Thursday, September 23, 2010

Who's Hating Who? The logical phallusy of men's claims of endemic "misandry"

image of preposterous t-shirt saying is from here
In case you can't easily read it, the writing on the white t-shirt above says this:

 MISANDRY IS THE #1 HATE CRIME IN AMERICA

Now exactly how stupid does someone have to be to believe THAT? Exactly how out of touch with reality? Exactly how delusional? How egocentric? How self-absorbed? How clueless?

The reason that mostly WHITE non-poor [North] American (and UK and Australian and European) men can actually think what's on that t-shirt is accurate is because of something called "logical phallusy". Below I'll identify how that works.

Anyone who refuses to figuratively, metaphorically, or otherwise suck the dicks of men are often considered to be man-haters, or, in the newest parlance, "misandrists". (We must ignore, for the moment, that men who get their dicks sucked in any way often enjoy this act because it degrades the person doing the sucking, or, at least, makes the man feel in control, or like he's the master and the other person is the slave, in their sexual if not also emotional relationship.) So too are people regarded as "misandrist" if they refuse to defer to men on all matters "intellectual". So too are people considered to be "man-haters" if they value the perspectives, analyses, and political projects of feminists over those of anti-feminists. So too are people assessed and labeled as "practitioners of misandry" if they value the perspectives, analysis, and political projects of women in the Global South over men in the Global North.

I will tell you what I see: because I call some men some not-nice names when those men are not nice in the ways they speak about feminists, I am regarded as a man-hater. This determination is made unequivocally by many anti-feminist men who claim they aren't anti-feminist (well, some of them claim that; some own it right up front that they are anti-feminists. What they don't like to say out loud is the degree to which they are also misogynists, as this lessens their "victim status" in their claim to be the oppressed gender).

From YahooAnswers to many other social Q&A sites, to men's misogynistic blah-blah-blogs, to reddit-type websites that host topic-specific discussions, these men claim that feminists are "anti-misandrist". There is likely to be no end to them finding still more places on and offline for shoveling this CRAP out for everything to smell. The CRAP being that there is such a thing as a social-political problem called "woman being misandrists". I accept fully that some men--and please keep in mind here I don't identify as a man--do hate men. I accept that some women hate men, although their numbers have never been substantial, relative to "all women". Their numbers are not even significant when compared to the number of men who hate women. But, some men do hate men. Usually that hate goes this way: White men hate men of color, institutionally if not interpersonally; straight men hate gay men, in policy and law if not also in their own social circles. (But usually they express some forms of that hate in their social circles as well. Even if only in "jokes".)

What "anti-misandrists" keep forgetting, or never bothered to notice in the first place, was that the "hatred" that feminists are concerned about isn't only the form of hate that shows up as men being disrespectful or degrading to women. Or the form that shows up as men raping women. Or the form that shows up as multi-billion dollar a year industries called: sexual slavery, trafficking, pornography, advertising, cosmetics, plastic surgery, medical abuse and neglect, or denial of human rights. Or the form that manifests as men believing themselves superior to women, according to male supremacist assessments of what's valuable and what isn't, what's intelligence and what isn't, and what is "humane" and what isn't. What "anti-misandrists" can't quite comprehend, in any intelligible way, is that what feminists are addressing is all of the that and more: how religious institutions discriminate and dominate women, for example.

There are an overlapping, interlocking, systemic and systematic set of assaults against a whole class of people--women--by another whole class of people--men. Some of those misogynistic assaults are acted out against particular groups of women: by white men (or men of color) against women of color, for example. Or by rich men in the Global North (or Global South) against poor (or wealthy) women in the Global South. Or by het (or gay) men against lesbian (or heterosexual) women.

There's a tangled clustering of phenomena, called "hateful" that men perpetrate and perpetuate against women that is not only interpersonal and is not only institutional. Men cannot identify such a complex of "misandry". What they can do is pretend their is one. And they can do this by offering up as "proof" a dozen or two "quotes" by some white feminist women. Some of the quotes are misquotes. Some are from fiction. Some are written by women that were never considered "feminist activists" and lots of other quotes by those same women that demonstrate both regard for and respect of men are not added into that list, because that wouldn't really make the propagandistic and highly delusional point they wish to make.

