follows is a revision of what I wrote in the original post on this blog:

Here is a site with a list of some of WHM Supremacy's co-conspirators. Paul Nathanson is among them, promoting the myth of "misandry" with co-author of their books, Katherine K. Young. They spoke together at a conference. That conference was premised on an anti-feminist idea that "true [gender] equality" requires accepting this myth of "misandry" against white het men. (I accept that there's a kind of man-hating of men of color by white men. And a kind of man-hating of white gay men--and all gay men--by white het men. But nowhere is there systematic discrimination, degradation, violation, and subjugation of white het men, or any other men, by women. The conference's agenda pretends that the radical feminist agenda of eradicating patriarchy wouldn't sufficiently result in "true equality". This demonstrates a willful miscomprehension of the radical feminist project. Typically, radical feminism is portrayed by white het patriarchy-protectors as both pro-female supremacy and misandrist. The radical feminist project, as I understand it, calls on all men to be humane, responsible, non-misogynistic, and supportive of radically transformative, justice-delivering, social change.

This is an earlier version of a Wikipedia page about him:

Paul Nathanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Nathanson is a Canadian religious studies academic and professional expert witness. He has a BA in art history (1968); an MLS (library service, 1971); a BTh (Christianity, 1978); an MA in religious studies (Judaism and Islam); and a PhD (1989). He began his academic career by writing Over the Rainbow: The Wizard of Oz as a Secular Myth of America, "about the convergence of sacred and profane patterns in popular culture." Nathanson is currently working as a senior researcher in the McGill University department of Religious Studies, while testifying as a paid expert on behalf of social conservatives opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In Varnum v. Brien Nathanson's testimony concerning purported social effects of recognizing same-sex marriages was stricken by the trial court, which explained that the opinions Nathanson expressed were "not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or . . . on empirical research in any sense." Since then, Nathanson has been proferred as an expert in Perry v. Schwarzenegger by litigants who intervened in the case to defend a California constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry. Just before the trial, the defendant intervenors against gay marriage removed him as a witness, but the trial court judge allowed his prior videotaped deposition to be entered into evidence by the marriage-equality plaintiffs. At trial, plaintiff's expert witness Professor Gary Segura testified that some of Nathanson's claims were "misleading", "bizarre in the extreme", and "almost nonsensical to respond to".


As for the others, there's plenty of evidence of their pro-white, pro-het, pro-male supremacist activities.

Warren Farrell used to be profeminist, until he realised he could sell more books putting down feminism than promoting it. He has been writing anti-feminist books and books distorting what feminism has been, is, and seeks to achieve. For more on him, see *here*.
 
[image of Warren Farrell is from here]

For more on Glenn Sacks, please see this, from here @ CounterPunch:
 [image of Glenn Beck is from here]

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Why Are You So Afraid of Us?

By AK PRESS COLLECTIVE
Dear readers: We here at AK Press were both shocked and (we’ll admit it) thrilled when right-wing media mogul Glenn Beck held up our new book on the Greek Insurrection of December 2008 on his FOX News program a couple of weeks ago, and compared it to The Coming Insurrection, saying that this book was the next “playbook” that radicals in this country would be taking a page from. (We wish.) But we were also kind of confused, because Beck seemed eager to interpret the book as a yet another installment in the “communist” conspiracy … only, well, we’re anarchists, we’re damn proud of that fact, and we’re frankly a little hard pressed to understand why Beck went out of his way to say explicitly that this wasn’t an anarchist book. And then we watched hours and hours of Beck blabbing on YouTube, and we started to notice a more general pattern: Beck tends to avoid directly confronting “anarchism” as a system of political actions and ideals. So we started thinking about why that might be, and the result of our deep deliberations follows in an open letter to Mr. Beck. -- Kate Khatib, AK Press
Hi Glenn.

How’s it going? Since Forbes magazine says your annual earnings are in the ballpark of $32 million, we’re guessing that it’s going pretty well. You can’t put a price on defending the little guy, right?

