Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Does it really matter if he acknowledges or denies the photos?

Most sensible people will agree that a person's gender and what kind of clothes they wear are not indicative of whether or not they are fit to be mayor of a city. Apparently there are those out there that did miss that lesson.

Someone took it upon themselves to release very intimate and personal photos of East Cleveland mayor Eric Brewer. Now even with the issue of trying to link one's gender identity to their competence aside (not to say its not important mind you) I want to take a moment to look at just how the story I link to is reporting this.

That's likely because the city's leadership is not of a caliber often associated with, say, Abraham Lincoln. One former mayor is in prison after being convicted on a smorgasbord of bribery charges. The last
mayor gained office despite a previous conviction for manslaughter. It seems she stabbed a boyfriend to death. And it appears the present mayor, Eric Brewer, who bills himself as a reformer, is not so straight either.

Choosing to wear clothes that are traditionally identified to be those of the opposite gender is NOT on par with bribery and murder. And notice the "is not so straight either" remark. It's probably safe to say that that was meant to be a jab at his sexuality.

Normally this wouldn't be True Crime's business. If a mayor wants to prance around in women's underwear, far be it from us to complain. But this is Eric Brewer, a man who made his bones as a henchman for corrupt Cleveland Mayor Mike White. His specialty: Anonymous attack mailers targeting the various misdeeds and private sins of enemies. So as the New York literati like to say, this bad boy's rich in delicious irony.
Yet this writer has no problem using these pictures of Brewer to do just that, complain. If these photos had not come up would this article have still come up about his corruption? More than likely not.

Now from what I can tell there is no evidence that Eric is transgender and this may only be cross dressing but it might be more but more importantly it doesn't matter. How does simply wearing clothes associated with the opposite sex disqualify one from being a capable politician or on the larger scale a capable anything?

The story at hand isn't whether or not those are Brewer's pictures the story is who violated him by releasing them to the media without his permission and what action will be taken against them. But I get the feeling we'll never get that answer.

Does this mean he didn't even read my blog....

...and just nitpicked for a few things that could be twisted to suit his argument?

Just take a minute and read that post.

Strike One:
I'm posting this to demonstrate why men's rape of women continues. It's because men like Danny would rather spend their time blogging about insignificant shit than to deal with CRAP.
For someone who takes on the title of an activist that wants all people to get help this guy sure as hell likes dictating what is important and what is not. And I personally don't think rape is a joking matter but for this guy to say that my choice to blog about things that he deems insignificant is the reason men continue to rape women is almost laughable. I thought the reason men rape women is because men choose to rape women. In fact I'm sure he's probably said that a few times.

Strike Two:
He's got that right, no "all encompassing theme" at all, except, well, not dealing with reality, if ya wanna call that a "theme".
So talking about music, video games, anime, racism and other topics here and there mean I'm not dealing with reality? So all that sexism and racism I have faced and have dealt out, all the music I've listened to, all the anime I've watched, all the video games I've played, and all the other things that I've mentioned here and have done in my life were not real? Damn that sucks because I've spent a lot of money on video games and anime in my day. From the looks of things while I may not talk about all of reality (but really what blog really talks about ALL of reality?) Julian has chosen to actively disavow the parts of reality that do not suit him and his biases.


Strike Three:
Look at the tags he put on the post, "accountability, Men's Wrongs, The Limits of Liberalism, white male supremacy" (emphasis mine)

Now go back and look at the picture of the guy with the dunce hat in the corner.

Now go ahead and start laughing. Why should you laugh? This is why. Usually the sign of a person that takes a small bit of detail and runs off in the wrong direction and can't even bother to look for clues is when they miss something big. Now I'm sure he would come back with something to effect of even though I'm not white I'm supporting white supremacy through blahblahblahblah. But that still doesn't change that fact that he made a pretty big assumption about me which is dead wrong. I guess he missed part of Becoming a Feminist 101. Do I really need to say that I'm black on my blog or something to keep people from making assumptions about my race? I mean can I at least get a pic of a black guy in a dunce hat in the corner and a tag that says "black male supremacy"? Mind you that would still be incorrect but that would have least saved him this third strike.

So you have a man that says my choice of blog topics causes men to rape women, says my choice of blog topics don't represent reality, missed my race and in general just cherry picked a few parts of blog and went to town. And not only that I've never denied that men attack women yet he insists time and time again that there is no systematic hatred of men in any way, shape, or form. But I'm the one that is delusional?

Don't even bother with the fork I know he's done.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

By any other name you say?

I'm sure you're all heard the saying, "A rose by any other name is still just as sweet right?" Well what if the problem isn't that people are trying to rename the rose but alter the description of the rose's qualities?