"Anti-misandrist" men seem to truly, honestly believe that "misandrist women" exist en masse.  And they do, really, honestly, post four to fourteen quotes by like maybe six women as proof-positive that "misandry" is clearly THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL PROBLEM OF OUR AGE. Forget Global Warming. Forget U.S. wars in Asia. Forget famine and the problem of mass starvation and lack of access to basic health care. Forget genocide. And forget "misogyny" in the form of sexual, social, religious, and economic violence against women by men.

Some of these "anti-misandrists" even go so far as to claim that women "hit" men more than men "hit" women, never being very specific when it comes down to defining what "hit" means. Male students claim female students "shame" them in classrooms. Or they "threaten" and "silence" them by objecting to the stupid shit they say. Or they "bash" men in the media as if the media was ever owned by women. This is to say: if women DO "bash" men (verbally) in the media, why do those men who run the media allow that to happen? Is it because women are secretly the tyrants, the private dominators, and true oppressors of men across the West and elsewhere? Is it because the men who profit most from those industries can't help but let women in those industries spew "misandry"? I've yet to see much evidence of this "misandry" and when I "read all about it" all these guys point to are things like ads and TV shows that appear to not regard men as gods.

I hear this a lot: "Women are just as abusive to men  as men are to women." In what village, town, city, state, nation, hemisphere, world, solar system, universe, or multiverse?

I've seen one female relative APPEAR to be more disrespectful of her husband than her husband was of her. And any "anti-misandrist" man, if observing their dynamics, would have concludes that "she's more abusive to him than he is to her" because all they would have bothered to notice were some verbal and some non-verbal cues that she was "less than pleased" with him and sometimes felt genuine anger at him. The verbal "abuse" wasn't manifest in her calling him bad "misandrist" names, mind you. But he did call her very misogynistic terms, regularly. Her "misandry" showed up full blown in her rolling her eyes at stuff he said that she knew was full of shit. So her "eye rolling" is what would get checked off as signs of virulent man-hating/husband-hating, while his general disregard and lack of respect for her is seen as, well, as nothing to get one's pants in a twist about. See, there's really selective "seeing" going on here in assessing where the abuse is (most) in a relationship. So let's tease this out a little more, using the case of this female relative and her now ex-husband.

Who did most of the house cleaning? She did.
Who did most of the cooking? She did.
Who did most, well practically all of the child care? She did.
Who did almost all of the laundry? She did.
Who did almost all--practically every single bit--of the emotional caring of the family members? I mean who showed concern, regard, compassion, empathy, care, attention, and who regularly checked in with family members to find out how they were doing, how they were feeling, and what they might need or want to make their day or lives better? She did. He did almost none of that. Almost NONE. Sometimes he did grill stuff at family gatherings.

Yes, he did do that. So let's give credit where credit is due. But back to how things went most of the time:

Who wanted physical and emotional affection but didn't get it? Her, and each of their children. (I never once saw him hug them or praise them for anything other than athletic accomplishments. And he wouldn't debate this: he knows he was a shitty father in this regard especially.)

Who wanted some forms of "affection" but went outside the marriage to get it? HE did.

He cheated on her, claimed to the women he "rented" or otherwise spent time with that he was in an unhappy marriage as if he couldn't get out of it and as if he couldn't express his issues with their marriage to his wife before deceit and degradation of her and other women began. (The children were grown and out of the house when the cheating really amped up.) He wanted his live-in maid, laundry attendant, cook, nurse, and life manager (that would be my female relative, aka his wife for decades) AND he wanted to (and did) fuck around on her with other women.

But, she did do that eye-roll and also the occasional sigh of disbelief or disgust at things that flowed out of his mouth--as he arrogantly pontificated and obnoxiously postured himself as "the expert" on anything he found himself talking about. Yes, he did that. (There were lots of witnesses.) He was and remains one of those guys who seems to think that if the shit leaves HIS ass it must be pure gold and also perfumed.

So, who here has the problem with being a "hater"? Me, the female relative, or her husband?