We are the AK Press collective. In case the word “collective” throws you, it means people who work together toward a shared goal in a democratic manner, without bosses or leaders, and with everyone having an equal say in each decision. For us, that shared goal is publishing and distributing books. If you want, you can learn more about us here.

We’re thrilled that you featured our book We Are an Image of the Future: The Greek Revolts of 2008 on your May 3rd show. We were, however, a little confused by your description of the book, and the way that it fit into the overall argument you made.

Okay, to be honest, we weren’t sure what your argument was. We watched the clip on YouTube a dozen times, but it was beyond us. Of course, you’re the guy with television, radio, publishing, and Internet empires. We probably spend too much time thinking about rent, food, and health insurance to fully understand the big picture you’re painting.

We do, however, know a few things. We’re anarchists and we publish books about anarchism. We Are an Image from the Future is one of them. Now, we assume that you actually read the books you talk about on your show. Yet you somehow managed to claim that a book written by and about anarchists was “written by communist revolutionaries.” “They are not anarchists,” you claimed, “but they will use anarchy to their favor.”

As you made clear earlier in your show, you know the difference between Communism and Anarchism. We don’t want to split hairs by bringing up the complex history of communism (with a small “c”), which includes both democratic and nasty authoritarian versions. So we’ll stay on your page here and say, yes, when Communists take state power it’s always ugly. But, as you must know, anarchism has always opposed state Communism. State Communism is the ultimate “big government.” You won’t find an anarchist on this planet in favor of that. Not to mention that, historically, when Communists get in the driver’s seat, anarchists are usually the first to face the firing squad. The capitalists usually get cushy managerial positions.

So we asked ourselves: What could account for this guy waving around a book written and published by anarchists, while never quoting a single word from it, and then going on to associate the book with political groups—like the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party—that no one in the book, or associated with the book, would endorse? How could he miss something so obvious?

Then it dawned on us: you’re afraid of anarchists. You’re not afraid of the fake media portrayal of anarchists as bomb-throwing maniacs: that’s your bread and butter. You’re afraid of real anarchists, the actual ideas they espouse, the real work they do.

We don’t blame you, Glenn. When we sift through your rants, we realize that there’s a lot of overlap between you and anarchists. The difference is that anarchists are more honest, aren’t part of the same elites they criticize, and they make a lot more sense. They see you, and raise you one.

Like you, we believe that people’s lives would be much better off without government intervention. Centralized power suppresses individual and community initiative and keeps people from achieving their full potential. Like you, we don’t think the solution to our current economic crisis lies in socialized industry or new layers of well-paid government bureaucrats. And, like you and many of your tea party pals, we agree that bankers and fat-cat corporate elites aren’t exactly concerned with our best interests. As you put it, it’s time to take down the folks who “line their pockets with wealth gained from enslaving a whole group of people.” And, although you seemed a bit confused on this point, that means putting “people before profits,” which is pretty much the central concern of the protesters in Greece right now. And we mean all people, regardless of income, race, gender, sexuality, or immigration status.

You’re right: we’re revolutionaries. But aren’t you? Remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that when a government starts screwing with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”? As anarchists, we’re dedicated to the idea of abolishing the state and capitalism altogether. We believe that without the coercive relations and competition imposed by governments and markets, people would be free to create a more just society in which resources are controlled collectively and decisions are made by the people who are affected by them. We don’t want a government (revolutionary or otherwise); we want a society based on cooperation and common sense instead of arbitrary power and exploitation.

From what sense we can make of your show, you seem happy with “altering” rather than “abolishing” a screwed-up system. For you, replacing the old boss with a new one (Sarah Palin?) is good enough. We understand that you’re confused–these are confusing times. But, deep down, you and the tea partiers know that you can’t trust any politician, or banker, or corporate hack, or union bureaucrat…or anyone who makes their living sucking power and profit from ordinary people. Which, unfortunately, probably includes multi-millionaires like you.

