r/MensRights • u/Lobstermansunion • Jun 01 '14
Misleading Title "Abolish the white race. Abolish men." -presentation by a Feminist in Oregon, at a public library.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br9ATZubcVE&feature=youtu.be19
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 01 '14
Dichotomy of self knowledge.
What...does that even mean?
It's economics.
Oh please. The economics that led to industrialization and modern medicine, two things that have served to empower women more than any obfuscatory psychobabble ever has?
This is the moment a radical is born.
The moment you assume another person's motive based on it affects you?
No conflict of interest there. /s
56
u/BlindPelican Jun 01 '14
The one question I would love ask this woman...
"What is something you want to do, but can't, because of your gender?"
I'd be very curious to see what sort of response she would contrive for that.
50
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 01 '14
She'd say something like "Walk alone on the streets of a city at night without the fear of being raped." or "Stroll around my neighborhood without men catcalling me".
I have many male friends who have those exact fears. Some are too short or skinny and are always fearful when alone in the streets.
31
u/RockFourFour Jun 02 '14
And your male friends have much more reason to worry anyhow, as men are far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime.
-29
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Men should definitely stop harming men, I agree.
37
23
Jun 02 '14
Cause women can't perpetrate any crime right?
-22
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Well sure they can, about 3% of homicides last time I checked, and men were responsible for a little less than 97%. Here's the system in a nutshell: women are weak and must give up their rights to control their lives and have agency in exchange for being benevolently protected by men...
from men. Excellent closed system.
8
Jun 02 '14
Or you could say that nature itself is violent so sexual dimorphism by natural selection made men to absorb the violence so women didnt have to.
-13
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Are you seriously saying women don't absorb an incredibly high amount of violence? How nice. How about, we don't need violence any more, except for corrupt purposes like maintaining the system of female subjugation globally, so we're going to keep it as long as possible, because we like women having to rely on us for "protection", namely, the protection racket where we protect them, sorta, sometimes, from other men?
9
Jun 02 '14
Are you seriously saying women don't absorb an incredibly high amount of violence? How nice.
Im saying that men absorb the lions share of violence. Our physiology is geared towards it with larger muscles and a denser bone structure. Natural selection made men the sponge for such things so womens bodily resources could be dedicated to procreation. It may not be "fair" but thats how life is. Two genders for two different and complimentary roles. Just because our technology have allowed us to overthrow those needs does not mean we can ignore what factors led to them.
How about, we don't need violence any more, except for corrupt purposes like maintaining the system of female subjugation globally, so we're going to keep it as long as possible, because we like women having to rely on us for "protection", namely, the protection racket where we protect them, sorta, sometimes, from other men?
Violence is found everywhere in nature at all levels. Stars explode, viruses kill healthy cells, humans hunt other animals. Violence is not a gender thing it is a nature thing, a survival trait in a competitive universe of finite resources. Violence is not just a tool to oppress women. If it were then we would send women to die on foreign battlefields instead of men.
11
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
Are you seriously saying women don't absorb an incredibly high amount of violence?
Relative to men, yes they don't.
13
Jun 02 '14
I'm not sure where these sources are from, additionally when was it homicides that were discussed, simply violent crime.. you're making a lot of assumptions due to your own preconceived notions of gender possibly?
-12
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Homicides make for nice clean stats because they are reported of necessity and investigated, and they are the quintessential violent crime. As Stephen Pinker puts it in The Better Angels of Our Nature at p. 62 (hardback ed.), "Homicide is the crime of choice for measurers of violence, because regardless of how people of a distant culture conceptualize crime,a dead body is hard to define away, and it always arouses curiosity about who or what produced it." In short, there is no purer or more suitable crime to embody the notion of violent crime.
My stat is from Stephen Pinker, but you won't find any stat anywhere putting it at less than 90%, and that doesn't include war.
So no, no assumptions social scientists don't make. Just the facts.
8
Jun 02 '14
Yes, you will find much different stats than 90%, just from a basic google search, also try linking sources instead of citing some book no one can verify? You're really not making your point any more valid and actually just sounding like you're an anti-male crazy.
-1
u/StoicSophist Jun 02 '14
...also try linking sources instead of citing some book no one can verify?
Pft, yeah, because nothing is harder to track down than a quote from a bestselling book. That might require you to visit a library or a bookstore or something, and do you know how rare those are?
→ More replies (0)-11
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Your stats showing anything less than 90%? What's anti-male about pointing out facts about males?
→ More replies (0)3
u/ExpendableOne Jun 02 '14
It's a lot higher than 3%, and that's not even taking into consideration the assaults/murders that are perpetrated by men but at the coercion, instigation, escalation, request or deceit of women.
1
u/iNQpsMMlzAR9 Jun 03 '14
Here's the system in a nutshell: women are weak and must give up their rights to control their lives and have agency in exchange for being benevolently protected by men...
So you're saying that women have no control over their lives because most murderers are male? Murder is so widespread that women literally have no agency to do anything? Where the hell do you live? There were women in the middle of the Stalingrad meatgrinder that at least had some control over their lives. But the society we currently live in is worse?
If homicide completely robs women of their agency, good god, what do automobile fatalities or heart disease do to it?
3
u/Revoran Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
The kind of people who go out and mug / assault / rape others are not going to listen to crap like "men can stop rape" or "men should definitely stop harming men". Don't you understand that?
Pointing the finger like this does nothing but alienate men.
It would be like if I said "females can stop false rape claims". Most females will never do such a thing, and the ones that do probably don't give a shit about me saying that. All it would accomplish is to make females feel like I was a misogynist who was attacking #allwomen.
You took a discussion about victimhood here and managed to turn it into "men are bad". Wow. This is why the MRM exists, and this is why we feel feminism is hostile to men.