The "anti-misandrist" will conclude, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that she and I do, because we don't seem to worship him or even hold him in very high regard. We must remember that even though she "doesn't hold him in very high regard" that she took him to the hospital and all doctor's appointments. She made sure he had food to eat. She prepared foods he enjoyed eating. She made sure he had clean clothes to wear. She made sure their children were attended to emotionally and physically--which meant, of course, that he didn't have to, as if stating, "Well, if SHE'S doing it all just fine, why should I have to do it also??" And yet, let her take the scumbag to court and he'll plead that he ought to get at least 50-50 custody--as if he knows a goddamned thing about how to raise children or how to respect their mother.

He has shown her a lack of regard since soon after they were married and he knew he "had her". Then he felt rather fine about subscribing to Hustler and later to investing a lot of time looking at online pornography. He also later felt just fine about seeking out sex partners online--I'm not saying he didn't have periods of guilt. I'm only saying his guilt didn't override his disregard of his wife.

And, last but not least, after decades of physically and sexually neglecting her, he raped her. Yes, by any definition, he raped her. Because he was angry with her and angry that she wanted more affection from him. So he raped her, anally, and injured her body in the process in ways that could have been lethal had infection set in, somehow believing that by raping her, he'd get HER off HIS back. And guess what? After the rape, she filed for divorce. It was, as they say, "the last straw". She dumped his sorry no-good ass.

Now, who hates who in the above story? Do I hate her now ex-husband? No. Do I have much regard or respect for him? No. But that's not hate. I hate how he treated and mistreated her. I despise the fact that he was so grossly neglectful of her and so grotesquely abusive to her at the end of their marriage.

Does she hate him? No. She's even taken him to doctor's appointments since the divorce, and helped him with some projects--they cleared out and cleaned up their house together, before it got sold.

So this is the part in the "anti-misandry" narrative where the "anti-misandrist" blames HER for hanging around HIM for so long. "Why did she stay with him if he was such a jerk?!!" But they forget to ask, "Why did he stay with a woman who cleans his clothes, cooks his food, raise their children, and also rolls her eyes occasionally?"

If they assess her to be "just as abusive" as he was, then why the hell did he stay with her??!! It couldn't be because he was, in fact, cared for and cared about by her, could it?

And to those who think "she stayed with him for the money", she's also worked a lot outside the home as well as inside it, often being the one to bring in more money than he did as his employment was shaky and hers was steady.

So who hates who in this story? There's one clear answer: he hated her. If we're going to use "hate" to mean systematically abuses disrespects and shows no regard for. And insults. And harms. And oppresses.

If all that equals "hate" then I have not hated him ever, nor has she.

Regardless of what the evidence of sociology, literature, and history has to tell us, the "anti-misandrists" are there to remind us that rape and battery statistics are grossly over-exaggerated. They do this with a straight face while never quite saying that even if that were true, men beating up and raping women would still be a serious political problem. And no matter how low the stats anti-misandrists calculate while determining incidents of such violence against women by men, they are exponentially and socially significantly higher than the rates of women beating up and raping men. This is also to say that there is no social-political epidemic, pandemic, or even "semi-occasional occurrence" of women committing penetrative sexual violence regularly and routinely against men.

According to all historical information thus uncovered, discovered, and recovered (by "unbiased" men at that), women raping men has NOT EVER been a social-political problem. (And there are plenty of objects women could use, so don't blame the lack of incidents on "anatomy": men sure don't when they rape women with objects.) There is also no social-political problem of women intimately terrorising men, or socially terrorising men, or terrorising whole groups of men, such as men of a specific ethnic group, with the exception of Nazi women in Germany in the last century, but their terroristic acts weren't gender-specific, nor was the sex of the torturers gender-specific. Paraphrasing C. A. MacKinnon: Men terrorise women: subject verb object.

16 comments:

Patti said...

"Now exactly how stupid does someone have to be to believe THAT? Exactly how out of touch with reality? Exactly how delusional? How egocentric? How self-absorbed? How clueless?"

Hmmmmmmmm......let's find out, shall we? I have copied a very recent posting from the Uber-MRAsshole, Uber-Anti-Misandrist who believes that men are THE Uber-Humans that women need to stop bad-mouthing and start worshipping that I mentioned in a comment within this thread. This man is far more verbose than I, being that he is very important, very distinguished, and very sought-after....a legend in his own mind, really....who has very little time to spare on "educating" the masses, so please, honour the fact that he has taken the time to lay these pearls of wisdom at our feet.

