If Misandry DOES exist, it might look like this:

[Bonobo]

http://katsudon.net/?p=2727

There is an active thread in HOF with a link to the same article. Yes, to be clear, I am calling it out because it is offensive and rather hostile. If a similar post about wanting women's genitals to wither and fall off were posted, NO ONE would argue about how offensive, hostile and sick it was.

I only cut my hair because I hate you

My decision to have short hair has nothing to do with latent masculinity, psychological damage, or a desire to scare the shit out of insecure little boys on the internet. (Though god if I’d known short hair was going to make penises shrivel up and fall off with its mere existence, I would have shaved my head a decade ago.)

[Major Nikon]

1. Hate of a gender is an equal opportunity sport

It often takes the form of perpetually walking around with a chip on your shoulder. I'm sure people like this do feel a good deal of contempt from the opposite gender. However, the reasons probably have nothing to do with gender and the evidence for this can be found in the contempt they receive from their own gender. When you start spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out why people hate you, the reason can probably be found within rather than somewhere else.

[Bonobo]

2. It must be difficult

to hold so much hatred in your heart that you find yourself muttering to yourself angrily about how you wish anonymous people's genitals would wither away and fall off.

In any case, it is hate speech to me.

If I said something -or quoted someone saying- such a violent and disgusting thing about a person's private parts, I expect that I would be kicked off DU.

It has nothing to DU with Feminism, to have so much hatred and violent thoughts. It is singularly unhealthy and unhelpful.

[In_The_Wind]

3. I cannot understand why so many women hate penises.

Oh and about cutting one's hair to show how much she hated a man ... imo: Actions done in anger to spite another rarely turn out well.

[noamnety]

4. The excerpted quote out of context

doesn't make it clear it's sarcasm.

In the linked article she explains she cut it off because she was working on a drilling rig, in summer.

[In_The_Wind]

5. Then one has nothing to do with the other.

[Major Nikon]

6. I read the whole thing

I think most women would feel the same way about a man reducing a woman to her genitals regardless of context. When someone starts looking at the opposite sex in that regard, it's not a stretch to imagine they are a hater. Reducing someone to their genitals is assholery regardless of who they are. If someone does this about women or men, I see it as hate or at the very least a strong suggestion that they may be a hater and when you look at the rest of the context it doesn't get any better.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. ***

[In_The_Wind]

8. Hey hey ... This Sucks ... hey hey ho ho!

I see a lot of penis haters here.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I'm confused

However, that film is a classic.

[In_The_Wind]

10. whoops

I didn't recognize the film.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. It's all good.

If people don't know what the hell I'm talking about, it's usually my fault, not theirs.

[In_The_Wind]

12. lol

I'm trying really hard to avoid confusing people by expecting them to just naturally pick up on what I'm trying to say. I honestly cannot understand why not all of DU can read my totally transparent mind. It's usually on only three or four tracks.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I totally resemble that remark.

Just call me Warren Non Sequitur DeMontague.

[Major Nikon]

14. !!!

[In_The_Wind]

15. OMG! I've never seen one that BIG!

[Major Nikon]

16. .|.

[In_The_Wind]

17. The drawbridge is a work of art.

I bet the neighbors hated it too.

[Major Nikon]

18. I think that was the idea

http://melroseandfairfax.blogspot.com/2011/02/voina-and-231-foot-penis.html

[Doctor_J]

19. There is now another HoF thread declaring that short hair IS a political statement

Sounds like they have the issue surrounded.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. It's not for lack of bread.

[Major Nikon]

21. True, albeit 50 years behind the power curve

[nomorenomore08]

22. I'm sorry, I know this stuff upsets you but it just doesn't ping my radar at all.

I saw the "penises withering" thing as more a sarcastic response to self-absorbed MRA types, rather than a hateful statement ("hate speech" as you said) directed at all men. The rest of the post, to me, indicates that she doesn't hate men, but is simply irritated with those who presume to dictate her appearance and what it "means."

Believe me, you want to see a real man-hater, go to Twisty Faster's blog. I can only approach it as sheer comedy, it's so over the top.

[Bonobo]

23. OK, then answer this question honestly:

If a man posted something in a blog about point that women's clitorises would wither and fall off, do you thnk it would be accused of being misogynistic hate speech? Do you think it would be deserved?

Points for honesty.