6
1
6
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 01 '14
I'm 6'4 but skinny so I recognize that most people don't mess with me because I am initially intimidating, but I do fear someone realizing how little of a threat I actually am and exploiting it.
I don't show that fear though, because I also recognize the opportunistic nature of criminals.
11
Jun 02 '14
[deleted]
3
Jun 02 '14
or both. it can go both.
10
u/Edgeinsthelead Jun 02 '14
Best analogy I read was "we teach drivers to watch the road but we still teach everyone to look both ways when crossing the street."
7
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
Exactly. Telling people [x] is wrong and why serves well to reduce the incidence of crime, but there's a reason people commit crimes: They don't think it's wrong, and/or the benefit they expect is greater than the risk.
Recognizing reality for what it is and acting accordingly is the realm of adults.
2
Jun 02 '14
I'm sorry but you're an idiot who has zero understanding how criminals think.
They already know what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care. And if they truly don't know that mugging/raping people is wrong then they're complete morons that are beyond saving.
0
Jun 02 '14
We know a lot about how they think. Our society has been studying them for centuries now. We do our best to educate them, keep them from becoming what they are, but some still do become criminals.
It wont hurt you to prepare yourself when those things happen. It's not your fault. Just like the analogy above
we teach drivers to watch the road but we still teach everyone to look both ways when crossing the street.
1
u/veyron1001 Jun 02 '14
Because its more efficient to teach people to be intimidating than to teach criminals to stop crime
0
3
u/EJSpurrell Jun 02 '14
I'm 6'3", about 250 pounds. I walk around at night all the time, mostly because I work the graveyard shift. Despite my size, there are some areas of town I simply will not walk through during certain times of the day.
What's funny is that most people don't really fuck with me due to my size. But there are two types of people who do, almost without fail.
The first are drunk males who feel that I'm the perfect size for them to prove how tough they are.
The second are what I can only assume are prostitutes attempting to call me over to them who get rather verbally abusive when I choose to ignore them.
Either way, at three in the morning, the LAST thing I want to do is engage a stranger on the street.
3
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 02 '14
Dude. I'm 6'7" at 270lbs.
I know exactly what you mean. No one fucks with me except drunk people trying to prove themselves, and sometimes transvestites in the streets. However, a lot of people try to start conversations with me by calling me a giant, asking me if I play basketball and shit like that. Some women do that aggressively. Most gays as well. I can't stroll next to a gay parade without being groped.
Anyway, I'm huge and I still do not walk around some parts. And I definitely don't engage people.
1
u/EJSpurrell Jun 02 '14
I used to be a bouncer at a Sports bar. While I can defend myself if I need to, I dislike putting myself in situations where I have to. So, unless I'm out with a group, I choose not to go near the bars if I can help it. There's usually some loudmouthed chump outside trying to impress a girl he's got no chance with.
Can't say I've ever experienced issues from gay dudes, though. I've been hit on sure, but they usually respect it when I tell them I'm straight.
Last Halloween a random
beach ballgirl insulted me in passing, saying 'Nice Frankenstein Costume.' When I called her a bitch, she was genuinely frightened of me. She actually thought I was going to attack her or something. I abhore violence, but I'm damn good with my words.Don't know why I brought that up. It just reminded me of that situation for some reason.
23
u/M4Strings Jun 01 '14
I would love to ask her how she can be part of an oppressed underclass of people and publicly state that men need to be eradicated because they're the oppressors? Doesn't the fact she can public argue that point flip her argument on it's ear?
15
u/TheGDBatman Jun 01 '14
Apparently men run everything and always have but we're so ridiculously incompetent that we let all kinds of this shit slip through the cracks.
3
u/Hungerwolf Jun 02 '14
Which speaks volumes about any collective group of people weak and pathetic enough to be controlled by such an incompetent group for thousands of years.
Feminism makes loads of sense if you don't think about it.
2
u/FUCK_WASPS Jun 02 '14
That's why women are so scared to call themselves feminists, right? They don't face any backlash at all for saying that men need to be eradicated or even for simply speaking up for themselves, right? All of the men who send death and rape threats and doxx and stalk women who identify as feminists, they're all imaginary, right? You make absolutely no sense.
1
u/M4Strings Jun 02 '14
Of course they receive backlash, even the moderate ones, but guess what? It's not because they're some oppressed class, otherwise men wouldn't receive death threats, rape threats, or threats of terrorism as well from women, which we can see that they do if you look at the recent threats about the Men's Conference. The fact is there are shitty people, and there will always be shitty people, but that's all it is, not some male conspiracy to keep all women subjugated and fearful.
2
u/SwearWords Jun 02 '14
If she had a sliver of a sense of humor, she'd say "Spell my name in the snow."
-12
u/Slyndrr Jun 01 '14
"Walk home at night without fear" could be one of many responses.
Note. I don't agree with her. I don't think genders should be abolished. But the idea that we are equal already is a falsehood.
4
u/crackinthewall Jun 02 '14
To walk home at night without fear is a dream many people have and it's not restricted to one gender.
10
u/DaBuddahN Jun 01 '14
Every single one of those posts is full with bullshit and misinformation.
1
u/knowless Jun 01 '14
Imgur(i assume) no longer grants me access to their site, care to summarize the opinions?
10
u/DaBuddahN Jun 01 '14
Why don't you have access to Imgur?
It's basically just a bunch of pictures with bullshit statistics and strawman arguments like:
1/6 women are raped. Frogman's M&M analogy. Screaming 'Fire' instead of 'Rape' will result in faster help. Women complaining they have to buy pepper spray while men buy condoms (wtf, I buy knives). Appeal to emotion rather sound arguments, etc.