Part One of this anti-misandrist's idea of Utopia to follow.....

Patti said...

Part One:

No. I do not propose 50/50'ownership' of children. My book and ideas are coming along. The contract I mentioned will be ownership of the child is 100% with the father up to and including the fathers right to kill the child if he determines that is necessary.
The contract will say the woman has no rights to the child, that all will be given by the father.
Why? Men know children need mothers. Men will give the mother everything she needs to be a good mother to his child.
Mothers do NOT know children need fathers. They have, in their tens of millions, abused their own children by denying the child their father. The evidence for this is not refutable.
If a woman wishes to have a child with such a good man she will sign the contract. If she does not? She is welcome to find a man to have a baby with who will not insist on such a contract. Hell. She can find a man who says ownership, and therefore cost, of the child is 100% with her.
Here is a question for you. If a woman walked into a bar in waiving a contract and said:
"I want a baby. The first man to sign this contract waiving all rights to any baby born gets to come home with me tonight and make babies."
How many volunteers would she get? She may well be trampled in the stampede. Pretty much ANY woman of child bearing age could walk into a bar and get a man to 'make babies' with her if he was guaranteed that he had no obligation past providing a few sperm cells. Or would you say I am mistaken on that point? ;-)

Patti said...

Part Two:

Here is another question for you.
After 40 years of 'feminism' and all these women so proudly proclaiming how 'equal' they are and so many women so proudly proclaiming how lesbian they are?
How many 'married couples' are two women who have worked out how to earn a living for the family and raise 'turkey baster babies'? Amost none. Why do you think that is? Because a woman will not labour for 45 years to pay for another womans baby, that's why. Don't take my word for it. Go look for yourself around your town and compare the number of 'married couples' where a man is the bread winner vs the number of couples where a woman is the bread winner. What do you see?
If women are so 'equal' why are there almost NO 'couples' who are two women happily raising a family? Something that 99%+ of men have done over thousands of years.
[addressee's name deleted by me],
Men are magnificent in the main. They will do 'whatever it takes' to provide for their wife and family and you can find the irrefutable evidence for this all over the world. Even in the poorest of societies. Don't take my word for it. Go look for yourself.
But even in the wealthiest of societies you can not find any significant percentage of women who act so selflessly towards their 'wife and children' as the humblest man in the poorest society. Go ahead. Look for yourself to find evidence to rebutt that if you can.
The endless vililfication of men has been completely unfounded. It's about time men stood up and said 'NO MORE. Stop bad mouthing us. We will not tolerate your lies any more."

Patti said...

Part Three:

Two further contracts will be:
1. A woman signing a bonded affidavit of 'equal before the law'.
2. A woman signing a bonded affidavit to be 'chattel property of a man'.

[addressee's name deleted by me],
You know what I think is going to happen?
The 'good men' who want to have a 'wife and children' like I used to be? I think those men will offer the contract to women to be 'wife and chattel property with ownership of the children to the father', to 'love, honour, protect and provide' with all his heart and strength. Men WILL make that offer to the woman they love.
To be the wife of such a man is easily the most prestigious and valuable relationship that a woman can enter into. I think women will sign up for this just like they used to sign up for 'christian wife' which is essentially the same contract I will propose. Women conveniently gloss over the fact that marriage was VOLUNTARY and they CHOSE to do it at rates approaching 99%.
There will also be women who demand to be 'equal before the law'. In which case MANY men will NOT wish to marry them or have children with them. I did not want an 'equal' as my wife because I am not gay. If I wanted an 'equal' I would have married a male colleague. I wanted a wife to complement my offer of husband such that children could be raised.
I only chose to marry after I chose to have children. Marriage is inextricably linked to children, in my opinion. In my opinion the very purpose of marriage is to provide the environment for children. There is no point AT ALL in being 'married' if there is no plan to have children, in my opinion.
Women have claimed for 40 years they want to be 'equal' and that they were 'oppressed by the patriarchy' of the 'christian marriage'. Well? My proposal is very, very simple. Put the two options in front of women and see which one they choose. Nowadays I NEVER listen to what a woman says. I watch what she does.
Do you have ANY idea how lucky a woman like my ex was to be married to a man like me? Very, very lucky.
Men will go out, make their way in the world, and the BEST of them will only offer a 'marriage contract' where they are the head of the marriage. Why? Because they will know that is what is in the best interests of the children. They won't accept 'lawfully equal' in the marriage because the irrefutable evidence laying all around them today points out that if you try and make the woman 'equal' in the marriage then disaster follows as surely as the sun rises.
THAT is what I think will happen. But hey. I could be wrong.
As [name deleted by me] says. Women en masse will weep. And they will when they are brought down from their pedistals down to the lawful status of men. They will not like that fall one little bit.