Imagine if you will that the rose wasn't talked about as a sweet smelling flower but rather a foul smelling abomination. Think if instead of the red color of the rose being associated with love and affection it were to be likened with blood, evil, darkness, or hatred. Or maybe if instead of placing rose pedals in bed to tell your partner you love him/her they were placed to tell them they are a disgusting freak that should crawl into a corner and die. It would be real easy to make that rose out to be a an enemy of all that is good wouldn't it?

That is exactly what I see happen when I see a lot of feminists so when they talk about men's rights activists (MRAs). For those of you that don't know MRAs are those who are trying to make life better for men. Well it seems that the thought of trying to help men out is a bad thing in the minds of some feminists. So as a result you have some that instead of debating, talking to, or in some way interacting with them they just call them names in an effort to dirty the title.

Rather than acknowledge that there are issues that disproportionally harm men and that they need to step up and do something about it such feminists claim that these things don't exist, or that they really men but actually harm women, or state that since men have some privileges the suffering and pain men face does not matter or should not be addressed. But ignoring the concerns of men is not enough.

Not only will they ignore and try to silence but they will take the time to insult them at every turn. On some of their sites its a general commenting policy to not personally attack or insult people but rather go after the words they say but for some reason MRAs are exempt to this and its open season to call them everything in the book and then some.

Its a good thing no one cares why I don't call myself a feminist...

Monday, September 28, 2009

With all this talk about breast cancer

With this ad for breast cancer awareness making some buzz lately I couldn't help but have the desire to bring this article up.

In a pretty odd development it seems that a group of 20 men have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Now this might not sound like much if you are aware that men can develop the disease however there is one common thread the links these men together: all 20 of these men are marines or sons of marines that were stationed at the Camp Lejeune marine base in Jacksonville, North Carolina during the 60s, 70s, or 80s. And there are government documents showing high levels of toxic chemicals during those three decades.

These men have since gone all over the country and possibly the world. Some off to college and then to the workforce. Some straight to the workforce. Some into their own military careers. The only thing that links these men from various walks of life is that they all lived at Camp Lejuene at some point in their lives and were exposed to dangerous chemicals during that 30 year span.

However the military is not so quick to believe the water supply at the base is to blame for the cancer cases.
Starting in 1980, tests showed drinking water at Camp Lejeune had been "highly contaminated" with solvents. Several wells that supplied water to the base were found to have been contaminated in 1984 and 1985, and were promptly taken out of service after the pollutants were found, the Marine Corps told CNN. (That Marine Corp link is a result page for searching "Marine Corps" on the CNN website.)

Among the chemicals later identified in the drinking water were trichloroethylene, a degreaser; benzene; and the dry cleaning solvent perchloroethylene. Two independent studies have found no link between water contamination and later illnesses, according to the Marine Corps. But the men facing a debilitating and possibly lethal disease don't buy it.
Regardless of where these cases of cancer came from it is beyond a doubt that these men have a dangerous road ahead of them and many of them will more than likely succumb to it.

In 2004 The Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department (still under the Bush Administration) performed an investigation at the base. But the odd part is that one of the EPA inspectors, Tyler Amon, suspected that some who personnel who were investigated where coached and that information was being withheld yet Justice Department chose not to file charges.

And to make matters work since so far these cases of cancer are being treated as not "service related" the men in question cannot receive any assistance for the treatments and surgeries they will need.

So why am I talking about this you ask? Because of one line from this article:
[Jim]Fontella said that at the time of his diagnosis, he didn't know men could get breast cancer.
Yes there are people out there that still think that men cannot develop breast cancer. Mind you the ratio of breast cancer is about 1 man to 100 women but that one man is important right? So maybe someone reading this will learn that men do have a chance to develop breast cancer.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Save the Boobs, Save the World?

I'm sure you've seen this ad for breast cancer awareness that's been airing for the last few weeks right? Well apparently the makers of this ad have concluded that the only reason straight and gay men (the sailors near the pool seem to be an a attempt at a representation of gay men) care about breast cancer awareness is because we like to see those tig ole bitties or some shit like that.

Not the case.

Now don't get me wrong. When I look at women I do look at their breasts because they are a part of the package that makes up a woman (no I'm not saying if she does not have breasts she is not a woman just that by simply being they they are a part of her) but they are only that, a PART of the package. I suppose this ad is suppose suddenly ignite in men the desire to be conscious about breast cancer where there was none before. What an insult.

Do these people think that men can only care about something if it touches on our sexual desires or competitive spirits? For the most part the answer is no we can actually be reached on other levels. How about some stats? Knowing that breast cancer is one of the top killers of women is a pretty power stat. Maybe some info where to donate resources? And not just money maybe offer transport services to women that can't get to treatment services themselves. Perhaps start a support group for people who have a loved living with breast cancer or a group for people who had a loved one taken by it. Maybe some advice on how to support a loved one that is going through it? She might think she can't talk to him so it might be up to him to show her that he will be there for her. (Hell even a little bit of light on the little known fact that while rare men can develop breast cancer as well.)

