Gosh, I can’t imagine why you reblogged this in a format that obscures what PON is saying.

Or maybe it was an accident. I dunno.

obscurity-bizarre:

Okay. This is going to be my only post on this - a desire to explain my position, rather than enter into argument with you - and I pray that you will read no hostility into my words. You’re surprised and offended that you got called out for bigotry, ignorance and victim-blaming? I am not surprised nor offended, merely a little bit amused. Your attempts to classify me as a bigot, ignorant, and a victim-blamer are also wildly off-base, as I think many of the issues pointed out by MRAs have validity. I strongly disagree on the reasons for those issues, and likewise on potential solutions for them.



Let me explain: I stand against routine infant circumcision. I want male victims of abuse to get more media attention and not be dismissed out of hand. I also want people to stop mocking men for not fitting some predetermined mold of what is and isn’t manly. I think the way America and some other Western countries treat masculinity is absolutely toxic and damaging. It is like something out of a horror film. It is on a similar level of awful to the way in which women and femininity are treated, although by saying so I do not mean to conflate the two issues. They are very different. We’re not going to be apologetic for pointing out your bullshit. We’re also pretty sure you missed the actual point: “you are clearly and demonstrably wrong in almost every possible way.” If I were clearly and demonstrably wrong, I would not hold my opinions. I believe that the arguments advanced to me, while valid, are not sound - take, for example, the Tender Years Doctrine and the Duluth Model, which multiple MRAs have pointed out to me in rebuttal to my views.



The former is no longer established procedure, and although its influence is still notable in our legal system, it is predominantly enforced by male judges, whom to this day form a majority of all American judges regardless of which state you’re looking at. That’s ignoring the fact that in many cases, custody decisions never reach the courts; 51% of them are decided outside, with preference often being shown to the mother in such cases. I’m hesitant to cite further statistics, aware as I am that the real picture is very complicated and that each individual case might have any number of variables influencing it.



In the latter case, yes, the Duluth Model has some obvious failings. We know that abuse, particularly of the domestic variety, is a largely gender-neutral phenomenon. However I would not go so far as to condemn it. The Duluth Model was a response to a society whose laws and norms have historically conferred a great deal of power and entitlement upon men. There is a lot to be said in favor of expanding the Duluth Model to account for abuse of men, and to account for the role that mental illness can play in domestic abuse.



I think, though, that a lot of this ties into the idea that men are disposable, that men are supposed to suffer. I firmly believe that the idea of men as disposable arises largely from a patriarchal society, one that insists that men who complain about their suffering are weak and not truly men. That attitude has, unfortunately, been reflected in the Duluth Model, and I believe that by criticizing it in larger society, we will see change occurring elsewhere.



Thus, to my eyes, the complaints about the Tender Years Doctrine and the Duluth Model do not sufficiently back the claims that are made by your movement. Do you really think you’re justified in wanting to “troll” a group that’s fighting for gender equality? Considering how you seem more interested in creating further inequalities than fixing them, that wouldn’t actually surprise us. I think dismissing feminism as an effective model for solving societal inequalities makes you worthy of ridicule, yes. I have established that I am all for equality, but that it is my currently held view that inequality in our society is caused by a privileging of masculinity and a patriarchal standard. We beg you to reconsider your position. An appeal to emotion. I would ask you to reconsider your dismissal of feminism.

Hang on.

If I were clearly and demonstrably wrong, I would not hold my opinions.

Oh, OP, I’d like you to point to any other privileged societies where the “privileged” were not only expected, but socially required to put the well-being of the “oppressed” ahead of their own lives. Why would men voluntarily set up a system where they’re worse off in so many areas? Why, it’s almost as if there were outside factors involved in forming Patriarchal societies that have nothing to do with what men would like!



Also, the idea that a movement that largely describes and treats rape and abuse as “violence against women (by men)” and

created the Duluth Model in the first place is not perpetuating inequality is itself laughable. Heck, you can’t even bring yourself to directly admit said Model is sexist. And if these failings are so “obvious”, where are the feminists criticizing it?



Why did you mock the idea of men being oppressed? Do you not think systemic erasure of male abuse victims is “oppression”? Because it looks like you’re strawmanning claims about that into complaints about just the Duluth Model. Which is, y'know, one of the most popular frameworks for addressing domestic violence in America, and when a woman hits a man, it’s probably his fault”.



Of course, you were entirely unable to back up your claim that “most of [MRAs complaints] are created by male-manufactured ideas about the agency of women”. You just rephrased it as “the Duluth Model got it’s ideas from the Patriarchy”, with the implication that it’s not really women’s fault, or feminism’s fault. Views about male disposability have commonly been actively perpetuated by women, like the White Feather Girls, and given that any of the people who allegedly created these views are long-dead, I think it would be more productive to discuss who’s currently perpetuating these views, which is, gasp, often women and feminists. Which, I suppose, is why you’re desperately trying to avoid the subject. In fact, I don’t think you’ve mentioned even the possibility of women being responsible in any way at any point in three posts.