Julian Real said...

Wow, Patti.

That's one huge dose of Hegotism.

Re:
If women are so 'equal' why are there almost NO 'couples' who are two women happily raising a family?

Might one reason be because patriarchal men organise to effectively keep that option illegal? (What completely non-lesbophobic, non-heterosexist world does he imagine actual human beings live in?)

Something that 99%+ of men have done over thousands of years.

99% of men have happily been "raising families" for thousands of years? Hardly. For one thing, that's far from accurate even if we assume all men are heterosexual, and always were, which, uhhh, they aren't and weren't. For another, given the number of children--female, male, and intersex, now grown, I know who did have fathers who were raped by their fathers, or psychologically and emotionally abused and neglected by those fathers, and abandoned by those fathers, I simply don't get what reality he is speaking about.

Men happily raising families--99% of men??? Does he assume "Father Knows Best" was an trans-historical, cross-cultural reality TV show?? He states 'raising'. I know of one man, currently, in a heterosexual marriage who has been and remains the primary parent of their child. One. Does 'raising a family' mean 'being married'? Is his wife his child? (Unfortunately, the answer is sometimes yes, and I know a few women for whom that was the case.) But what I'm witnessing is women having to raise their children AND their husbands, emotionally.

[addressee's name deleted by me],
Men are magnificent in the main. They will do 'whatever it takes' to provide for their wife and family and you can find the irrefutable evidence for this all over the world.


Is "fucking trafficked girls, boys, men, trans people, and women in systems of prostitution" while these 'magnificent' men are married part of them being so amazingly selfless?

Even in the poorest of societies. Don't take my word for it. Go look for yourself.

Does he go around and have a look for himself at these poor societies? Is he from one? Has he lived in one? How obnoxiously classist of him to speak for all men who live in poor societies.

But even in the wealthiest of societies you can not find any significant percentage of women who act so selflessly towards their 'wife and children' as the humblest man in the poorest society. Go ahead. Look for yourself to find evidence to rebutt that if you can.

His argument is that women aren't selfless LESBIANS in primary couple relationships with children. How he'd know is a bit beyond me. Does he have cameras embedded in the homes of every lesbian couple across the globe?

We might note that his argument isn't that women aren't selfless when in heterosexual relationships with men in which THEY are 'raising the family', not the man.

His argument is so delusional and the conception of "manhood" so grandiose, that I'd hope the man finds his way into therapy some time soon, to deal with his obvious lack of self-esteem being grossly over-compensated for by going on and on as he does.

Patti said...

And can you believe that I tried to reason with this maniac? I MUST have sadomasochistic tendencies!! But it was not so much because I thought that I could succeed at having HIM see the flaws in his "logic", but for others reading his narrow self-aggrandizing drivel. His opinions (oops, I mean objective FACTS) about the world that we live in, bolstered by evidence culled from the writings of deep thinkers such as Warren Farrell, Henry Makow and Stephen Baskerville (to name just a few) are irrefutable, as any evidence to the contrary is easily dismissed as feminist lies and myths that have long ago been successfully debunked. Laws and social restraints that held women back, that prevented them from maybe having been the majority of inventers, composers, writers or even bread-winners? Lies, all lies. Any how do we know that these are all lies? Because he says so. How do we KNOW that he was the perfect husband and father, and how lucky a woman like his ex was to be married to a man like him? Because he says so.