[nomorenomore08]

24. Would the person be accused of misogyny? Sure. Would the initial comment have been deserved?

Probably not. I can't think of many cases where "genitals withering off" would be a truly appropriate karmic punishment.

I didn't say it was "deserved" here either though, it just didn't bother me enough to make an OP about it. But even as a man I tend to just dismiss it as silliness. Whether a woman would have the same reaction to an equivalent comment is up to her, not me.

[Bonobo]

25. Not what I meant.

I meant would the person by deserving of being called a misogynist.

As to your dismissal of silliness, that is sort of irrelevant but it also sort of makes my point for me.

Men are swiftly accused of murderous misogynistic creepy disgusting rage and hatred.

Women? They get a pass... as you have just done.

Exact same situation with a mention of clitorises falling off would yield MASSIVE scramming, outrage and calls for booting off DU.

End of story. The rest is your rationalization for a double standard.

[nomorenomore08]

26. "Men are swiftly accused of murderous misogynistic creepy disgusting rage and hatred." Okay, I can

agree that that's excessive. I don't believe that most men, even those who make crude jokes at possibly inappropriate times, harbor such violent hatred of women.

As far as the "double standard," I look at it a bit like racism. There's a difference between the historically disadvantaged group mocking or criticizing the historically advantaged group, and the other way around. There just is. It may seem unfair, but I still wouldn't say it ranks very high on the scale of unjust treatment.

This is just my opinion. You can disagree, and I won't think any less of you.

[Bonobo]

27. So you say it is unjust, but not that high on the scale.

And I agree.

But on another level, it is important that hypocrisy be called out.

[nomorenomore08]

28. No argument. I think we're closer on this issue than we both think sometimes.

[RiffRandell]

29. So I assume this post of yours was directed at women as well as men?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125535767#post8

[nomorenomore08]

30. If the shoe fits, yes, absolutely. Rudeness and incivility are certainly not unique to either gender

or any "side" on DU - or elsewhere, for that matter. I know I made kind of a big to-do about the "tone argument" in one of my (relatively few) OP's, but generally speaking I agree that a civil, reasonable approach is best. It shouldn't be demanded at all times, though, which was kind of more my point.

I have no interest in making enemies here. Sure I've called out a few people over posts that bothered me, but who hasn't?

[RiffRandell]

34. It seemed to me that your point was what you stated in your post

which I linked to above, and wanted clarification if you were referring to both genders. Excerpt:

I've gone a few rounds with some of them, but the discussion is rarely very productive, no matter how civil I try to be. And they'll always complain about being unfairly characterized, but they're usually the first to throw out ridiculous strawmen which have little or no resemblance to reality.

In a perfect world of course a civil, reasonable approach is best. I've been on the receiving end of at least one personal attack that wasn't hidden (being called a dog for laughing at a joke made by a man) and have had posts hidden for being rude but they weren't toward anyone in the other group you frequent and were completely unrelated.

You don't owe me an explanation, however I thank you for it as I was curious if you were referring to both genders. From reading your response to me it I gathered your answer is "yes", but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I dislike it when people incorrectly infer something I wrote/said whether it's on a message board or in RL, so I wouldn't want to do it to others as I hate hypocrisy.

[nomorenomore08]

38. I think you understand me just fine. And whatever disagreements I may have had with people

I don't hold any grudges, certainly not on DU at least. My ignore list is as pristine and empty as the day I joined, 6 1/2 years ago.

[opiate69]

36. A few more words on the ridiculous "tone argument"...

http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-problem-with-social-justice-fandom.html

the "tone argument" or "tone policing": why social justice warriors act like assholes
Any suggestion that Warriors try to be polite is called “tone policing” or “making the tone argument”. To Warriors, anyone who suggests being polite is a “concern troll” or “derailer” who wants to weaken their discussion. The “tone argument” is cited by people of all hues and genders who think their issue gives them the right to be rude. It means “I don’t have to be polite; you do.”

Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and Fannie Lou Hamer would’ve rejected the tone argument in an instant. I like Brother Malcolm’s take best. He said, ”Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.”

Because Warriors have enormous difficulty grasping simple ideas, I'll spell that out: So long as no one puts their hands on you, be polite.

[nomorenomore08]

39. You know what? I have no problem with that at all, honestly.

What I do have a problem with is people - not singling anyone out here - complaining about "tone" when they have no other argument to speak of. Sometimes it's legitimate - civility is not a bad thing, as I said - but other times it's a way of deflecting when one is essentially losing the argument.