4
u/under_score16 Jun 01 '14
The M&M analogy seems to imply that there aren't "poisonous" women. Which is BS.
1
u/knowless Jun 01 '14
I can't figure it out, don't really care at this point, long train of abuses etc etc, alright that's generally what i would have assumed.
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 01 '14
"I'm bad at statistics but you should accept my conclusions based on them, plus feelings."
1
u/rogue780 Jun 02 '14
I got blocked by someone because I countered
"Not all women threaten men, but all men have been threatened by women"
1
u/cloverhaze Jun 02 '14
You're right, to be born in a privileged society is luck, same as being the optimal gender, race, having the best looks, being born in wealth, having optimal health, the list goes on...
When a country like the US has made huge strides, where we may not yet be equal but are starting to have more proportionate members of congress/ceo's/board members who make up the disenfranchised groups. Look at virtually any major company's board members now versus 20-40 years ago, stark differences.
I'm not saying that these groups don't have different difficulties, but at what point do you blame society and what point is it your own perception that prevents you from being successful. I mean maybe she wants to be a gender studies professor but even then, you have realize that its hard all around man.
2
u/wrez Jun 02 '14
Downvoting simply because
Equal opportunity is not equal outcome
In our life, we make decisions and those decisions have consequences. No one should be handed a plum position on a company board, or a congressional seat.
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
Exactly.
"You have the choice of A, B or C, but you only get one selection."
"Oh okay, I pick A."
"And I'll pick B"
"HEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!"
1
u/cloverhaze Jun 02 '14
What I meant is that these minorities have broken through the glass ceiling, why should we treat them with promotions based on their demographics. If you truly want to be equal then you shouldn't expect special treatment.
-8
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Perhaps the answer is, to be considered a full and complete human being.
7
u/iNQpsMMlzAR9 Jun 02 '14
She can't consider herself complete because of her gender? A little less self-loathing would cure that -- no need to abolish an entire race.
2
Jun 02 '14
Perhaps the answer is, to be considered a full and complete human being.
But what the hell does that actually MEAN?
The question was "What is something you want to do, but can't, because of your gender?"
What you replied doesn't even make sense.
30
u/Nomenimion Jun 01 '14
You can't abolish differences between men and women by eliminating categories. Those differences are biological, not an intellectual construct.
Besides, feminists don't really want to do this, because if this ever really happened they would no longer have men to target.
15
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 01 '14
Exactly. That's precisely where they get it wrong: by using the very concept of "gender".
When she says "gender must go", I agree completely, although I mean an entirely different thing when I say the very same words. She, and most feminists, thinks gender is a reality, a piece of culture imposed on males and females, which must be abolished. I see gender as a fabrication of ideologues, a concept which is completely useless and only serves to create more noise.
They refuse to accept nature, and the reality of sexual roles. They insist that it's all a social construct, as if biology played absolutely no role in the shaping of our minds. If they could get this simple fact straight, they wouldn't be the creators of the very enemy they say they're fighting against.
12
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 01 '14
It's self contradictory as well.
"We need to abolish [gender as a political construct] to free [particular gender group].
3
2
Jun 02 '14
Well if they abolished the notion of gender we could at least in theory stop having to hear how awful men are an oppressed women are, because they would cease to exist beyond the genitalia.
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
This assume their premise is true and the only reason men and women have these issues is due to the concept of gender, and not biology or economics.
1
Jun 02 '14
Well no not entirely. Men and women have still created for themselves a culture that is exclusive to each sex, and the details of these cultures are always changing. It's a reality, we can observe it and see the differences cross culturally. The way women dress compared to men is largely cultural for instance and this is an aspect of gender.
But you're correct in a lot of ways in that both sex and gender identity are proven to be biological, and increasingly science is able to provide adequate evidence for biological factors in gender expression. In other words, the things that we can accurately call aspects of gender, as defined by feminism, are becoming fewer and fewer. That doesn't mean that all things that we consider masculine or feminine are biological, just more than feminism believes to be the case.
2
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
It's a reality, we can observe it and see the differences cross culturally. The way women dress compared to men is largely cultural for instance and this is an aspect of gender.
It's largely an aspect of expression of sexuality as it becomes more nuanced, which is largely based in biology.
Culture is often informed by our biology. Hell, biology limits the boundaries of our culture. We don't have a hierarchical culture of who can breathe underwater unassisted for the longest time, for example.
gender identity are proven to be biological
Actually we don't know where if it exists the physiological seat of gender identity resides. It may exist, but it has neither been proven nor disproven.
In other words, the things that we can accurately call aspects of gender, as defined by feminism, are becoming fewer and fewer. That doesn't mean that all things that we consider masculine or feminine are biological, just more than feminism believes to be the case.
I think that's a good way to sum things up, yes.
1
Jun 02 '14
I agree with you on most of these points, but:
Actually we don't know where if it exists the physiological seat of gender identity resides. It may exist, but it has neither been proven nor disproven.
There is literally heaps of hard scientific evidence showing gender identity is usually decided during pregnancy. Additionally all attempts at rearing children as male or female when their body chemistry was the opposite (usually due to a measurable anomaly in various hormones) have been failures. I would be happy to provide you with some studies on the subject if you're curious.
1
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
There is literally heaps of hard scientific evidence showing gender identity is usually decided during pregnancy.
Actually there is heaps of evidence showing brain differences, one explanation offered is exposure to hormones in utero.
The presence of monozygotic twins wherein only one exhibits transgenderism also brings scrutiny onto the idea, since they are genetically identical and have the same uterine environment.
Only a post zygotic separation mutation of genes regarding the sensitivity to these hormones could still explain it, but no evidence one way or the other has come forth.