He doesn't need to have a look for himself at other societies...he makes an observation from where he sits, fits it into his pre-conceived notions and spouts it as a world-wide, historically accurate truth. As I told him, in my last comment to him many months ago, he'd be wise to find himself a time machine and jettison on back to ancient Greco-Roman society, as that's where he truly belongs. There he could join the great philosophers, such as Aristotle, who fit their observations into absolute truths (theory of the "King" bee, anyone?)

Not only does he speak for all men in all societies, but for all women, too. Don't dare call him a woman-hater, as he'll tell you, he LOVES women...Eastern European women, that is.....as, unlike Western "privilege princesses", his "lovely" Eastern European "princesses" speak universal truths about the true nature of ALL women, such as that women do not know what makes them happy until a man tells them what makes them happy and that all women would, if need be, cuckold their husband to have a baby if their husband was not desiring of one. Can YOU say "sycophants"? Sure you can, I knew you could. But more importantly, WHY is it that they are sycophantic?

The sad and disappointing thing to me is the number of men (and, might I add that it's not ALL of the men) who respond to him are in agreement with him and would gladly join him in his crusade. I was laughing when I posted to him that what his merry band of disciples need be asking themselves is, once he has control of the world and has dispensed with and put back in their place all the women of the world, who will he be turning his baleful eyes upon next.
And, of course, any men who don't agree with absolutely everything that he puts forth are white knight mangina apologists........but of course, I am the one who uses the "shaming language", not him.

Perhaps you could critique his book whenever it is that he gets it finished and published.

About the only thing that I would still have remaining to say to this "god of MANkind" is 'Fuck you AND the privilege you rode in on'.... but I shall
refrain.

Julian Real said...

Make sure you copy and paste his CRAP, Patti. Because too many anti-feminists and male supremacists (aka "anti-misandrists") claim to be interested in gender equality and fairness, and he's clearly not. He's unambiguously a spokesperson for however many privileged men there are who believe, with all their hearts and the majority of their delusional minds, that 'women are most happy when their are the wives of men and the mothers of their children [preferably sons].

The statement of his you referenced was one I meant to note and respond to:

How do we KNOW that he was the perfect husband and father, and how lucky a woman like his ex was to be married to a man like him? Because he says so.

I'd love to interview any and all women he's been involved with to find out their version of his rabidly egomaniacal self-assessment of himself as 'a lover not a hater'.

The most humane men I know would never make a statement like that. They'd say the opposite: the most anti-misogynistic het men I know, and the most loving het men I know acknowledge that they've made grievous errors in their past relationships with women, or earlier in the relationship they are in, and that with the assistance of feminist analysis and being held to account by women, they've learned, grown, and become more humane as a result.

The unnamed misogynist/self-aggrandiser seems content to perpetuate the myth of his own divine and Earthly perfection. Patriarchal SkyGod-complex much?

Patti said...

"Make sure you copy and paste his CRAP, Patti. Because too many anti-feminists and male supremacists (aka "anti-misandrists") claim to be interested in gender equality and fairness, and he's clearly not."
Oh, I DO copy and paste his CRAP, and I thank you for having chosen to publish it on your blog, as you could have easily made the decision to not publish it (as although it was actually a MILD example of what he writes, it still may be offensive to some that you don't want to offend)....after all, it is YOUR blog, and being that I am a guest in your 'house' (so to speak), I know that I should respect your decisions about how you choose to be the host in your house. But assuming that there might be some anti-misandrist, anti-feminist, MRAssholes who lurk here or who are drawn here on occasion, I was hoping that you would choose to publish it, so that he could be exposed for what he truly is.

You are quite correct in that he needs to find his way into therapy soon, as he definitely has some mental issues, but what I find downright SCARY about him is that he is quite intelligent, well-read (in areas of his choosing, not necessarily in view points opposing his), well-spoken, and can be downright cordial and flattering ("Men are magnificent in the main"), in certain situations, to the same degree that he is vicious and insulting in other situations. He is quite successful at hiding himself and his true agenda within his own dogma for those who choose to take his words at face value rather than digging a little deeper. Can you, Julian, or anyone else who may be posting or simply lurking at this blog think of other famous (or infamous) intelligent, well-read, well-spoken, well-written men who, despite their (obvious to some) mental issues, were highly successful at being elevated to status of leader, being that they mixed bits of truth and bits of fact with a whole shitload of conjecture taken to be truths and facts, and leading whole nation(s) of people to commit atrocities that they might otherwise have thought abhorrent?