"So long as no one puts their hands on you, be polite." No objection there.

[Major Nikon]

31. Here's the problem with "historically disadvantaged group"

While it's certainly true that 100 years ago, women in many states were denied the right to vote, that historical reality no more affects women today than men. You can't say that about other "historically disadvantaged" groups as many of those disadvantages are generational. As far as gender disadvantage is concerned, the only thing relevant is what is happening right now. Everyone has a mother and if your mother was disadvantaged, so were you regardless of what plumbing you were born with. You can't reasonably look at it a bit like racism because those two things are just not the same. When it comes to gender discrimination, double standards just don't cut it if you value gender parity. What's good for the goose is what's good for the gander and vise versa. Every single civil rights law we have cuts both ways when it comes to gender. There's a good reason for that.

[nomorenomore08]

32. Ask women how they feel about their place in the world. Obviously you'll get a variety of answers

but I doubt very many will say they feel they're perceived as "fully equal" to men, in cultural (if not legal) terms at least. It's the thing where social mores always seem to lag a few decades (at least) behind the law. And really, beyond agitating for this or that specific cause (e.g. reproductive rights) the only cure for it is time.

[Major Nikon]

33. That's an argument against double standards, not for double standards

"fully equal" doesn't happen until both sides are treated the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Does anyone ask men how they feel "about their place in the world"?

Do we define privilege based on their responses?

We ask women to express how they feel about their place in the world. We ask women to express how they feel about men's place in the world. Using those two pieces of information, we create a world view in which chivalry requires men to be feminists.

Equality isn't really on anyone's radar, and I don't think time is curing anything.

In the 1960's equal rights rhetoric was all about... equal rights. Time has brought us at least equal rights, but it has not brought harmonious coexistence.

[Bonobo]

37. No, indeed they have a word for men expressing their feelings about that.

They call it "whining" and tell us to stop it. Because, you know, we have it easy.

"Whining little boys". Jeez, this from the SAME people who supposedly think we have to do something about how "our boys" are being raised in an environment where they are discouraged from showing their feelings.

Yup, go figure.

[nomorenomore08]

41. There's a difference between arguing that men have problems too - and they *do*, self-evidently -

and blaming those problems on feminism. The latter is what MRA's do, and in that case, I have no problem with dismissing them as whining little boys - after all, if the shoe fits...

[Bonobo]

46. I never heard anyone here blame it on Feminism. Never.

Let me know if YOU do.

And no, calling out someone that says they are a feminist is not close to the same thing.

[nomorenomore08]

48. No disagreement. No problem.

[Major Nikon]

47. That's not what MRAs do

You're talking about anti-feminists who happen to call themselves MRAs. Lumping all MRAs into the anti-feminist boat is a canard akin to calling all feminists transphobic. That sort of ignorance might propagate well in the echo chambers, but it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

[nomorenomore08]

51. Okay, maybe I'm judging them by the most extreme members. I should be a little more careful there.

But it's hard not to when said extremists are so damn vocal.

[Major Nikon]

53. Which is also why it's not a good idea to judge feminists by their most extreme and vocal members

[nomorenomore08]

55. Absolutely. I think Dworkin was a lunatic but that hardly motivates me to reject feminism generally.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. Y'know....there are people here who think calling Dworkin a lunatic....

....is a sign of mansplaining, MRA, misogyny, another tool used to smear feminists....etc.

Just sayin'.

[nomorenomore08]

61. If I were to rub in their faces how much I despise a (like it or not) significant feminist figure -

and I don't despise her particularly, I just think she was largely a crackpot - then I wouldn't blame them for getting irritated with me.

I know that's not what you're advocating, but again, just saying...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

66. It is usually pushback from the widely accepted fact that Dworkin became a total kook

At first it was "Oh, Dworkin....ya...okay, whatever"....which usually got the response "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH DWORKIN????". And from there it went downhill....

[nomorenomore08]

40. As I'm sure you'd agree, privilege is a complex, nuanced thing. I never meant to argue otherwise.

But you seem to have this baseline assumption that feminism is bad for men - or at the least, that the pros are equal to the cons - and that's what I feel the need to question.