So while we do look at breasts the thing we are taking into consideration when it comes to breast cancer isn't that there will be fewer breasts to look at but the fact that there women in pain and dying because of it. Next time if you want to get men to spring into action how about trying to reach us in a manner that is not quite as insulting and offensive k?

Tip of the Fro to Jeff on this.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Because JS-Kit doesn't like comments of over 3000 characters...

About two weeks ago I did a post called No need to apologize because you're wrong anyway. Well one of there was one comment that required a rather long response. So long in fact that I've just learned that my comment software JS-Kit has a 3000 character max on comments.

Here is the comment from Julian:
Richard Leader is not alone as a man in his analysis of what's messed up about MRA psycho-logic. I admire that piece of his and publicly thank him for writing it. It's about time this nonsense of "men are oppressed by women too" is called out for what it is (stoo-pid), and that "misandry" is recognised for what it is: not structurally, institutionally, or socially significant, not a harmful or deadly phenomenon, and just a useful word-weapon for extremely privileged men to rant-and-banter about rather than take responsibility for what we and other men to do collectively and individually to oppress women.

What have you done to stop the endemic rape of women by men today? Why is "ending rape" not on men's "top 100" list of important things to deal with? Oh, that's right: because three women wrote thirty years ago some angry stuff about men. Boo hoo. God, it's hard being a man in a male supremacist land, isn't it? It's hard out here for a pimp, right?

Complaining about "misandry" is more important than challenging other men to help end men's rape and exploitation and subordination of women???? Please, make the case.

And I'm sure you'll find all kinds of fancy diversionary arguments for not dealing with men's actual violence against and subordination of women, in all its ugly MANifestations. And I'm sure there are MRA jerks (no, really, get this:) who will prefer to talk about how someone used the word "MANifestation". And who died from such words being uttered, exactly? Who died from "misandry"? Oh, men died, but from MEN's hatred of other men, not women's alleged "hatred of men". (And who cooks men's food, usually, and wiped your ass clean when you were a baby?) Yeah, going on and on about "how much [far too few] women don't like us", has got to be more important an action to take than calling out men's misogyny when you see it happening in front of you. Because, really--he said sarcastically--it is ALL about the men, right? We're the only humans who matter enough to enrage us about rape and child molestation, poverty and racism: if and when it happens to males by males and white male supremacist capitalist institutions. Grow some compassion for what happens to people WHO AREN'T YOU, Danny and FOD (friends of Danny). And stop defending dickheads.

And here is my response:

It's about time this nonsense of "men are oppressed by women too" is called out for what it is (stoo-pid), and that "misandry" is recognised for what it is: not structurally, institutionally, or socially significant, not a harmful or deadly phenomenon, and just a useful word-weapon for extremely privileged men to rant-and-banter about rather than take responsibility for what we and other men to do collectively and individually to oppress women.
So the fact that women harm men is not significant? I never said it was worse than what women do to men and I never said what men do to women was not significant or important. And frankly for you to reduce someone's experiences to nothing just because they may not happen as often as someone else's is insulting.

What have you done to stop the endemic rape of women by men today? Why is "ending rape" not on men's "top 100" list of important things to deal with?
Well at first I'm working on making sure I don't do such things and on occasion when I have the opportunity to say something about rape jokes I speak up. But most importanly I'm trying to learn by reading women's experiences to I can get over my own fears. I didn't know men had a top 100 list of important things to do. Do women have a top 100 list of important things to do and if so what's on it?

Oh, that's right: because three women wrote thirty years ago some angry stuff about men. Boo hoo. God, it's hard being a man in a male supremacist land, isn't it? It's hard out here for a pimp, right?
Misdirect. The things are I talk about happened in the past and are happening now. And I don't know where you're from but where I'm from being male is not the key to kingdom that you make it out to be. Frankly I've never been that much for wanting power but folks like you keep assigning it to me. And who mentioned prostitution?

Complaining about "misandry" is more important than challenging other men to help end men's rape and exploitation and subordination of women???? Please, make the case.
Find me where I said it was more important. I've said its also important. I've said it also needed to be addressed. I've said it also needs to be dealt with. But I never tried to say which was more important but despite that I'm the one trying to compre oppressions right?

And I'm sure you'll find all kinds of fancy diversionary arguments for not dealing with men's actual violence against and subordination of women, in all its ugly MANifestations.
There you go again trying to accuse me of trying to cover up that fact that men commit violence against women and trying to control them. When did I say this again? And here I was thinking on the occasions where I point out that feminists do have a point and not advocating just blindly believing men over women was at least some proof that I don't make such claims.