Here is just one of my "subject's" well utilized tactics:

The two further contracts for which he proposes that men choose only one to put forth to their prospective female spouses to sign prior to the man deciding whether to marry said prospect or not:

1. A woman signing a bonded affidavit of 'equal before the law'.
2. A woman signing a bonded affidavit to be 'chattel property of a man'.

You see, you can't call him a misogynist or woman-hater or of HIS having said that women should be chattel property of a man, because he is clearly offering choices, not demanding that there is only one option. Except that he IS "demanding" there be only one option, by playing upon common WHM's fears and insecurities to TELL men (REAL men, that is) which of the two contract options they ought to be choosing, as he further states:
"You know what I think is going to happen? The 'good men' who want to have a 'wife and children' like I used to be? I think those men will offer the contract to women to be 'wife and chattel property with ownership of the children to the father', to 'love, honour, protect and provide' with all his heart and strength. Men WILL make that offer to the woman they love."
You see, only the 'GOOD MEN', the ones who actually 'LOVE' the 'WOMAN' will choose contract #2.

To be continued......

Patti said...

.....cont'd......

And then there's this:
"There will also be women who demand to be 'equal before the law'. In which case MANY men will NOT wish to marry them or have children with them. I did not want an 'equal' as my wife because I am not gay. If I wanted an 'equal' I would have married a male colleague."
You see, a 'REAL MAN' (i.e., not a GAY man, who really shouldn't even be considered a 'MAN') will NOT choose contract #1, as then he would be exposing himself as gay and, therefore, not a REAL man. A traitor, of sorts.

"The unnamed misogynist/self-aggrandiser seems content to perpetuate the myth of his own divine and Earthly perfection. Patriarchal SkyGod-complex much?"
Exactly!! And quite frightening in the respect that I have outlined here.
This unnamed misogynist/self-aggrandiser, for those who would like to further research his polemics, goes by the internet handle of
GlobalMan AKA Peter Andrew Nolan

Back to Julian in quotes...
"the most anti-misogynistic het men I know, and the most loving het men I know acknowledge that they've made grievous errors in their past relationships with women, or earlier in the relationship they are in, and that with the assistance of feminist analysis and being held to account by women, they've learned, grown, and become more humane as a result."
Or, at the very least, they acknowledge that they (or other men) have contributed to and should bear some of the blame for their failed or failing relationships.

Patti said...

And for any (not you, Julian) who might think, 'well yeah, that guy's a bit of a misogynist maybe, but he's not anti-misandrist or propogate the logical phallusy of endemic misandry', here's his reponse to someone who said that it's not men against women (meaning that society's ills are more complex than just gender wars).......
"Sadly, it is today. Women have been incited to attack men. That attack needs to be nullified. Women were asked to stop attacking us and they refuse to. So, men have no choice but to nullify their attack for the sake of the children. No man can sit back and continue to allow women to commit crimes with impunity. I breaks the little comment above and makes society unworkable.
If you do not know western women have been programmed to hate men? I suggest you go and read Stephen Baskervilles great book 'Taken Into Custody'. Western women hate men with a passion now. It's right beneath the surface. That is why I have, for 12 months, prodded the women. When you prod them, the hatred comes through. Look at how I have been banned off tpuc, david ickes site, veronica chapmans site, pretty much all major fathers rights sites. Any man who stands up and says 'Our women are attacking us and they hate us now and we need to nullify this attack' is immediately attacked by those very same women who say they are not attacking us. As one man said "if it were not for double standards women would have no standards at all"
Sadly. We have NO CHOICE but to nullify the attack of women on men. NONE AT ALL.
Sadly. Western women DO hate men in large numbers, they do attack us using the state, and they are un-repentant about that. Go read www.the-spearhead.com if you have ANY doubt as to the truth of that statement."