[Major Nikon]

42. I wouldn't agree with that at all

I would say that some try to make it so, presumably to serve the purposes of obfuscation. I was told the other day that I was incapable of understanding male privilege because I was born with a penis. The reason people pretend the subject is beyond the scope of reason is because their arguments for it fail.

Privilege has a very simple definition that's pretty easy to understand.

priv·i·lege
[priv-uh-lij, priv-lij]
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.

If you look at all classes that have privilege, they are very easy to understand and quantify and there are virtually no privileges associated with being outside that class. Examples are white privilege, able-bodied privilege, Christian privilege, heterosexual privilege, and cisgender privilege. This is not true for 'male privilege'. If someone wants to claim there is such a thing as 'male privilege' then the burden of proving that assertion falls upon the person making it. Instead when asked to do so we are told the subject is too complex or it's beyond the scope of reason. Even if this were true (and it most certainly is not), then there really isn't much point of discussing 'male privilege' at all. If you tell me I have 'male privilege' and I ask you what that means and your answer is 'you just have to believe you do', then what is the value of that information?

[nomorenomore08]

43. Then maybe we both just see what we want to see. If you don't think you're "privileged" then I guess

no one's going to convince you otherwise. But to me, the argument that women aren't at any disadvantage in this society seems laughable, when I think about widespread sexual violence, attacks on reproductive choice, and the fact that Congress is less than 20% female. But as always, YMMV.

[Major Nikon]

45. Do you believe men aren't aren't at any disadvantage in this society?

None of the things you mention prove male privilege. In fact, they make a better case for female privilege (not that I'm saying there is such a thing as female privilege).

Men get the shit end of the stick when it comes to criminal violence.

Men have less reproductive choice than women.

There are more women of voting age in this country than men, and they vote in greater numbers.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

[nomorenomore08]

49. How exactly do sexual violence or lack of representation "prove female privilege"?

I don't get that at all... The majority of rape victims are women, the majority of Congresspeople are men...

I think both genders get a raw deal in American society, and I've said so before. What I don't agree with is the idea - not necessarily espoused by you personally - that we've already reached perfect equality (whatever that means) and there's no more need for feminism.

[Major Nikon]

52. "The majority of rape victims are women"

Women aren't raped more than men in significant numbers (if not less), and the very best you can say about this comment is you are cherry picking one aspect of criminal violence while ignoring the rest.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women

You do understand that cherry picking stats can work both ways, yes? Men are victims of homicide at 3 times the rate of women. Does that prove female privilege?

"the majority of Congresspeople are men"

How is this privilege for anyone other than the tiny minority of the population who actually are congresspeople? If women were significantly underrepresented at the ballot box (as are all those other groups previously mentioned), then you'd have a case for privilege. Women elected Obama in the last election. The majority of men voted for Romney.

[nomorenomore08]

54. You're right, we can both cherry-pick stats all we want. But the most obvious conclusion is that

sexual violence is a serious problem in this country, period, and that if anything male-on-male rapes may be seriously under-counted.

The question is, what to do about that? I honestly have no idea...

[Major Nikon]

56. It's the easiest segment of the problem to control

It's not as if it's the perpetrators are going to go very far or that you have a large area to police. Yet as a society nobody is even concerned about it because anyone who is in prison (or at least men who make up the vast majority) just doesn't matter.

The point is, just because you have a problem that disparately affects one gender or the other, doesn't mean you have a case for privilege. 14 out of the 15 causes of death disparately affect men. Again this is a problem we could do something about if we were willing to put more resources into it, but we don't because it a male issue. If the gender roles were reversed it would be a national tragedy. Does this mean there's female privilege? Again the answer is no because there are privileges associated with both genders. So while those problems do need to be addressed, they don't make very good gender privilege arguments.

[nomorenomore08]

62. Whatever you call it, the important thing is admitting there's a problem.

I mean for both genders, in this society. We're all more or less fucked, as I see it, at this point.

*Edit: BTW that Jessica Valenti article was excellent. Thank you for pointing me to it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. If there was one definition of the word, then it'd be possible to answer your question unequivocally

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

There are, in practical use, many people who embrace definitions of feminism that are bad for men.

When a person says "I'm a feminist" one surrenders the right to define the term to whomever is listening... because you can't invalidate their experiences... something something yada ya.

As far as privilege goes; yes. At best male privileges are offset by female privileges, yielding a net effect of zero.