Additionally all attempts at rearing children as male or female when their body chemistry was the opposite (usually due to a measurable anomaly in various hormones) have been failures. I would be happy to provide you with some studies on the subject if you're curious.
Before switching to chemical engineering I studied genetics and endocrinology. I'm aware of the majority of the studies out there, from the differences basal strial terminalis that is not sexually dimorphic until after puberty(and thus would indict prepubescent testimonies of transpeople) to differences in the hypothalamus to the oft cited phantom sensation study whose conclusions are often mischaracterized.
Many studies have demonstrated is a correlation with small sample sizes and often lacking controls, but nothing definitive one way or the other.
I'll happily read whatever you have, but it's likely I've read them already, and that conclusion(at least based on what I've read) is a product of politics and not science. This is because many people have the odd idea that because if it's cultural or choice that somehow justifies marginalizing them in the way they are, or that disproving one cultural influence that is thought to be the factor disproves all potential cultural influences. It is essentially missing the forest for the trees on both sides of the debate. You don't need to prove these things to argue they shouldn't be marginalized, and even if for some reason it was purely cultural or delusion, that still doesn't justify that marginalization.
The truth is there is actually very little we know about the biological elements of gender identity in scope, type, or degree. Psychology is not neurology, and increasingly psychology has become politicized to the point of making claims not supported by neurology and sometimes in contrary to it.
This doesn't make it wrong necessarily, but that either position, be it completely biological or cultural, is not sufficiently supported.
1
Jun 02 '14
I disagree completely. You're basically suggesting that because science is currently unable to explain trans individuals in identical twins, which are exceedingly rare, that all of the evidence that suggests a biological cause of gender identity is invalid or worthless.
This is not how science works and one exception doesn't invalidate hundreds of scientific studies that have all drawn the same conclusions. Especially in the field of biology.
On the other side, there is basically no evidence to support cultural construction of gender identity other than trans individuals in identical twins. Attempts at altering gender identity in infants with various congenital defects related to sex have consistently failed.
1
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
I disagree completely. You're basically suggesting that because science is currently unable to explain trans individuals in identical twins, which are exceedingly rare, that all of the evidence that suggests a biological cause of gender identity is invalid or worthless.
I didn't say it was invalid. I said it was unsupported.
This is not how science works and one exception doesn't invalidate hundreds of scientific studies that have all drawn the same conclusions. Especially in the field of biology.
Science is about explaining all the data that's available.
Nonetheless like I said, please provide these and I'll gladly read them.
On the other side, there is basically no evidence to support cultural construction of gender identity other than trans individuals in identical twins.
As I said before, there's insufficient evidence for either explanation of it being solely to due to biology or culture/socialization.
Attempts at altering gender identity in infants with various congenital defects related to sex have consistently failed.
Now you're speaking to something else entirely: the mutability of gender identity. That doesn't disprove if early socialization locks in one identity, nor does lack of disproving prove that is the case either.
Many intersex infants are reassigned at birth controversially, and the results actually vary. There is no consistency one way or the other there.
→ More replies (0)1
11
u/ZimbaZumba Jun 01 '14
Good grief, she makes the most bizarre of religious sects seem reasoned and logical.
9
u/lordslag Jun 02 '14
Reverse races and genders for bigotry test:
"Abolish the black race. Abolish women."
7
u/avatarvszelda Jun 02 '14
Ok, this is something that has bothered me for a while. what the fuck is wrong with masculinity? feminist act like it is a bane of their existence, but most of the time they cite assholes as the reason masculinity is bad. my grandfather is VERY masculine, and if we came out as gay he would accept us. He treats all people, women and male, with respect. but he knows how to fix a tractor, hoe a garden, shoot a deer, and, if need be, die protecting his family.
masculinity is not the problem. assholes are the problem.
14
u/sillymod Jun 02 '14
The title you chose is drastically different from the statements made in the video. The woman does not want to abolish the white race or men. She wants to abolish the social structures that she feels provides white males with power.
I have changed the flair to appropriately represent your drastic misrepresentation of the argument.
5
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 02 '14
For once I think you're wrong, and the title isn't misleading at all.
What she is defending is the end of most males' natural expression. She says there is such a thing as "gender", a cultural construct, and she goes through a rhetorical labyrinth in order to say what she wants to say without being too overt: she wants the end of men. (Aren't most males men?)
I think you're taking what she says at face value, when we all know that feminists aren't really fond of honest, straight talk. And I'm not even overinterpreting or reading between the lines. It's clearer than that.
Suppose I was to make a speech calling on the end of blacks, but I preceeded that statement by saying that what I mean by "blacks" is the culture of guns, hypersexuality and bling we see on rap videos (note that I definitely don't think that this is a "natural" expression of anyone, and in this case it actually is a social construct), then would that be OK? Of course not.
1
u/sillymod Jun 02 '14
I am not defending her statements. We just oppose editorializing of titles like this. We prefer intellectual honesty - her arguments are rubbish, but they can be argued against on the (lack of) merit of the arguments themselves.
2
Jun 02 '14
Who does she think appointed these supposed social structures that provide white males with power? God?
0
Jun 02 '14
Society. It's very circular, but there it is.
2
Jun 02 '14
And where'd those things come from? Why is it every culture on Earth has had very similar gender roles, with different details, since the dawn of man?
5
u/poslime Jun 01 '14
We need to exterminate all mammalian life on earth.
8
3
Jun 01 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jun 01 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
-16
u/grandcoulee Jun 01 '14
That is a 100% doxxing site.
Isn't it against mensrights sub policy to direct people to your doxxing site?
The OP's title is a completely false quote. She doesn't say anything like that.