And I'm sure there are MRA jerks (no, really, get this:) who will prefer to talk about how someone used the word "MANifestation".
I'm sure there are. I just hope they also talk about the fact that you are saying it for the sole purpose of trying to get a rise out of them just you can go back and cry foul later. That whole self fulfilling prophecy thing.

And who died from such words being uttered, exactly? Who died from "misandry"? Oh, men died, but from MEN's hatred of other men, not women's alleged "hatred of men".
Misandry is just a hatred of men and has nothing to do with who is performing the hating so be it man or woman it would still be misandry. So with that I'll say, war combatants sent into action by men and women that support the war in question despite knowing full well most of them are men and male violence victims because "women don't do things like that" or "he must have done something to deserve it" or "it doesn't happen that often". And besides its not a point who was killed by it but a matter of who has been targeted by it. I'm pretty sure misgyny is not limited to who is killed right?

(And who cooks men's food, usually, and wiped your ass clean when you were a baby?)
Are you trying to say that since women have done good things in the past there is no way women could hate men?

Yeah, going on and on about "how much [far too few] women don't like us", has got to be more important an action to take than calling out men's misogyny when you see it happening in front of you.
Amazing how you are using your own experience as the template for all men's experiences. And once again I never tried to say which was more important you're the one doing that.

Because, really--he said sarcastically--it is ALL about the men, right?
??? What's your line of logic here?

We're the only humans who matter enough to enrage us about rape and child molestation, poverty and racism: if and when it happens to males by males and white male supremacist capitalist institutions.
I really wish you would point out the part where I said women don't matter or that only men matter.

Grow some compassion for what happens to people WHO AREN'T YOU
I actually am growing compassion for people who aren't me and feminists have a hand it that but as much as you don't like it MRAs have had a hand in it as well.

,Danny and FOD (friends of Danny).
Please please I don't think I have enough of a following for my visitors to get a group name like Friends of Danny. Although it has a nice ring to it and if I do have such a following I must remember to credit you for coining it here first.

And stop defending dickheads
And the funny part is I'm willing to bet that you would be able to recognize and call out someone who calls someone a pussy as a sexist attempt at linking a female body part to cowardice (learned that one from feminists and thanks to them I have nearly removed that reference from my personal vocabulary) but are unable to recognize that you are calling people dickheads as a sexist attempt at linking a male body part to an unlikable person. Or perhaps you recognize and think that by doing so you can win from brownie points from feminists. I heard they don't give brownie points like that, well at least the reasonable ones don't. You know that whole wanting equality for everyone thing they have going on.

So in conclusion you haven't done anything here but make unbackable accusations, put words in my mouth, and throw personal insults. I'm fine with that and I'm fine with you choosing to help women. What I'm not fine with is that when someone decides to help men you get your underclothes bunched up and start crying that since there are men hurting women nothing else and no one else matters. And for some reason you also seem to think that a subset of men doing bad things somehow disqualifies the entire gender from getting help unless its a side effect of helping women first.

Rest assured Julian I'm not trying to put you on the spot I just refuse to try to break this response into several comments (and I tried for about 10 minutes). Thanks for stopping by.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

I'm sure there are some other worthwhile things here...

I came across this while reading over at feministing. Its supposed to be a site that is dedicated to helping men with a pro-feminist angle. Not a bad idea I say since such a place would give men a chance to fairly chime in on gender issues without having to worry about having everything they say dismissed because of their gender.

Well I'm looking around the site and there are useful things there like resources for organizations and about the things that men can do to improve relations with women and so forth but then they fall into some of the pitfalls that some feminists fall into. So far the only things I'm seeing on violence is male against female violence as if that is the only violence that happens. Yes it might be the most common form but to act as if other forms of violence don't happen is just not nice. When it comes to porn it only seems to talk about porn leading to male against female violence and the dehumanizing of women at the hands of men. And according to this site men's rights activists are just a bunch of lying whiners that want to control women and children. Obviously this is wrong.

Along with seeing those things on that site one thing I'm not seeing is a place where it is actually commented that women are engaging in some of the very activities that harm men without a caveat to quickly shift the responsibility over to men. Yes women gain from the parts of the male and female gender roles that damage men and women do engage in some of the activities that harm men and women.

But I only found the place an hour or so ago so maybe there are some things on the site that can be of use to men without assuming we are all harming women. You know cover things that harm men of all walks of life and really speaks to all men instead of just the ones that are harming women.

All and all I can respect the attempt at giving men a voice but if the only voice that is welcome is one that holds men responsible for everything wrong in the world and to have it cheered on by female feminists then that just saddens me a bit.