If I repeat something racist about Chinese that I heard from a white guy, it’s still racist of me to say so, even though I’m black. Heck, even if I was Chinese. Women aren’t excused from perpetuating sexism even if the sexism was started by men, and your attempts to remove agency and responsibility from women for doing the same things men do is, well, misogynist. And misandrist at the same time, which is quite a feat. It’s sure not equality. It’s a pretty clear sexist double standard.



(M>F) gendered violence" andis not perpetuating inequality is itself laughable. Heck, you can’t even bring yourself to directly admit said Model is sexist. And if these failings are so “obvious”,Why did you mock the idea of men being oppressed? Do you not think systemic erasure of male abuse victims is “oppression”?. Which is, y'know, one of the most popular frameworks for addressing domestic violence in America, and claims to be the most popular and influential in the world . There are actual widespread police policies, supported and often created by feminists , that assume men are abusers and women are just defending themselves. Sometimes “pre-emptively”. Like many folks, you’re thinking the problem is “women can’t hurt men” when the actual views are “”.Of course, you were entirely unable to back up your claim that “most of [MRAs complaints] are created by male-manufactured ideas about the agency of women”. You just rephrased it as “the Duluth Model got it’s ideas from the Patriarchy”, with the implication that it’s not really women’s fault, or feminism’s fault., like the White Feather Girls, and given that any of the people who allegedly created these views are long-dead, I think it would be more productive to discuss who’s currentlythese views, which is, gasp, often women and feminists. Which, I suppose, is why you’re desperately trying to avoid the subject. In fact, I don’t think you’ve mentioned even the possibility of women being responsible in any way at any point in three posts.If I repeat something racist about Chinese that I heard from a white guy, it’s still racist of me to say so, even though I’m black. Heck, even if I was Chinese. Women aren’t excused from perpetuating sexism even if the sexism was started by men, andfor doing the same things men do is, well, misogynist. And misandrist at the same time, which is quite a feat. It’s sure not equality. It’s a pretty clear sexist double standard.

Can you name the things mras complain about that aren’t “male-originated”? Are any of them *women*-originated? Why do women get to take credit for fighting the Patriarchy, but not for perpetuating it? Do you hold the same standards for men? fundamental flaw in the framework. they just don’t really care. They didn’t even care enough to offer a decent excuse. This can’t be solved by turning it off and on again, you’ll have to format the hard drive and send the system back to factory. And, in case you didn’t notice, replacing the model that’s been around for longer than I’ve been alive (which millions of dollars have been spent on) with such a drastic revision IS abandoning the old model. This isn’t just adding something the current Model misses, this is adding something they’ve actively been ignoring and downplaying for three decades. The difference is kind of like upgrading from MS-DOS straight to Windows 7. It’s adorably naive how you seem to think the problems with the Model can be solved by updating it to Duluth Model 1.1, when the problem is on the level of source code. It’s aflaw in the framework. They’ve actually acknowledged criticism of the Model’s gendered nature, They didn’t even care enough to offer a decent excuse. This can’t be solved by turning it off and on again, you’ll have to format the hard drive and send the system back to factory. And, in case you didn’t notice, replacing the model that’s been around for longer than I’ve been alive (which millions of dollars have been spent on) with such a drastic revision IS abandoning the old model. This isn’t just adding something the current Model misses, this is adding something they’ve. The difference is kind of like upgrading from MS-DOS straight to Windows 7.

I think dismissing feminism as an effective model for solving societal inequalities makes you worthy of ridicule, yes.

Let me get this straight; Despite your earlier…misrepresentations otherwise, “MRAs” have actually provided evidence to support their assertions, and all you’ve really been able to do is try and fob responsibility off on The Patriarchy, IE men, and downplay the issues. And when it comes to thinking feminism isn’t about equality, you think anyone who makes that claim should be mocked, without even a token effort to persuade them otherwise. Which indicates that you’d rather silence and troll - by your own claims - feminism’s critics than convert them, or even show others that they’re wrong. And you are absolutely certain that if you were wrong, you’d know it, that you are the one human in history capable of being completely objective 100% of the time. But you want people to think you’re logical and unbiased, and “MRAs” are the ones who are all bigoted, sexist morons, despite the fact that you admitted that they have at least some valid concerns. Suuure.

I have established that I am all for equality, but that it is my currently held view that inequality in our society is caused by a privileging of masculinity and a patriarchal standard.

Wait, are you opining that male disposability is a privilege? Even when you just said that it causes significant problems for men?

All aboard the doublethink express, everyone. Even when men are getting screwed over, it’s still privilege.

God Almighty.

Funny. Trying to “explain your position” actually made you look worse.

(via awriteroftales-deactivated20180)