So, Glenn, we’re guessing that’s why you’re so afraid of us. We don’t fit neatly into your black-and-white formula. You simply borrow some of the best ideas from our 150-year-old anti-authoritarian tradition. We take those same ideas and not only run with them, but improve on them. We follow the logic to its ethical conclusion. And we include corporate media moguls like you in our Hall of Infamy.

But we’re reasonable folk. We understand that you find it scary to think about what will happen when ordinary people realize that they actually have the power to make their own decisions and take control of their own lives. So, here’s what we suggest:

Just admit you’re afraid of us. Admit that your passionate and convoluted rants are a nervous dance around your inability to support real freedom (anarchism) over unbridled power (Communism and capitalism). And then use your massive wealth and power for the forces of good.

Yours,

The AK Press Collective

17 comments:

ceruleanblue said...

Paul Nathanson is an openly gay man. You might want to do some actual research before calling someone a "WHM."

Julian Real said...

Thank you for that information. I'm putting it and another piece of info at the intro to this post.

Spoonwood said...

Paul Nathanson does NOT define misandry by using terms such as "oppression" and "subjugation" as you have. Your own link indicates Nathanson as saying "As we define it, misandry is the direct or indirect teaching of contempt for men as such, which makes misandry not only a form of hatred (as distinct from anger) in general but also of sexism and even racism in particular (because men are a biologically defined class)." Also, go read the book series (Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, Sanctifying Misandry) on misandry for yourself and see how he and Katherine Young define the term misandry.

Also, Warren Farrell, at least as of 2001 fared better in terms of socioeconomic status when he was a feminist than in his post-feminist period:

"Warren Farrell, the feminist, had two houses, including a “gorgeous, gorgeous” home in the country. He drove a Maserati. Every article he wrote about women for the New York Times was published, without exception. When he made presentations at conferences, he was offered teaching positions in departments where he “was not even qualified to teach.” (His doctorate is in political science, not psychology, the subject of his five books.) He was the only man to be elected three times to the board of NOW in New York. He was invited to appear on Phil Donahue’s talk show no fewer than eight times.

Warren Farrell, the masculinist, has one house, which he does own, but it’s “nothing phenomenal.” He drives a 1989 Nissan 240SX. Nothing he has written about men for the New York Times has been published, without exception. The college professors have stopped calling and so have the feminists (although to this day the bio on his book jackets still begins with his NOW credentials). During his last appearance on “Donahue,” Farrell says, he started to address men’s issues. And that was, well, his last appearance on “Donahue.” Phil didn’t want him back, and Betty Friedan, if she didn’t actually want him dead, would probably have preferred to see him muzzled."

http://www.salon.com/2001/02/06/farrell/

I doubt much has changed in that regard for Farrell.

I won't deny what you say about Glenn Beck, but overall the answer to your question is simply no.

Julian Real said...

Hi Spoonwood,

I see Paul Nathanson's actions--the public, published ones--as being part of a larger, pro-patriarchal project, to take focus off the structural power, privileges, and entitlements men (as a class) have and misuse, and put the focus on how men are mistreated by women. It's not sexist or racist to note something that is really quite apparent if one cares to notice it: male supremacy is alive and well. This means that men continue to hold power as a gendered class of people, not only to varying degrees individually, over and against women and girls. Whites do too, over and against people of color. Rich people do too, increasingly, over the poor.

Why it is these same men you take time to defend don't seem to notice or note how awfully men treat other men, especially how white men mistreat men of color through enforced and terroristic white supremacy, het men mistreat gay men through protected heterosexism and aggressive, terroristic homophobia, rich men mistreat poor men through dehumanising and terroristic poverty, and so on, seems to me to speak to a very narrow way of seeing harm.

Spoonwood said...

Men have a life expectancy of at least 5 years less than women in many Western countries.

Men commit actual suicide at significantly higher rates than women.

Accounting for both housework and non-housework, men work more total hours than women (feminist Hanna Rosin acknowledges this in "The End of Men"). On top of this the work that men do often comes as more hazardous and in less pleasant conditions than women.