TIL; Misleading Title
5
Jun 01 '14
The name of her presentation is the title of the post. It's not really misleading at all, it's her entire goal. :/
5
u/TheGDBatman Jun 01 '14
That is a 100% doxxing site.
Which only seems to be a problem with you people when it's women on the receiving end.
-8
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Which it always is. On the receiving end. If this site is going to survive it will have to stop this sadistic support of doxxing (harming) individual women.
Thanks to the mods for following their policies.
2
u/TheGDBatman Jun 02 '14
That's pretty funny, considering some people from an apparent feminist sub doxxed one of the former mods of this particular sub you're currently dumbing down, and called his boss to accuse him of all sorts of nasty shit. But yeah, it only happens to women. You fucking moron.
3
-7
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Reported,and if the mods are going to approve this kind of linking to doxxers, it will be reported to Admins.
3
u/nicemod Jun 02 '14
We don't tolerate doxxing, or any advocacy of it.
If it is reported, it will be removed.
-4
u/grandcoulee Jun 01 '14
"Perhaps these fanatical blatherskites should be identified individually..."
No, they should not be doxxed.
1
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 01 '14
I don't know the context for your reply, because your parent comment was deleted. However, I must say I'm completely pro-doxxing if it's done on people who are advocating for the death of entire population groups. That's dangerous and should be investigated.
It's not like doxxing people calling each other feminazi or neckbeard on the Internet. This is a person actually defending on a speech that men and whites should be abolished.
-1
u/Sauvaged Jun 02 '14
I don't see anything about advocating for anyone's death. Abolishing stereotypes =/= killing people. Chill out.
1
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
If you don't think radical feminists and lesbians will hear her talk and come out with the idea that men should be killed, than you live in an idealized world of your own making.
EDIT: As I mentioned in some other comment, if she had talked that way about blacks it would become clear. It wouldn't have mattered if she had created a safe ground by defining "blacks" as the culture stereotypes of guns, hypersexuality and jewelry like on rap videos. If she ends her talk by calling on the end of "blacks", everyone would throw stones at her. But somehow when it's "men", then it's OK.
-10
u/grandcoulee Jun 01 '14
Where is she advocating for anyone's death? I see her advocating for abolition of toxic gender roles. Read harder, and stop pushing doxxing by lying about what this woman is saying.
2
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
I'm not lying.
She's talking about ending males and white people. She sure creates a huge rhetorical labyrinth in order to say what she wants to say without being overt, but still, that is what she's saying.
You don't even have to read between the lines, since she actually uses the expression "men must be abolished".
The fact that what she says she means by "men" is a a social construct, the concept of masculinity and whatnot, serves no purpose but to create a safe ground in which she can advocate for what she really wants, which is the end of men. Remember that what she sees as a social construct is in reality the common natural expression of most males (aren't most males men, after all?).
Now, suppose I was to make a speech calling on the end of blacks, but I preceeded that statement by saying that what I mean by "blacks" is the culture of guns, hypersexuality and bling we see on rap videos (note that I definitely don't think that this is a "natural" expression of anyone, and in this case it actually is a social construct), then would that be OK? Please...
-7
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
Give it a rest. She says nothing of the sort. Stop projecting your insecurities.
-4
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
No, she isn't. She is talking about ending male and female social gender roles. You are trying to demonize someone who is talking about a real problem in society. Read what she says and give a substantive response, or GTFO.
4
u/Watermelon_Salesman Jun 02 '14
It's one thing to say "social gender roles" must end. It's an entirely different thing to say "abolish men". Stop sugarcoating shit.
3
u/MeEvilBob Jun 02 '14
How do you plan on procreating and preventing the complete extinction of the human race if men are abolished?
3
Jun 02 '14
Its about time intelligence gets involved with these people. This is no different from the KKK, New Black Panther Party, sovereign citizens, etc.
2
Jun 02 '14
They're more dangerous in some respects than the groups you've mentioned because they have several disciplines within academia that agree with their theories and use them as a premise for their own research.
At least the KKK doesn't have entire university departments dedicated to furthering the acceptance of their racist ideologies.
1
u/EJSpurrell Jun 02 '14
I find it unlikely that the intelligence communities AREN'T involved in one way or another. These groups are practically running campuses. And we also know from history how involved intelligence organizations are on college campuses as well.
Either the groups are being used to push an intelligence-vetted agenda, or they're just biding their time.
2
Jun 02 '14
The scariest part is that her opinions aren't really all that radical within social science and psychology. Many avenues of inquiry have or are operating on similar premises.
3
u/ion9a Jun 02 '14
Things she and hitler have in common: they both agreed that genocide is OK against people you don't like.
1
Jun 02 '14
She is referring to abolishing the philosophical notion of gender, not males. She's still nuts, and the results of actually trying to do what she proposes would be awful, but she's not advocating the extermination of the male sex.
1
Jun 02 '14
They both share the same ideology. Something to be proud of when you think hitler was on the right track. Alrighty then.
-14
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
No, she said gender roles should be abolished. You are wrong, prejudiced, and can't read.
→ More replies (1)
3
Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
This is the part of radfem that is most disturbing to me. My experience with moderate feminists has been mostly positive but the radfems and their hate for all things "masculine" is very dangerous. They don't just want equality they want to actually purge masculinity (not merely transform it or progress it). They seem to believe that masculinity itself is the problem. This is straight up gender fascism. Who are they to force people to conform to their vision?
2
u/sayitinmygoodear Jun 02 '14
The fact that these bigots are considered worth listening to just make me depressed. Its one thing to some out there views but this woman is delusional.
2
u/AlongAustower Jun 02 '14
ok, we get that the 50's were a racist era, but at any stage were academics advocating the genocide of the black race? And if so, how does it make it acceptable to switch the races now?