You know my better judgment tells me that I should tip my Fro and bow out of reading human rights material but I really can't. One despite all the childish mudslinging back and forth some good things can be found if you're willing to clear the mud away and two these are potentially world changing forces at work here and to miss out on them would be a big mistake. And curiosity has always been one of my most dangerous adversaries. I just couldn't stand it if I left the battlefield and missed something wondrous.

I think I may have another reason why

If you're read this blog before you know that when it comes to gender issues I don't claim the title of feminist or MRA (despite many a rude feminist that has called me an MRA in a deliberate attempt to insult and dismiss me because they can't stand to address what I'm actually saying). Both sides are on to some good things (despite what each would say about the other) but frankly I've never felt comfortable claiming either one. To me its always seemed like there is just too much arguing over the title themselves for me to even what to deal with when its the actions that are supposed to be important. Well I think I've finally found another reason.

Neither side really fully speaks to my experiences.

When reading stuff by MRAs I find myself being able to relate to a lot of what they talk about. Look at how the media portrays acts of misandry such female against male violence as being okay, funny, or something that is to be encouraged. Talking about simply being male can lead to assumptions of being a sexual predator. Growing up with the notion that a man should never hit a woman under any circumstances but the reverse is never taught.

But then on the other hand they talk also about things that I can't relate to. One example being how fathers are treated like walking ATMs when it comes to child custody issues in which the court will hunt a dad to the end of the world for a missed payment but will act like they don't know him when the custodial mom denies visitation. Speaking of divorce there is the way that it seems to fine for the former wife to be entitled to everything she had during the marriage no matter how short it was or how much or little she sacrificed but the former husband doesn't deserve anything. I personally have absolutely no intention of ever getting married or having kids (but don't worry I concluded this years ago before I started reading the various human rights materials).

When reading feminist material I see that a lot of what they are talking about relates to me. Off the top there is how I treat the women in my life that I interact with which would obviously be a hot topic with a movement of people concerned with women. From there one would also talk about things like how fictional female characters are treated (namely being reduced to silent sexual objects) in works and how that treatment reflects to and from how women in the real world are treated.

But just as there is MRA material that doesn't quite speak to me there is feminist material that doesn't quite speak to me. Such as when feminists speak of DV they usually only speak of male against female violence since that is the format that occurs most often. Fine well and good and it needs to be addressed but given my sexual orientation that is not the DV that I would be a target of. Then you have abortion. Even if I were to get a woman pregnant the finally say so on an abortion isn't going to come down to me (I'd like to have some say so but the final word will never be, nor should it ever be, my choice). I'd like to have some "my body, my choice" options as well but that's another story for another day.

Now I'm not trying to say that the things I mention as not speaking to me will never speak to me but as of right now they don't. I'm not saying that those respective movements should change their ways to cater to me its just that despite feminists claiming to be concerned about all people and MRAs saying they want to help make the world a better place neither camp speaks to everything about me.

Hey maybe I should just start my own movement...

Saturday, September 19, 2009

I need to give a mutha fuckin shout out!

Okay I'm sure if you've gotten to my little area here you have already read something about the case at Hoftra University in which a woman accused five men of raping her. Shortly after four of the five here arrested and had their names and faces plastered all over the media and as par the course the court of public opinion were already calling them rapists. Well some the woman in question has recanted and some evidence has shown up in the form of a video recorded on the cell phone of one of the men in question that might be able to prove that the sex was consensual. Now the shout out isn't because the media is actually publishing that these guys may have been falsely accused of rape but rather what the folks at feministing are talking about in (at least one of) their posts on it.

They are actually talking about the harm that false rape accusations do to men without whining that talking about the way the men in a rape accusation were treated is crying "what about teh menz?"

I know its shocking because it doesn't happen very often and most of the time they step right over the man with the broken life to still show concern for the woman (and the problem is that they are stepping over the man with the broken life, the woman may still need help) but I have to give it to them on this. Even with this in the post:
The incentives for false rape accusations, on the other hand, are few and far between. Think about how we treat women who stand up in public and say that they were raped. They are vilified.
people are still talking about how false accusations harm men.

Okay so the poster misses the incentive to make a false rape accusation by only focusing on the woman. What they are missing is that the incentive is the damage done to the man she accuses. She might be vilified but when the smoke clears that man will still be treated like a rapist, he might not be able to get his job back especially if it involved contact with children like teaching, women might still uncomfortable around him, parents might never trust their kids around him again, his friends and family might never treat him the same again. And the the ante goes even higher if he actually does end up in prison. There he might even end up a victim of the very crime he did not commit. Plain and simple destroying a man's life can be a big incentive for a woman to make a false allegation. In fact I almost witnessed one in college.