Men suffer from violence more often than women.

There exist very few, if any, scholarship programs for men as men, while there exist plenty such scholarship programs for women.

Women have received the majority of associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees for a few years now in the U. S.: http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/All-four-degrees-percentage.png http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72 That isn't exactly a local phenomenon to the U. S. either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmhpcYHBo3g (see about 1:50 there)

There exist very, very few men's centers on college campuses. Basically every college campus has a women's center.

In the U. S. there exists an office of Women's Health, but no office of Men's Health.

Men's health receives less funding than women's health.

The number of domestic violence shelters for men pales in comparison with those for women.

Men make up over 93% of workplace injuries and workplace deaths.

Several of the above actually indicate structural power, privileges, and entitlements for *women*, not men, as a class. The above do NOT put the focus on how men are mistreated by women in general, nor have I found this in Warren Farrell's or Paul Nathanson's works.

Spoonwood said...

"It's not sexist or racist to note something that is really quite apparent if one cares to notice it: male supremacy is alive and well."

A significant form of power is simply control over your own life. The above suffices to indicate that in general, women have more power than men, in the sense of control over their own lives.

"Why it is these same men you take time to defend don't seem to notice or note how awfully men treat other men..."

That is simply untrue. They DO acknowledge how some men have treated other men awfully. They point out how conscription has only applied to men, and *registration for a selective service system* have only applied to men, and they do know that most leaders who have supported such a practice have been other men. They also point out how we have affirmative action programs for women only and that men wrote the laws which passed such (Paul Nathanson does indicate which administrations put into place affirmative action programs). The amount of funding for women's health instead of men's health also in part happens because of other men's decisions. They DO notice that.

But, there exists little need to emphasize that. To blame men in general for the decisions of some men simply consists of an over-generalization. Also, to blame men as a class when men as a class consist of the one's disadvantaged, if not suffering, qualifies as blaming the victim... or at least blaming the disadvantaged people.

"especially how white men mistreat men of color through enforced and terroristic white supremacy"

That is a racial issue NOT a gender issue.

"het men mistreat gay men through protected heterosexism and aggressive, terroristic homophobia"

That is an issue of sexual preferences and arrogance and intolerance. It is NOT a gender issue.

"rich men mistreat poor men through dehumanising and terroristic poverty"

That is an economics issue NOT a gender issue. Additionally, poverty is NOT a form of terrorism. Nor does poverty change your status as a species or imply that others necessarily will treat you meanly.

A person may come as a misandrist, racist, and homophobe all at the same time. Structural discrimination on the basis of sex may intersect with structural discrimination of race. However, that does NOT mean that if you have discrimination on the basis of race in an individual or institution that you necessarily have discrimination on the basis of sex. Racism and sexism may exist in the same person, for very different reasons. Correlation of the two simply does NOT imply some sort of causal relationship between the two.

Consequently, you've engaged in little more than unfounded, irrelevant ad hominem here. On top of that, most of your ad hominem as others and myself have demonstrated either come as misleading or outright false.

Julian Real said...

Hi again Spoonwood,

I've engaged in this debate many times. I will direct you to where portions of this debate did occur, so you can see how, when someone was asked direct questions, he either became evasive or simply left the conversation altogether. Perhaps you could answer the questions he did not? Links are provided in a later comment below.

For now, I'll respond to some of what you wrote.

Men have a life expectancy of at least 5 years less than women in many Western countries.

Why do you think that is? And why do you think it is that when a woman is murdered, she is most often murdered by a man she knows personally?

Men commit actual suicide at significantly higher rates than women.

Might this be because women are raised to take care of others, to believe their value is in serving others, so even when suicidal, they feel committed to taking care of people, such as their spouses, children, or parents? And so they don't go through with it because of a sense of obligation or responsibility, to not end their lives?

Might it also be because men are raised to value and practice violence, and so when they wish to commit suicide, they do so violently and effectively?

Accounting for both housework and non-housework, men work more total hours than women ... On top of this the work that men do often comes as more hazardous and in less pleasant conditions than women.

