Amanda Marcotte argues that "the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy." In this horrible age of feminism, liberated women date whomever they want and leave bad marriages. It's so hard for entitled misogynists to get and control the submissive female partners that they need to boost their egos.
image source: Pepe, Cantwell (the article), text mine
... the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy. While there hasn’t been any rigid academic analysis of this phenomenon, sites like We Hunted the Mammoth, which started as a way to monitor the various and overlapping worlds of online misogyny, have tracked that when men get together to gripe about their resentment of women’s growing independence, they often start drifting toward talking about “white genocide” and other white supremacist ideas.
The world of online misogynists is a complex maze. Some of the communities are geared towards older, divorced men. Some are “pick-up artist” sites, geared towards younger men who think they aren’t getting the female attention they believe they’re due. Some identify as “men going their own way,” which is to say giving up on women altogether. But what brings them together is anger over the fact that feminism has liberated women to date whomever they wish and leave marriages that aren’t working. This makes it much harder, in the “men’s rights” misogynist view, for men to acquire or keep the submissive female partners they feel entitled to.
Why hating women would lead so many men to hating nonwhite people is difficult to parse in logical terms. But racism and sexism aren’t rational ideologies and really aren’t bound by the basic rules of logic. At the root of both lies a thwarted sense of entitlement and a sense that women and people of color are somehow stealing what is the white man’s due. [emphasis mine]
We already know that online trolls were the early nucleus of the resurgent hate.
My thoughts now. Suppose it were possible:
1) to correct for the many differences in what boys and girls are taught from birth to puberty, and
2) to measure what might be hormone-caused selfishness for men and for women at various ages.
Suppose then the results, age on the X axis and selfishness on the Y axis, were shown as a line for men and a line for women.
There would be similaritues and differences. What might we conclude?
The differences in what boy and girls are taught are so many in kind and in degree that correcting for their effects might be impossible. What then?
... the many differences in what boys and girls are taught ...
I've heard of research finding that parents unconsciously treat girls and boys differently -- even as infants, in such things as how long parents let a baby cry before going to comfort her/him.
In "A Call to Men", Tony Porter speaks of how the all-too-ubiquitous, restrictive "man box" of rules "real men" and boys "should" follow led him to hurt people in his life. Read more at "Men who challenge men to stop violence".
Yiou’re right, Marianne. Debate has long been a waste of energy; it’s time to stir the fear in some legislators that they will lose their next election.
"...stir the fear in some legislators that they will lose the next election."
The authors of the Indivisible Guide advocate exactly this. They point out that even good, honest, idealistic, ethical public servants have a strong instrumental goal of getting reelected, so they'll be able to continue their good works. (And of course, legislators in it for the money and power also want to get reelected.)
Together, we have the power to resist — and we have the power to win.
We know this because we’ve seen it before. The authors of this guide are former congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party. We saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress. [...] If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.
I am not supportive in getting rid of men's rights completely. The men are imperfect, vulnerable, and accountable for doing harmful things just like the women are. I see women competing against each other for survival as well as men competing against each other for survival. And then, I see women and men competing against each other for survial. Competitive fighting like that has caused wars, deaths, psychological trauma, children having to deal with adults' problems (which is why child abuse happens), etc. I won't say that men and women should hurt each other like sociopaths or psychopaths, but I don't find that a lot of people should be excused for being a jerk regardless of their sex.
Violence is not a good thing and often creates more problems than it solves. Pushes, slaps, pinches, insults, put-downs, discounts, trivializations, and demonizations do not show respect and in fact, reveal more about the person assaulting another than the victim of the assault.
Joy and laughter in homes and offices and workplaces can be healing and certainly, treating others with respect makes a big difference in the individuals one encounters.
Agreed! It's no accident that many secular and religious teachers throughout history (not just Jesus, as some Christians think!) advocated treating people with the respect and kindness we'd hopefully want for ourselves.
The only "men's rights" we need are human rights, applying to everyone.
(And we're not so great at fully respecting women's human rights. It's unfortunate that Marie Shear's definition still needs to be mentioned, that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people.")
Unfortunately, there are religious teachers that are hypocrites when it comes to respecting women when their religious scriptures are the opposite of respecting women if their religious scriptures talk about keeping women in abusive silence, submission, and inability to have an authority over a man even if that man is a rapist or not. A self-respecting woman who is an Abrahamic religion follower is an oxymoron. Throughout time, toxic men who were humans created those Abrahamic religions to “justify” wars, pillaging, raping women, etc. for monstrous power hunger. All of these things made the men have a harder time being decent when other men abused women and men both through abusive religion that was disguised as holy.
In the real world, there can be sports, hunting, militaries, and competitions that have caused violence and will cause violence. Violence inevitably happens in life for survival such as lions killing animals for food. Making violence only happen when absolutely necessary is ideal. However, you have people with different upbringings, mindsets, genetic predispositions, etc. that violence may happen when there are people who cannot agree on something or some things enough that they feel like their way of living is being threatened if they cannot be persuaded to get rid of their hostility. Which is why there are people doing their best to make people become peacemakers rather than swindlers from what I have experienced. You get commercials, the people who work in the entertainment industry, alcohol, religions, etc. that are causing more chaos and confusion than peace in order to get money from people. Those things are the enablers of violence instead of peace in society. There are lawyers, politicians, entertainers, and rich businessmen and rich business women that are exploiting average people by keeping them uneducated and easily exploited from financial inequality not for peaceful reasons but for evilly greedy reasons.
Shine (may I?), I see in your post an implication many atheists seem unable to grasp: there was never a “Garden of Eden”.
Decades ago in academia I occasionally saw references to a past from which “Homo sapiens escaped”, a place where “tooth and claw” or “the law of the jungle” prevailed.
We know how to eradicate measles but the news tells us we have not and probably won’t succeed. We DON’T know how to eradicate narcissism, psychopathy, or sociopathy. IMO, in an unregulated free market, they confer evolutionary advantage.
What say you?
Why are you both shouting?
Tom, it is possible to turn the print into larger and bolder forms making it possible to read more easily, especially if our eyes have cataracts starting or aging takes away the ability to make the print more acute.
For example, your, "Ruth, my 88-year-old eyes see..." can be transformed into "Ruth, my 88-year-old eyes see... " with two clicks on my computer. Does your equipment not allow you to do this?
I much prefer the typeface be the "not-shouting" variety.
There exist times when I want to shout. How does one shout with the typed word?