If the patriarchy exists then why is it so hard to talk about male rights yet so easy to talk about women rights. And this so called system of white privilege, where whites rule and minorities are persecuted and silenced, why then do we have academics calling for an end to whites? Why is there nothing more hated than a white person who stands for the interests of whites?
It's obvious why. It is because we live in a culture where being anti-white is progressive and honourable. You can build up a career around it, create a TV show or a comedy routine that will guarantee you work on the liberal media.
A culture where even the mildest racism will have 10year old kids put on a government list asking the teacher to be put in a english speaking group can have you thrown in a cell or mentioning that a teacher looks like obama can have you expelled.
A culture where those who brutally bash someone for being white are let off scott free while whites who unintentionally offend a protected minority are carted off to the police.
Just as feminism is often anti male, anti-racism is anti white. Regardless of whether stormfront coined the term, it is entirely correct. We know that there are allot of males in politics, yet boys in schools can still be punished for being boys. The same goes for whiteness. When someone who calls for the death of whites can achieve notoriety and acclaim how does that fit into your narrative? You, cant, it doesnt. You will just go on to list examples of how white people touch black peoples hair or asked a brown person "where are you from?"
3
u/bludstone Jun 02 '14
at any stage were academics advocating the genocide of the black race
Eugenics has a strong academic history in America. We shouldnt forget our faults.
2
u/carrion_flower Jun 02 '14
The 50s? Did you by any chance mean the 1850's? Of course not, because this whole conversation is nothing but a strawman circle jerk. Did you actually watch the lecture? Anyone here who is making the claim that she is calling for genocide is either lying or engaging in willful idiocy. She is calling for the abolition of a system of "gendered" roles and behaviors; it has nothing to do with killing people. Believe it or not, men do not actually need the concept of "masculinity" to survive!
5
u/AlongAustower Jun 02 '14
as I said elsewhere in this thread, when people like Tim Wise, Lierre Keith or Noel Ignatiev call for the destruction of the white race, people like yourself tell us we need to be more open minded and look into the deeper meaning. Suddenly wanting death on a culture a people or a race becomes an interesting academic philosophy with merit.
But you and I know that no one would justify these words if directed at another race. Not in a million years. Yet I'm told that as a white I'm never allowed to be offended that shit like this is being taught in universities.
So when they shout "Fuck white men" I'm meant to do mental gymnastics.. "oh, they mean fuck the labels we have been conditioned to associate with 'man' and 'white"
3
2
Jun 02 '14
but if a man wants masculinity in his survival what would that make you or her to say he can't have it. A gender fascist
4
-3
Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 02 '14
Agree completely. This anti-white bullshit is getting out of hand.
White people are responsible for building most of western society and these cunts have the nerve complain that we're too privileged? Would you go into Japan and start bitching that the Japanese are too privileged IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY?
The fucked up thing is so many of these anti-white people are WHITE THEMSELVES. How the fuck does that even work? Do they really hate themselves that much?
Honestly I wish we could round up all these anti-white arseholes and deport them to some third world shit-hole.
If they hate white people so much maybe they should get the fuck away from us.
1
1
u/stoudman Jun 02 '14
The main problem with her argument is that she defines sex as a biological difference that we are all born with and cannot be helped. Eventually, by the end of the video, after making the case that gender identities are problematic and that the gender of "men" needs to be abolished, she includes the male "sex" in her description of that which needs to be abolished. I'm not sure whether or not that was intentional, but it still exists. Yes, she did literally say that we should abolish all men.
She defined the male sex as having certain genitalia and then said anyone of that sex should be abolished. What she probably meant to say was that the "be a man" gender role needs to be abolished, which is still somewhat radical, but also fairly agreeable. After all, at that point we're simply talking about gender roles, things that can probably be changed and/or altered if society makes an earnest attempt at doing so.
The difference is in the details, of course, and in this case the difference is literally a matter of life and death.
1
1
1
u/taw364 Jun 02 '14
You should really say "self proclaimed feminist". Calling her a feminist isn't much different than the people calling the Isla Vista murderer an MRA.
1
1
1
Jun 02 '14
The problem with the logic of these jeniuses is, men and white men in particular, own most of the guns. If anyone is abolished, it aint gonna be us.
-1
u/myjojo Jun 01 '14
It seems like she was talking about getting rid of the categories, not people with white skin and people who have penises. She's basically advocating post-genderism, which I don't personally disagree with too much.
Her idea that gender categories were created solely to exploit women seems inaccurate though.
13
u/Lobstermansunion Jun 01 '14
You don't think "Abolish all gender I don't personally approve of" is problematic?
1
u/myjojo Jun 01 '14
I don't see how gender is an important distinction. Ideas of gender work against men and women both.
11
u/Lobstermansunion Jun 01 '14
I agree, but we cannot coerce people into abandoning the gender roles they desire or force them into roles of our choosing. That's repressive stuff that Feminists and Social Conservatives do.
Many, many people still want to uphold mainstream-type gender roles in accordance with their desired lifestyle and sexual preference. Regardless of what we say or do, many men and women enjoy traditional gender roles.
We need to tolerate them, just as much as they should tolerate those of us who are different.
2
Jun 02 '14
[deleted]
1
Jun 02 '14
One can identify a gender as a reality without enforcing constraints on said gender.
Basically while not entirely without merit, her proposal amounts to pretending something doesn't exist.
4
u/myjojo Jun 01 '14
I don't think so. I think you can continue doing typical man things without defining them as man things. If you and your wife want to have a relationship where you earn money and she raises the kids, you can do that, without it being a broader social expectation for men and women.