Men do some forms of hazardous work because men have organised the society to ensure that's the case. I've known women who've attempted to do what is considered to be "men's" work (construction or welding, for example) and what they encounter when they do so is gross harassment, threat, and debasement by men who don't want her there. They also tend not to be paid the same--they are paid less than the men.

In every culture I know of, women do far more work, if "work"--as you mention--includes taking care of children, spouse, other family, and doing household chores such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry. In what cultures do men walk miles to get water? In what cultures do men wash clothes by the river? In what cultures do men do most of the child-rearing and childcare while also working outside the home, often with two or three jobs that pay women less than when men do the same work?

Men suffer from violence more often than women.

What violence are you talking about? Gender-based violence? Battery by spouse? Rape by spouse or loved one? Incest by parent or relative? Systematic sexist abuse? I believe you'll find the definition of "violence" in that statement of yours to be woefully ignorant of the many forms of violence women disproportionately endure at the hands and institutions of men.

Julian Real said...

I'm going to cluster together a few of your points of evidence that there might be female domination or female supremacy, or female exploitation of males. I'll respond after posting those points.

There exist very few, if any, scholarship programs for men as men, while there exist plenty such scholarship programs for women.

There exist very, very few men's centers on college campuses. Basically every college campus has a women's center.

In the U. S. there exists an office of Women's Health, but no office of Men's Health.

The number of domestic violence shelters for men pales in comparison with those for women.

Those facts prove, rather than disprove, the reality of male supremacy, male domination of women, and patriarchal systems being firmly in place. The fact that there are women's centers on campuses, for example, is because campuses are male-run, male-ruled places. The centers exist as a small space to counter the overwhelming male dominance of the campus overall. Women's shelters exist because men-not-women beat the shit out of women-not-men, at such high rates that women need shelters. Do you really think that if men were beaten so savagely by women, that men wouldn't figure out how to build shelters for men to escape such violence?

Men's Health is "Health" unless women require men to pay attention to women--or unless women in medicine do the research themselves on those other humans that men tend to ignore when conducting their own research--on men. You should know that.

Scholarships sometimes exist for people historically marginalised and excluded. I hope you're aware that the Academy in the West is a white and male supremacist institution, not just in the past, but presently. Just look at all the administrators and faculty and tell me what percent are white men, and what percent are not. Look, also, at which demographic comprises the Boards of Trustees of universities and colleges and let me know what percent are not white men.

As for this:
Men's health receives less funding than women's health.

That's blatantly incorrect. What is your proof of that? Are you ignoring the fact that historically and presently, health studies tend to presume "human = [white] male"?

Men make up over 93% of workplace injuries and workplace deaths.

Do you include harassment as a workplace injury? How about rape, such as the rape of female soldiers by male soldiers? Or are you only defining "injury" as something that typically happens to men, because of how men organise society and an define work?

What regions of the world and what kinds of work are you speaking about? Sweatshops, where millions work? See, for example:

"Around 90% of the workforce is female. Most are aged 15 – 25. Globalization also takes a heavy environmental toll." (Source:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/bangladesh-sweatshop-fire/5313514)

Several of the above actually indicate structural power, privileges, and entitlements for *women*, not men, as a class. The above do NOT put the focus on how men are mistreated by women in general...

I'm afraid you're actually proving the existence of patriarchal rule and male dominance generally. You've done nothing to make a case that women hold structural/institutional advantages over men. All you've done is point to exceptions attempting to argue that the exceptions prove the rule (of women over men). But those exceptions--especially the one's you provide for my readers--prove the rule of men (over women).

Julian Real said...

Rather than respond to you further now, Spoonwood, I encourage you to read the following posts and answer the questions posed to James Huff that he didn't choose to answer.

Can Enemies Become Allies, conversation with James Huff, part 1

Enemies /Allies, James Huff, part 2

Enemies/Allies, James Huff, part 3

See also, this:
Christina Hoff Sommers and the logic of anti-feminism

Julian Real said...