Back when I was a junior in college a freshman started hanging out with my social circle and she started to take a liking to a friend of mine. They hooked up a few times and even had sex a few times (once in my dorm room but that is another story). Well things went south and sometime after she flat out said to some of us, "I could accuse him of rape." Well immediately myself and the others that were there at the time (one other guy and 2 women) all said we would testify against her if she did that.

Now I'm sure some of you are thinking, "But Danny how do you know she wasn't raped?" To that I'll say:

1. She was grinning and rubbing her hands together when she said it. She really looked like a villainess hatching a plan.

2. What kind of woman saves a rape accusation as a trump card for when the relationship goes bad?

But anyway I have to say that this post restored some of my faith in that site.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Checking out vs Objectifying

Okay one thing I've been thinking about for a long time is what is the borderline between checking someone out that you think is attractive and reducing that person to a desired body part? When does "Hmmmm. She looks good." swerve off into "I wanna ride his dick until his knees buckle and his eyes glaze over."?

Now I'm sure you're wondering where this came from so I'll explain. It just so happens that I find one of the women in the department next to ours to be particularly attractive and I'll admit that I do take a minute to look when I see her. Well she's been around the office for a little over a year so this has been going on for quite a while but somewhere out of the blue today I began to wonder was I just checking her out or was I reducing her to a sex object.

Now my own metric is that I am moving from looking to objectifying once my attention becomes fixed on a single part of a woman or man and dirty thoughts about that part start to kick in. At that point there is no question (at least to me) that I am indeed objectifying. But does the objectification start before that?

I would like to think that it doesn't but I get the feeling that it is not really up to me. When I question how fair/unfair something is I often wonder how I would feel about it but in this situation I honestly don't think people are checking me out much less reducing me to a body part (a tell of serious body image issues I know but that is another story for another day) so that doesn't help.

So in the end I'm quite confused about whether or not I'm crossing the line when I look at her.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Why yes it is

Recently CNN reported on a case in which a white man was brutally beaten up by up to 15 black men in what may be a racially motivated crime (The site has a picture of him with his girlfriend and the second one is a headshot of him in the hospital with a 3-inch gash in him head and broken jaw).

When I saw this on Feministing it was posed in the form of the question:
Should the people who killed a white man for dating a black woman be charged with a hate crime?

After a commenter asks could anyone possibly question if the black men that attacked a white man because he was dating a black woman someone responded with:
I think part of the problem is some have adopted the rational that

racism = prejudice + power

So minority groups cannot be racist.

Which is a sentiment I completely disagree with.

It is an intellectual slight of hand that allows some to justify or minimize their own hatred and racism.

Because if you strip away all of the social, a racist white person and a racist anything else in this country have a lot in common when it comes to whats in their heads and hearts.

Which brings up a good point. In the human rights area there are people who will in one breath go after anyone that dares to question the definition of the victimization of their own group but will in the next will turn around and define someone other group's victimization for them. And true to form it happens here:
Well, racism does = prejudice + power.

Outside of a few exceptional circumstances like this, when do Black men ever have power over White men as a group?


Sorry Steven, your race privilege is showing.

Talk about trying so hard to pat yourself on the back that you don't pay attention to your own ignorance.

This commenter it trying to call someone out on their race privilege by way of pointing out that black men rarely have power over white men. I suppose the point here is even though these black men brutally beat this white man to death those black men don't have real power in any meaningful way. Try telling that to the white guy that was beaten.

This group of black men saw that a white man was doing something that as a white man he "was not supposed to be doing". So in order to correct this they decided to beat him up. When a woman is raped by a man no one questions if he was exercising power over her and there's not much different here. In beating him they were trying to exercise power over him and for the time of that beating (and possibly after) his life was in their hands. The fact that this exact circumstance does/has not happen/ed very often or not as often as the vice versa does not matter. Those black men chose to target him because of his race (and to some extent his gender).

In short I really hope this goes to trial and by all means it should be prosecuted as a hate crime. For all the people that want to push for hate crime legislation push for it to protect ALL people, not just the ones you deem worthy of protection.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

No need to apologize because you are wrong anyway...

I'm talking about this. This is a post by a feminist by the name of factcheckme who is trying to prove that misandry does not exist. Well not so much claim it does not exist as trying to tie it to misogyny and anti-feminism and then by virtue of those two being bad claim that misandry is not what people claim it is and is actually misogyny and anti-feminism in disguise. Here goes.

i have come to see the word “misandry” as a euphemism for feminism, and “misandrist” as a euphemism for feminist, rather than anything that actually exists in real life, to any troubling degree, or in any meaningful way.

First mistake. This blogger has started off by trying to equate equality for women as hatred of men and while there are people who do think this this is not what misandry is about. Plain and simple it is about hatred of men and feminism is about helping women. Trying to insure that women make the same pay as men when all other metrics are equal is feminism. Presuming that a father is a bad and unfit parent based on only his gender is misandry. The two may overlap with some people (those that think insuring that women get the same pay when all metrics are equal is anti-male and that feminists support the presumption that fathers are bad and unfit parents based on gender alone) but the ideas themselves do not overlap.