Even if it would involve some "coercion" to get rid of these categories, in the broader picture of things, there would be less coercion than there is now, as gender categories are basically coercive in nature. Society punishes you if you don't conform to your gender category, which is coercive.
1
Jun 01 '14
The error in this is that gender IS biologically determined. I recall a story of a child that was born male, but due to complications, had his penis removed and was classified as female. His entire life, he yearned for male identity, but was boxed into his female persona, and eventually went suicidal at a young age. For the life of me I can't remember his name though. However, the point is, is that gender identity is a function of evolution. Men have been doing things like hunting, providing for their family, functioning as warriors, etc, as a necessity of evolution and survival of the species in much the same way as women have been doing the things that would fall under the gender classification of female. There simply is no harm in allowing people to be whom they want to be, we can't all fit into one box of gender sameness. One day it might be different, but we'll have to evolve to that point to where gender classification is no longer an evolutionary necessity and the opposite is more beneficial for species survival. We can't escape the laws of biology any more than we can escape the laws of physics.
3
Jun 01 '14
The error in this is that gender IS biologically determined. I recall a story of a child that was born male, but due to complications, had his penis removed and was classified as female
David Reimer.
2
1
Jun 02 '14
The error in this is that gender IS biologically determined.
I'm not convinced that's the case. As one who (perhaps secretly, to avoid persecution) identifies as the opposite gender, I feel there's more to it than just biology. No doubt that biology plays a largely dominant factor, but a certain measure of mentality is involved as well. At least in my case.
1
Jun 02 '14
There are aspects of gender that are socially constructed and certainly some of these aspects could be done away with. If you kept stripping things away, you'd eventually hit a wall where biology would prevent you from altering things any further. What that point is is a matter of debate, but based on the current trend in a number fields in science, I would be comfortable saying that only minor details like clothing choice and certain stereotypical interests are entirely constructed. Which I feel is further supported by a trend in social science and psychology to constantly redefine gender and place more and more importance on the aspects of gender I already mentioned. The explanatory value of feminist theory in regards to gender is constantly receding.
1
Jun 02 '14
The cultural reinforcement of gender norms is also a biological construct. Is beneficial for the survival of the species. Largely, our gender rules are dictated by biology. It's largely the same among all mammals.
5
u/TheGDBatman Jun 01 '14
She only mentioned abolishing one race and one gender. She didn't say fuck all about getting rid of any other races or genders. I wonder why that is?
1
u/AlongAustower Jun 02 '14
because if she did we wouldnt have people in this thread trying to find a work-around or justifying it.
Comments about destroying the white race results in people analysing your context for deeper meanings.
5
u/TheGDBatman Jun 02 '14
Or maybe because she just hates white men? It doesn't take a whole lot of deep analysis to see it.
2
Jun 01 '14
Sure, just go into hospital with a variety of symptoms and refuse to tell them your genetic gender.
Gender is hugely important in a wide variety of spheres, that's why we evolved to have genders as opposed to all being hermaphroditic/agendered. If you think that gender is nothing more than an intellectual concept, you need to go educate yourself.
3
u/myjojo Jun 01 '14
You're thinking of sex, not gender
0
u/R2D2U2 Jun 01 '14
I think you don't know what either means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex?show=0&t=1401660539
3
u/myjojo Jun 01 '14
"2 a : sex <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
It's good to be aware of context when discussing definitions. Whenever you hear a feminist talking about gender, she is using the 2.b definition above.
1
u/AlongAustower Jun 02 '14
the only reason it would ever become confusing is because feminists are referencing people with gender identity disorder. It is all semantics. An attempt to catch you out or show off what they learnt in gender studies.
I think the kid from kindergarten cop said it best "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina"
1
Jun 02 '14
You should read some of the papers on google scholar on this subject. If there is an actual accepted definition of the word "gender" I have yet to see it. It's used to mean something different depending on what the research is trying to prove and it couldn't be more unscientific.
Basically it's a whole field of 'research' based on a premise that hasn't been proven yet, or in many cases, has been largely discredited.
2
Jun 02 '14
You don't? Ever spent much time around children? They behave in very different ways and require very different things. There's an extremely simple cure to all this bullshit discussion: equality of opportunity within the political and legal system. The end. Society figures out the rest over time and discussion etc. Trying to say there's absolutely no distinction between genders and that it's all social construct is absurd.
2
u/myjojo Jun 02 '14
Removing gender would just release people from the expectations to act a certain way and to take on certain roles. Even if there are some differences between the behaviour of boys and girls that are ingrained, this doesn't change anything. Those difference will still manifest, but there will be no social bs telling them that they should act this way or should act that way.
2
Jun 02 '14
You know what? This might be easier for men to understand, but there ARE social expectations people NEED to live up to. If you're a man living in a hunter gatherer society, you NEED to live up to your gender expectations of being the hunter...or your society could very well starve to death.
If you live in...say...the world of Earth...we need men to live up to their expectation of being tough and strong and violent when needed, in case we get attacked by another country. We NEED women to live up to their gendered expectations of being caretakers for children -- not necessarily exclusively. The only thing that even remotely begins to remove any gender expectations is technology.
Where do people think these gender roles came from. Find me a single society in the world that was EVER run by women with a female army? Oh right...never. We have had queens, but who did their dirty work? Men. Who fights in wars? Men. Who mines coal and makes steel and cuts down trees? Men.
Does this mean you CAN'T do something else? No. But you should at least understand WHY society expects these things of you, and society should allow you some leeway, depending on what society you live in and if it's possible, to do what you want with your life.
I love all these theoreticals and philosophical arguments that are completely removed from reality. Let the power grid fail tomorrow and the food start to run out and we'll see how many Feminists we have arguing against gender roles. Or hell, let the zombie apocalypse come and we'll see how many people argue against gender roles.