Hi Spoonwood,

I've read over your latest comments presented to me for publication.

As I think you know, this blog isn't a space for rehashing men's rights positions on matters of gender and justice.

It is probably clear to both of us that we disagree. So be it. I won't try and convince you of something that, as I see it, you are well-invested in not seeing.

I understand that we each can draw on different "facts" and studies and pieces of history to come to our own conclusions about what's happening in the world.

I don't really see a point in engaging further, do you? To do so only makes this feminist-friendly and anti-patriarchal space into one where class-privileged white men's rights arguments are given a platform. Publishing those sorts of comments here goes against the comment policy of this blog.


Spoonwood said...

"And, they're all so typical in "where they go" to try and score points: calling me a f*ggot, for example, or a mangina, whatever that means.

Why do you think so many public-online MRAs do that?"

I don't think that so many public-online MRAs do that.

"Why are so few men who despise feminists able to actually discuss social justice issues?"

I don't think there are so few men able to discuss social justice issues. Even if they are so many individuals that can't do so, if you believed that such an incapability something bad, you could say that those individuals are stupid, idiotic, or not intelligent *in that respect*, but not men. How so? The terms "man" and "woman" can get front-loaded to have a positive image to them. As Tom Golden seems to have suggested "men are good". And similarly "women are good". Thus any property of an individual which is considered a deficiency will not fall under the concept of "man" or "woman". Any undesire-able behavior also then cannot result from their masculinity or femininity.

As another example, adult females who rape are not women in that respect, they are rapists.

"And, what do you see your role being in ridding the MRA community of its hate and ignorance?"

Neither the feminist community nor the MRA community have hate properly speaking. Hate consists of a psychological state of individuals, not groups. Ignorance is also not a property of communities, but belongs to individuals.

"I love humanity, dislike inhumanity, and want to see a more just and peaceful world.

Your thoughts on what is going on in the MRA camp, at least among those you know?"

They do want to see a more just and peaceful world.

"Also, why do you think there's so much homophobia and misogyny among US male soldiers, and why do you think training officers use derogatory language about women--calling men "girl" and other terms to degrade and humiliate them, for example, during the training period?"

I don't think there exists so much homophobia and misogyny among male soldiers. Homophobia as a concept didn't even exist for say the Greeks. Classifying certain forms of speech and actions as homophobia or misogyny is by no means the only possible reasonable perspective on many things that get labeled "homophobia" or "misogyny".

"How many times has your life been in danger because of your sexual orientation?"

No one knows that sexual orientation actually consists of a cause of such danger. Sexual orientation is psychology and personal and thus not necessarily ever knowable by anyone else except for the individual who has the sexual orientation.

"How many times have women experienced scary situations on
the street?"

How many times have males experienced scary situations in wars or on the street or in ghettos?

"Two of my best female friends were street raped by strange men. Both of those women had already been sexually assaulted--one by her father and the other by many men when she was a prostitute. Both of these women were confident, not cowering. They weren't the types of women
who men pick out as "easy to rape". Do you think men raping women is honorable?"

Given what you say as true, they weren't men *in that respect*. They were rapists.

"Do you think men terrorising women as common practice is
honorable behavior?"

The word "common" here comes as unclear and subjective. One could consider all of the actions and behaviors that those individuals. In light of that way of thinking, such behaviors of those individuals end up more uncommon than common. In other words, your assumptions about such behaviors as common can fail if you think about people's lives in terms of every single thing that they do.

Spoonwood said...

"Do you think men joking about raping women is inconsequential?"

Everything has a consequence of some sort. That doesn't say anything about what sorts of consequences follow from such behavior. What consequences do follow comes as very complex to analyze.

"I'm wondering right now: do you think we don't live in a patriarchal society? Do you believe the world is not primarily and predominantly
patriarchal? (Meaning, that men rule society and fathers rule in the home.)"