...its just another flaccid jab at feminism, and feminists, by privileged men whose perverse denial of reality leads them to believe (or pretend to believe) that they are on the receiving end of institutional sexism as much as they benefit from it. and that they suffer relational abuse just as frequently as they dish it out.

Translation: You see the fact that the system favors men in some ways totally negates the fact that it works against them in others. And to point out how the system works against men is cry foul at feminists and feminism.

Play the victim much? And I wonder if she had a specific reason for using the word flaccid as her adjective of choice to describe the jab.

A quote from Adonis Mirror:
It certainly lacks the gravitas required to reflect the widespread injury and social disadvantages that many white males believe they endure on a daily basis.
(emphasis mine.)
Isn't it nice to have a single person around to assure us all that the hatred of men is nothing more than a figament of white men's imaginations? Yeah all the hatred that targets men of color is purely race based and would all magically go away if we changed races right? The problems may be swapped out for others but we would not suddenly be living on easy street.

as the author notes, only an anti-feminist would think to define misogyny’s ‘opposite’ as the hatred of men: more reasonably, woman-hating would be opposed to woman-loving, would it not? but leave it to a misogynist to define all things in relation to mens experience: they wouldnt think to define anything without evoking a male image, and considering (even imagining, with no basis in reality) not whether but how that “thing” would affect men.

Who said anything about opposite? While the opposite of woman-hate would be woman-love this is a misdirect. The term is meant to describe the hatred of men not the opposite of hatred of women. And I find it funny she tries to relate misandry to the female experience and then follows up with commentary on accusing people of trying to relate everything to the male experience. Yeah excuse people for trying to define the hatred of men based on the male experience.

and whether misandry even exists is entirely beside the point, isnt it? in fact, whether an inversion of the word “misogyny” was even necessary appears to be irrelevant.

No its not besides the point. Hatred and sexism should be pointed out whenever or whenever it happens no matter who it happens to.

More from Adonis Mirror:
As words, misandry and homicide-bomber have everything in common. Both are attempts to deliberately reframe an existing concept: neither makes any empirical sense without prior knowledge of “misogyny” and “suicide-bomber” as a reference point. Both attempt to invert power structures through their rhetoric: women and developing nations are seen as cowardly oppressors who refuse to honorably fight, and lose, on an uneven footing. Both are also tied to specific political groups: antifeminists and American conservatives. Yet while one term is a laughing stock of the liberal community, misandry has been making significant headway.

This is almost funny. This sounds like it is trying to say that in order for the hatred of men to be make sense must have prior knowledge of the hatred of women. This is not the case. One only need to know what "man" is and what "hatred" is. Hell when the term misogyny was put together it was done without any "prior knowledge" it was simply someone recognizing hatred that specifically targeted women and the same thing was done for the sake of misandry. Someone merely recognized hatred toward men and put a one word label on it. This sounds like she it trying to say that since hatred of women was recognized first people who are calling out hatred of men are just whining.

And for the record anyone that knows that "homicide" means to kill people and "bomber" is one who uses bombs knows full well the homicide bomber is one who uses bombs to kill people.

And finally:
when this word is used here or anywhere, i invite readers to put it in its correct context, and to identify the anti-feminist and misogynist agenda thats being pushed. there are those who will push back with made-up bullshit when their privilege is questioned, and its our responsibility (and my delight) to push the fuck back.

One more push of the misdirection. Her claim is that those calling out a hatred of men are really trying to hate women and and we are only crying about having our privileges challenged. So when I talk about how large men are treated what privilege was being challenged, the privilege of not being judged based on my gender and size? When Toy Soldier talks about how male victims of abused are silenced because of their gender what privilege was being challenged, the privilege of not being ridiculed and turned down for help based on gender?

Claim that hatred of men is "made up bullshit" meant to defend privileges. Try to say that hatred of men does not make sense unless one understands hatred of women. Saying that calling out hatred of men is actually hatred of women. Remember way back when I talked about "Shut up! You're privileged!" activism? This is what I'm talking about.

Oh and I have to point to this comment by the handle "Undercover Punk":
when i can safely walk the streets ALONE at night IN THE DARK, as a man can, i’ll consider the MRA’s outrageous claims of male oppression.

On a post meant to point out how men refuse to see anything from any prospective other than the male it is funny to see that this commenter thinks that male oppression is invalid until women's concerns are addressed. Nevermind that if women were to become equal to men in terms of likelihood of being a victim of violent crime they would see a sharp decrease in the likelihood of being sexually attacked and a sharp increase in likelihood of being murdered. (And while I commend factcheckme for not trying to claim that MRA = misogyny I can't help but notice that Undercover Punk has no problems with such claims and also has no problem saying that their claims are outrageous with no evidence to back it up.)