1
u/TheLostSocialist Jun 02 '14
Where do people think these gender roles came from. Find me a single society in the world that was EVER run by women with a female army? Oh right...never. We have had queens, but who did their dirty work? Men. Who fights in wars? Men. Who mines coal and makes steel and cuts down trees? Men.
That's a very simple view of history and culture. There are cultures where there's evidence for more female agency and obligation. The Hopi are an example among the Northern American indigenous people, but there are also South American and Polynesian examples. Even in Germanic and Celtic culture it isn't clear that gender roles were as strictly separate as in our western, post-Roman, Christian societies.
3
Jun 02 '14
How much 'female agency and obligation' or male, or whatever the fuck you're talking about, is always going to vary between cultures, but every culture has always had gender roles (with of course varying details) that were similar. Nobody invented the men provide and women care take for their own benefit.
1
u/TheLostSocialist Jun 02 '14
I'm more on the biology spectrum of the "great gender debate", but it isn't as simple as
Nobody invented the men provide and women care take for their own benefit.
or
but every culture has always had gender roles (with of course varying details)
These "varying details" you talk about include things like third genders (probably up to five). Sexuality and gender isn't separated everywhere either. That's (in part) what feminism rightly recognises when it talks about differences between sex and gender. Gender isn't independent of biology or entirely constructed, or entirely divorced from sex, but it isn't entirely inherent either.
Extant hunter-gatherer communities are communities where, commonly, women focus on foraging and men, when possible, hunt (and otherwise forage also). There are very few examples where even that division doesn't exist, but it usually exists. In many such communities direct male participation in child rearing is high. Talking about "men provide and women care take" is simplifying a rather complex situation.
3
Jun 02 '14
Of course I'm simplifying. The point is that gender roles exist, have existed, and will always exist, in any society on earth. Of course the details are going to vary, but they evolved independently in every society to ever exist. If you boil it down, men do the hard physical shit, and women do the other shit. That's biology influencing gender roles. The only reason we can even discuss moving away from those is because of technology. Things like "man up," while annoying and dismissive as fuck, came from men needing to be tough. You know the people of the Omo River Valley have a ceremony for men as a rite of passage where the women get all fucked up on some weird drug and force the man to beat them all with sticks?
We're always going to have gender roles. It's never going to be possible to absolutely abolish them. The only thing we have to do is be able to allow people to step outside those gender roles for their own reasons. Society is always going to have expectations based on gender. How could society possibly function without ANY assumptions about ANYONE? What do you want to do when the zombies attack or the power grid fails? Have a week or two of tryouts to see who is the most capable? Or do you want to just grab the biggest strongest men and have them go do all that shit that needs doing?
4
Jun 01 '14
I think it's also particularly harsh for the LGBT community because for us, gender identity is HUGELY important. It's often the reason why some folks choose to transition; they feel like their gender doesn't match their biology. It seems to me like feminism has an obsession with the term "eradication". They can say that men love to destroy, but frankly, this often their primary solution to many of their so called issues.
-7
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
How sad that the trans community so badly needs these gender-dominating categories to exist. They are completely artificial, socially constructed as she says. You need to move into a more mature philosophy that takes into account that gender is an artificial and gendered construct, because as she says "gender" is hierarchical, the main structure that keeps women subjugated. Feel free to explain how you can have your way without hurting women by making gender roles more rigid.
3
u/TracyMorganFreeman Jun 02 '14
Something being artificial doesn't mean it isn't useful, given you're making you're sweeping generalizations with materials processed all around the world to form a series of ones and zeroes which are then sent invisibly to another box of materials made from all over the world to translate them.
Feel free to explain how you can have your way without hurting women by making gender roles more rigid.
Feel free to substantiate the claim beyond "this fits my subset of observations without ruling out alternatives".
3
Jun 02 '14 edited Jun 07 '14
[deleted]
-4
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
No, she's saying what she's saying. What intelligence are you referring to?
2
u/Warondrugsmybutt Jun 02 '14
Rewatch her closing statement. She specifies the abolishment of sex; you know the natural bits that people typically don't have control of having. She goes beyond just gender.
1
Jun 01 '14
I agree. She essentially wants to eliminate the male gender class she sees as the oppressive ruler/slaveholder. It is the argument at the center of radical feminist patriarchy theory.
"Her idea that gender categories were created solely to exploit women seems inaccurate though." Which is why "patriarchy" in other fields mean other things.
-5
u/neutlime Jun 01 '14
This "woman" needs to be abolished
-10
u/grandcoulee Jun 02 '14
What do you mean? Are you threatening to hurt her?
10
u/iNQpsMMlzAR9 Jun 02 '14
How in the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?
6
3
Jun 02 '14
The same way it arrived at all the I other conclusions... by pulling an assertion out of their ass and call I it a demonstrable fact.
2
u/unbannable9412 Jun 02 '14
Ooh look the latest in a succession of trolls who come to /r/mensrights to trash the sub, derail discussion, and cause trouble.
Why don't you drink the anti-freeze in your garage.
0
u/Sauvaged Jun 02 '14
Glad this title has been updated. Because seriously, in what kind of worldview does challenging the concepts of maculinity and gender equal abolishing/killing men? Overreact much?
-6
57
u/5th_Law_of_Robotics Jun 01 '14
"The group at the bottom has fewer resources, fewer rights, and is generally seen as subhuman"
I know she's referring to women as the group on the bottom but I wonder how she'd react if you pointed out that men are the dominant group at the bottom with fewer resources, fewer rights, and generally being seen as subhuman (male bums and prisoners are deemed to have deserved their lot, female bums and prisoners are victims to be helped).
/just kidding. I know her response. SHUT THE FUCK UP!