No men as a group don't rule society. In the United States, women have made up the majority of voters and have done so in every federal election since 1964. Sure, the elected leaders are predominately males. But those males have far less power than the collective desire of the male and female voters which elect them.

Fathers don't rule the home. The home comes as a partnership. Both sexes have power in the home usually.

"How honorable are those men, who don't wear a condom and then complain because they have a child they have to be responsible for?"

You would have to know everything about their behavior and what they do in order to assess them properly. Just picking out one behavior you don't like cannot get used to establish how honorable an individual way.

"Who forced those men, such as with gun against head, or a knife against the throat, to have heterosexual intercourse, as an adult, without a condom?"

"And the only "profession" where women are paid much more than men is the one where women are most at risk of being gang-raped repeatedly: performing in the pornography industry."

That is not correct. Female models make more than male models.

The notes you've left about rape don't indicate much really, even with respect to rape. You had no comments about the rape of men, and all too many definitions of rape have not come as insightful enough to consider the rape of males. And no, I'm not talking about rape of men by men cases.

Rape of males includes being made to penetrate anything, including non-human objects without consent. That topic has not really gotten studied well enough to understand how things work out here in terms of gender relations.

Spoonwood said...

"Because it wasn't millions of white men wiped off the earth across the last few hundred years by Indians, was it? It was a genocide against Indigenous people by "the white
man"."

Similar to your other questions, though this one especially shows how you have a poor concept of masculinity at this point in time. Those indigenous people who were wiped off the Earth got wiped off by killers, not men properly speaking.

"They may have been at risk for rape because they were in
prison where men rape men a lot--because there are no women to rape."

You haven't mentioned that prisons often have at least some female prison guards these days who rape their prisoners.

"And when they rape men they call the raped men "their bitch". Why? Why does a raped person get called something that is used to further hurt, insult, degrade, and humiliate women?"

What I find so strange here comes as that you probably are serious in that such humiliates women. The primary recipient of such a comment is the male who gets raped. Consequently, the person hurt, insulted, and degraded by such a comment comes as the male here. To suddenly make such a situation about women makes no sense at all, since the individual raped consists of a man.

"The feminist women I know are not homophobic and don't put down lesbians or joke about how lesbians are really for het men to get off to. Can you honestly say the same about the men who you are seeking to help?"

You've only discussed homophobia without discussing heterophobia. Also, such "phobias" involve fear and at the very least can have rational elements to them. Heterophobia makes you more careful about having sex, as does homophobia. This Wiki http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Homophobia indicates that homophobia is not an actual psychological disorder, nor is heterophobia.

Julian Real said...

Hi Spoonwood,

I'm not getting the sense that we're really communicating meaningfully with one another. You change the terms I use. I disagree with you on many points.

So I see no constructive reason to keep restating our points. We clearly have different views of what constitutes individual behavior, social realities, oppression, and so forth.

Spoonwood said...

"I'm not getting the sense that we're really communicating meaningfully with one another. You change the terms I use. I disagree with you on many points."

Many terms often come as at least partially undefined and do not come as fully clarified by context. Many terms have multiple meanings. Many terms stand open to interpretation.

Disagreement is not an indication of a lack of meaningful communication. Realizing disagreement often indicates that communication has actually taken place, since it shows that people have their own minds as they do in reality. Disagreement makes the reality of difference more clear.

"So I see no constructive reason to keep restating our points. We clearly have different views of what constitutes individual behavior, social realities, oppression, and so forth."

That we have different points of view here actually shows that we have individuality. One's individuality comes as part of one's humanity. In that sense, at the very least, this conversation has ended up as constructive.

Mathew Toll said...

Does anyone know why Paul Nathanson opposes gay marriage?

Does he have an anti-marriage stance in general/ a particular stance on gay liberation and views marriage as an undermining of that goal? Or, is it something along the lines of 'the minority shouldn't impose itself on the majority' kind of thing?

Julian Real said...

Hi Matthew,

You ask a good question. I would love to hear his answer to it!

I could speculate but I'd rather read his own response.

At any rate, history will leave him behind.