I have to say that posts like this are shining examples of why men and women can't come no a united front. There are still feelings of "who has it worse" and these feelings are not only being used to justify why issues that mostly affect them need to be addressed but they are also being used to try justify why issues that mostly affect other groups don't need to be addressed. That post seems to push the idea that trying to address issues that mostly affect men MUST be mutually inclusive with hatred of women when that is not the case. This almost sounds like that zero sum game some feminists try to accuse men of invoking.

I looked the site over for evidence that this post was a joke but found none. With all the attempts at trying to sweep the hatred of men under the rug I would actually feel better if this were a joke. But unless someone proves otherwise the shit is real and shit is offensive.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Way to ruin a perfectly good song Kanye...

Not being that much into current rap and hiphop I honestly had never heard of the term, "No homo" until I came across this video by Jay Smooth sometime last year. Even after I watched it and read blog posts here and there about it the only time I ever saw it come up was an episode of the Boondocks where Riley was using at the end of almost every sentence he made. That is until I listened to the track "We Run This Town" on Jay-Z's latest album "Blueprint 3".

Jay Z feat. Rihanna and Kanye West - We Run This Town

The song is flowing just fine until the third verse when Kanye West comes in and pretty much opens with "Its crazy how you can go from being Joe Blow to everybody on your dick no homo."

Now according to Jay I'm about 6 years behind on this but perhaps his message was effective because this hit me as soon as I heard it. And its also worth mentioning that while Kanye was the one that said the line this is Jay-Z's track in Jay-Z's album. I just don't like Kanye that much.

But she's a girl!!!

It has recently been announced that the prosecution in the upcoming trial of Melissa Huckaby for the kidnapping, rape, and murder Sandra Cantu will be seeking the death penalty.

However it seems that there are people who are still having a hard time getting their minds around the idea that a woman can commit a sex crime against and kill a child.

If you recall a while back I spoke on the shock of a woman doing such a thing. But as it was then the shock is not that the evidence might not be pointing to Huckaby. The shock is that no one wants to believe that a woman can commit a sex crime against a child and then kill the child. If you look at that post from a while back you'll see the disbelief is back up by sexist beliefs about women not being capable of violence and misleading "stats and evidence". And this article is no different. I'm gonna break down this latest example of refusing to let go of the old gender roles and assumptions.

Tracy police Sgt. Tony Sheneman said dozens of callers a day have insisted that Huckaby could not have acted alone, that no mother would rape another's child, that the scenario was too improbable to be true. The case is so striking that police initially shared the public's reaction.
So we have people calling in insisting that the mother must have had an accomplice in the crimes she is being charged with. No mother would rape another's (I'm sure that is another mother) child and that the scenario was too improbable they. And the police seem to agree with the sentiment. The proof of their insistence? Nothing but the assurance that a woman would not do this.

"When investigators were first looking at this they went 'Huh, no way... Who did she work with?"' Sheneman said. "We got that info and said 'there's no way, that doesn't happen."'
Tracy police Sgt. Tony Sheneman commenting on investigators starting with the assumption that there must have been a man involved. Well they didn't say man but this plus the obviously present assumption that a woman would never do such a thing leads one to conclude that they are assuming male involvement.

Women represent only 1 percent of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6 percent of all adult arrests for other sex offenses, according to a Department of Justice report.

When they do commit sex crimes, women often are acting as accomplices to men, and their victims tend to be teenagers, said David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire Crimes against Children Research Center.

"It's very, very rare for women to molest children, and when they molest children it's very unusual for them to molest a child of this age," Finkelhor said. "It's unusual for women to kill children who are not their own."
When all else fails quote some numbers. Now while it is so that women do not commit forcible rapes as often as men it is extremely unfair to take that stat, apply it to an individual crime, and conclude that a woman could not have done it. When it comes to other crimes like robbery people are quick to point out the racism in assuming a person of color (but not the sexism of mostly assuming men of color specifically) but when it comes to violent crimes like sex crimes and murder investigators go straight to calling the perpetrator "him" even without gender specific evidence.

Now don't get me wrong. It is very possible that there is a male perpetrator involved in this horrible crime but it seems like its not a matter of "hey we have some evidence that leads us to believe that a male was involved". No we are hearing a whole lot of "Oh my! What a gruesome crime! The main suspect is a woman? Noooooooo!!!! A woman would never do such a thing. A man MUST be involved some way or some how. If they find a male suspect then so be it but if one comes up I wonder how many people will openly say that are glad that it was a male after all.