A PDF DOWNLOAD OF THESE COMMENTS CAN BE OBTAINED HERE.
THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THE MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN THE YOUTUBE VIDEO, "FEMINISM AND THE DISPOSABLE MALE":
Note: My comments are highlighted in yellow. The original comments from the video are not highlighted, but appear as quotations.
What we'd all like to be true, but isn't.
She says: "Society expects men to place themselves last every time."
That's why men are all at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy.
"Society places men dead last, every time [for instance] who gets to eat…"
"Society places men dead last, every time [for instance] who gets to eat…"
This is an emotional appeal to the notion of there being some kind of naturally evolving system, where everybody had their place, and men are noble and self-sacrificing by virtue of their biological make-up. It does not take into account the complexity of the world, but I'm sure both men and women would be comforted to think this way.
"One big disaster that took out a group of women meant the end of the entire shebang for that group of people."
What about Female infanticide?*
Doesn't that (see data at the end of this document) lead us to understand that at time, society adapts and preserves itself by killing females, rather than by preserving them. Then, what does this say about the author's biological theory of gender roles?
"The level of importance that a human settlement placed on the well being of women and children reflected always how successful that settlement was."
"This drive to keep women from all harm has often led to extreme limits being placed on their agency."
"The most successful societies had a really good balance between allowing women freedom and allowing them to direct their own paths in life AND the need to protect them and provide for them."
This is a tautological statement giving us no further details as to what a successful society looks like and feels like – but presumably the most successful society is the speaker's own.
"We're talking [not freedom, but] seats in lifeboats."
If [expendable character of the male) starts in the chromosomes, we reinforce this dynamic [socially].
Female Genital Mutilaton [ie. any evil against women?] was banned pretty much the first minute we all heard it existed.
How did it even exist in the first place if it is in our chromosomes to protect women? Were we doing something we didn't know we were doing, until we told ourselves we were doing it – at which point, we suddenly "heard" about it and stopped doing it?
"It's important for us to know when [infant girls] are sick or in danger or hurt, so we can do something about it."
"We're teaching her to not allow guilt or empathy of any sense of a man's humanity…or any sense that he might just deserve it more, to convince her to give her seat to him."
Obvious solution implied by the speaker: the man just needs to wake up from his evolutionary slumber and start taking what is rightfully his.
She implies women just feel entitled, rather than having any legitimate grievances against the age-old system of patriarchy: For millennia, the human race depended on her feeling one hundred percent entitled to that seat.
Would it be comforting for MRAs to believe that women are inherently selfish bitches? Flattering, at any rate, since he must necessarily view himself as noble, by contrast.
"even if women don't need it, even if women don't deserve it…they get [everything] because we give it to them."
She implies women are undeserving, or could perhaps be usefully viewed to be so.
"This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I have ever come across."
She implies that feminists are manipulative. Also that women just want to take more and more, because its in our chromosomes. We have no sense of balance, perspective, or fair play. Only men have those, presumably.
MRAs who have a axe to grind will relate this to their personal experiences and fill in the blanks with information like the idea that women will automatically leach off you and steal your house, too, unless they are forcibly stopped from taking advantage of a naturally yielding and gentle male nature. Feminism is misrepresented here as an extension of this (also false) basic female psychology, taken to extremes. In fact, feminism is the radical idea that women are human.
"Bend over and give women everything".
The terminology may well have been carefully chosen. In any case, it sends a subtle message: You are losing your masculine self-respect because of "feminism". Women are going to make you take it up the ass, if you are not careful.
"We've unbalanced society to the point that we're just in danger of seriously toppling over."
She started off with the view that our biological chromosomes preserved the natural order, so now I'm not sure what she wants to do about them. Maybe something can be worked out in a lab?
"We still expect men not to complain about coming in dead last, every time, but men don't get our admiration anymore."
Self-evidently false about the nature of the world, especially if we are to draw the lines based on gender alone, rather than economic class, etc.
She implies that all men are quietly and stoically suffering in inconspicuous ways and in positions that are not esteemed in society.
Of course, men just don't complain about women these days. Just go to YouTube, where nobody can do anything like that.
Of course, men just don't complain about women these days. Just go to YouTube, where nobody can do anything like that.
*female infanticide
From:
Female infanticide is the deliberate killing of girl babies.
It is also described as gender-selective killing or "gendercide". (Similar words like 'gynocide' and 'femicide' are used to describe the killing of females of any age.)
Female infanticide is more common than male infanticide, and in some countries, particularly India and China, is likely to have serious consequences on the balance of the sexes in the population.
The reasons behind it are almost always cultural, rather than directly religious.
The causes:
Anti-female bias
Societies that practise female infanticide always show many other signs of bias against females.
Women are perceived as subservient because of their role as carers and homemakers, whilst men predominantly ensure the family's social and economic stability.
Family economics
Girl babies are often killed for financial reasons.
· Earning power: Men are usually the main income-earners, either because they are more employable or earn higher wages for the same work, or because they are able to do more agricultural work in subsistence economies. Since male babies have a greater income potential, they are less likely to be killed.
· Potential pensions: In many societies, parents depend on their children to look after them in old age. But in many of these cultures a girl leaves her parental family and joins her husband's family when she marries. The result is that parents with sons gain extra resources for their old age, when their sons marry, while parents with daughters lose their 'potential pensions' when they marry and move away. This gives parents a strong reason to prefer male children. Some parents (particularly poor ones) who can't afford to support a large family, will kill female babies. Girls are considered a drain on family resources during their childhood without bringing economic benefits later on.
· Dowry: Some girl babies are killed so that the family doesn't have to pay a dowry when they get married. In Indian society it is tradition for the parents of the bride to give a dowry to the groom and his family. The dowry consists of large amounts of money and valuable goods. For families with several daughters this can be a serious financial burden.
Government policy
Governmental policies have also increased female infanticide as an unpredicted side-effect. For example, when the Chinese Government introduced a One Child per Family Policy there was a surge in female infanticide. Families needed to have a son because of their higher earning potential, so a girl baby was an economic disaster for them, and there was a strong motive to ensure that girl babies did not survive.
Caste
Some female infants are killed because they are regarded as being lower in the caste hierarchy than males.
No comments:
Post a Comment