[nomorenomore08]

50. I guess if nothing else, you'll never be a woman, and neither will I.

So I guess we'll never know 100% for sure either way...

[Bonobo]

58. So is it misandry to wish that a man's penis would shrivel up and fall off?

Oh right, humor.

Check.

But I seriously doubt that would impress many if it were a man saying that a woman's clitoris should dry up and fall off. Shit, you get called a misogynist for wanting to learn to pick up women! How much more so if you wished their genitals would fall off!

Let's see if you can go out on a limb and actually take a side that doesn't necessarily try to please everyone.

[nomorenomore08]

63. Okay, I don't like jokes insulting people's genitals, generally speaking. Male or female.

All I said was that I wasn't as bothered or offended by the post in the OP as you were. That's all. You have no reason to be upset with me, honestly. I have never insulted or attacked you on this thread, or elsewhere, that I can remember.

Call it "misandry" if you want, sure. But by and large "misandry" is not something I worry about in life. It just isn't. Do you want me to pretend concern about something that doesn't actually concern me? I doubt that's what you're going for here, I give you more credit than that.

P.S. No one said guys were misogynists just for trying to pick up women. If they did, I would laugh them off as well. What's misogynistic is continuing your advances on a woman when she's given you an unambiguous "no" already, or trying to coerce her into sex when she clearly isn't interested. Surely you can see the difference between that, and simply trying to get a date?

[Bonobo]

67. Really? Is that REALLY "Misandry"?

Don't words actually mean what they mean?

You want me to accept that a horny guy that tries to learn pickup techniques hates women?

While at the same time forgiving a little rhetoric wishing for damage to men's genitals?

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Dictionaries have a well-known patriarchal bias.

"I hate men" = brilliant satire perhaps, but definitely not misandry because
"I love hot women" = misogyny, unless you're really attractive or rich.

[nomorenomore08]

70. Now you guys are just outright putting words in my mouth...

Because you know what? I love hot women too! What heterosexual man doesn't? I just don't feel the need to broadcast my personal fantasies all over the Internet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. On re-read, I can see how it seems that way.

I didn't reply to you because you didn't say that, but it's inaccurate to say that "No one said guys were misogynists just for trying to pick up women". It happens often.

[nomorenomore08]

69. "You want me to accept that a horny guy that tries to learn pickup techniques hates women?"

Did you even read my post? That's pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said. I said there was nothing at all misogynistic in trying to date women, only in blatantly disrespecting their wishes.

And RE: the blog post, I just said you can call it whatever you want. I just don't personally worry about such things, by and large.

[Bonobo]

72. I didn't say you said it.

But HOF is filled with people that say it.

And you go there and never call it out.

Tacit approval.

[nomorenomore08]

73. I just don't think an insulting blog post rates very high on the radar compared with, say, rape

or murder. I don't care for demonization of an entire gender any more than you do, but the fact remains that men sexually assault and murder women far more than the reverse. So I'm not very invested in worrying about "misandry" and so forth.

And the reason this "pick-up artist" stuff is looked upon as misogynistic, is because largely, it is. It's based on not only stereotyping an entire gender, but reducing them to mere "things" to be manipulated or, at the extreme, coerced and abused. That, in my mind, is not remotely the same thing as merely trying to get a date.

And why are you so determined to paint me as some kind of villain anyway? What did I do to you? Does a difference of opinion really harm you in any way?

[Bonobo]

74. Determined to paint you as a villain?

No, I am not trying to do that.

But if you think that guys trying to learn how to pick up women is a form of hatred of women, but that wishing that a penis would shrivel up and fall of is not a form of hatred of men, I just think you have allowed yourself to be tricked.

[nomorenomore08]

75. That's not what I think. And I don't think many HOF members actually believe that either.

And I did overstate things a bit, sorry. I'm not exactly in a good place myself these days.

"Trying to learn how to pick up women" is not the issue. It's how these guys go about it, which for the most part is rather creepy and pathetic. There are better ways to find a girlfriend (or friend-with-benefits), believe me.

And I'm not exactly enamored of the woman who made the "penis shriveling" comment. But I would be inclined to just write her off as another random idiot, to be honest. Does she hate all men? Probably not. But even if she does, it's really no skin off me.

[Bonobo]

76. For me, it's not an issue of "pinging my radar" or "hurting me personally"

It doesn't occupy much of my time, either.