And oh yes, he has a ready answer for any who might point out that it's MEN who oppress OTHER MEN. He's been taken to task on it before and is well prepared:
""It is not until a man is CLEAR that he is being oppressed by MEN via the AGENCY of women that he can truely free himself. Because until he realises that the agency of his oppression is actually the women around him he will fight 'the state' and not nullify his real oppressor. His women"
But notice the sleight of hand where that finger of blame points right back at WOMEN.

Patti said...

"I have broached this topic with my eastern european lady friends. To a one they have told me they were fully aware this was the deal since they were little girls. They tell me there is not a woman alive who does not know that the best way to get along in life is to make sure they get a 'good man' to protect and provide. It's just the way it is. Men are bigger and stonger."
Not even a hint that this might be culture/society-specific and that they were fully aware this was the deal because they were TAUGHT and CONDITIONED to believe that this was the deal, as they were being TAUGHT and CONDITIONED to be sycophants to men ("Ooooooooo.....you so STRONG.....you the BIGGEST, you the BEST!") in order to survive in a male-dominated world. Oh no, this is a universal truth.

"Why do you think 'marriage' and 'the wedding' is such a big deal for women? It's like winning the lottery, only better. Take a look. Next time you are in a supermarket look at how many magazines talk about 'getting him to marry you' and about 'weddings'. This is the #1 topic for women. Why? Because they KNOW that is in THEIR BEST INTERESTS. Well? If it is in the WOMANS best interests to get a
'love-man-slave' under the unlawful marriage contract? How could it also be in the MANs best interest? The answer is it can't. So he has to be BRAINWASHED into thinking it's a good deal. And brainwashing it is because after 18 years of 'marriage'? I can testify that it sucks, even when it's good"
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........could it be that those magazines are out there to brainwash WOMEN into thinking that 'marriage' and 'the wedding' is like winning the lottery, only better? To hopefully brainwash WOMEN into thinking that 'getting him to marry you' and 'weddings' SHOULD be their #1 topic? Their one and only goal in life?? Nnnnaaaaahhhhh............that couldn't be.

And here's written evidence of who this 'man' might really be:
"Talk of 'non-violence' is a joke in my personal opinion. if someone hits you? Do you 'turn the other cheek' or do you hit them back and say "do NOT do that again". Since I know who 'Jesus' really was, I don't do 'turn the other cheek'."
WOW, he knows who 'Jesus' really was.....he must be really OLD to have encountered 'Jesus'....immortal even.....who (or what) might 'Jesus' have encountered that would still be alive today....... ???

I will get off the soapbox now......just wanted to show for the world another real world example of an anti-misandrist

Julian Real said...

We can discuss this off the blog, Patti:

What is the actual threat of this guy, given that he has a small audience and that Father's Rights men won't associate with him?

Extremists like him can actually have a very valuable function. I can go into this with you off the blog.

Illuminati Ingrid said...

http://peternolanpsychopath.blogspot.com/

Julian Real said...

Hi Illuminati Ingrid,

I'll make the URL a functioning link. I have some concerns about the site, but want people to be able to visit it and see what you and others are documenting.

http://peternolanpsychopath.blogspot.com/

Regarding something I read on the blog linked to, I hope we can collectively find terms for those we disagree with that don't put down or insult oppressed groups of people, such as those who are developmentally disabled. The word "ret--ded" in my experience, is used similarly to the word "gay" here in the U.S. and perhaps also elsewhere: it is intended to degrade and insult the people who are understood to be either of those things, as well as to negatively stigmatise anyone else who is charged with being either "ret--rded" or gay. I think we need terms that speak to the privileges and power people have who abuse both and not to target those already marginalised and socially insulted and degraded.

Patti said...

Sorry, Julian, between my work and helping my brother and his family move to a new home, I've had precious little time over the past couple of weeks to visit yours or any blogs/forums. Then it took me a bit to find my last postings here to see if you had replied.

"Extremists like him can actually have a very valuable function. I can go into this with you off the blog."

Certainly, I would welcome that!! Are you familiar with my email addy from my publishing my comments here, or would you like me to email you at the address that you have provided in your "Contact me" information?

And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not familiar with Illuminati Ingrid.

Julian Real said...

Hi Patti,

Yes, please write to me at the email address in the top right of this blog. (I don't have access to your email address through your posts.)