However, duplicity and double standards irritate me.

So I call them out.

If a HOF member posts something which is really undisguised verbal violence against men, I think it should be called out. The fact that the members there DO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT as violence and threat and abusive language is an indication of how far their thinking is hypocritical.

OTOH, a man trying to "get in the pants of a woman" is not violence, nor is it misogyny. It is called horniness and men pursuing women for sex has been a "thing" forever and it will continue to be a "thing" until when and if women begin actually pursuing men aggressively.

In addition, I hate the word "creepy" because what does it really mean? It is a lazy, passive aggressive attack. Is it pathetic? I don't know. I think it is sad that people are lonely and have needs. But a sexual want is no more pathetic than any other kind.

Is wanting to have sex a representation that you only think of a woman as an object? Well, Jesus, people IN GENERAL view each other so much of the time as commodities that I don't think it should be surprising. Does a hitchhiker on the road deserve to be attacked because they only think of a driver as a "thing"? Does a job seeker deserve to be attacked because during the interview, they are only thinking of how to get the job and not as the interviewer as a person? Does the interviewed deserve scorn because they view the interviewee as a thing? What about a dishwasher, busboy, cleaning lady? What about viewing a mother as a cleaner, a father as a breadwinner? A brother as a ride home? Let's be honest and stop special casing sexual attraction wrt "objectifying". Okay?

[nomorenomore08]

77. I never said any of those things. Nor have I seen any posts saying so, at least not outright.

If people were actually saying the things you claim, I would basically agree with your take. But you seem to be building this giant strawman which has little resemblance to reality.

I agree that sexual attraction is not a "special case" in any way - it's simple human extinct, to a large extent. Wanting to have sex, or even going about trying to have sex with people, is not the problem. So long as you recognize that the other person is just as human, with just as much right to say no, as yourself, I don't see an issue at all. The problem with the PUA stuff is that it tends to do the opposite.

[Bonobo]

78. OK, so what aspect of the PUA thing means they don't recognize the right to say no?

Person A: "Let's go to the movies!"

PERSON B: "No, I can't. I have all these things to do."

PERSON A: "Come on, you know you want to go to the movie!"

PERSON B: "No really, it's not a good time for me."

PERSON A: "But it won an Academy Award and you can get your work done later!"

PERSON B: "No, I told you I have to get this done."

PERSON A: "You never go out with me anymore!"

PERSON A: "Okay fine. I'll go already."

Does the above represent a PERSON A who is denying PERSON B's right to say no or just a person stubbornly trying to get what they want? Has PERSON B lost the ability to say no?

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. I say that the most persistent form of male privilege is the presumption that we have our own agency

If I buy a car, it's because I wanted one. If I go on a date, it's because I wanted to. If I die in a coal mine, it's because I knew the risks.

No means no. "Okay fine, whatever. I suppose." means yes.

[nomorenomore08]

83. Depends on the case, I suppose. If that exchange were between two people aready in a relationship

then I see nothing wrong. Between two near-strangers, it might still be benign, but there's a certain point (not set in stone by any means) past which simple persistence/stubbornness becomes something more coercive. Also, "not taking no for an answer" when asking a person out is one thing - could be benign, could be less so - but "not taking no for an answer" in other cases could be downright criminal, if you catch my drift. Generally best to respect others' boundaries, which the PUA kind of stuff certainly doesn't encourage.

You don't have to read it if you don't want to, but there was an article on Jezebel (IIRC) that lays out the problems with, not the concept of picking people up in general, but the specific mentality and approach promoted by the PUA guys. Briefly, they encourage lonely, socially awkward men to behave in a way that might get them a few "encounters" in the short term, but is probably damaging in the long run to both their general attitudes toward women, and their romantic prospects. The whole idea of the "program" is that women can and should be psychologically manipulated to get what one wants - can you see why that might be problematic, down the road, as far as sexual consent and so forth is concerned?

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Well at least we don't have to put words in your mouth any more.

"And the reason this "pick-up artist" stuff is looked upon as misogynistic, is because largely, it is."

Essentially, a pick up artist wants to be around women as much as possible... you're saying they do this because they hate them and are thus misogynists.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Only true if we accept that privilege is entirely subjective.

It is not.

The objective measures we use to show white privilege apply to gender too.

[Major Nikon]

60. If privilege were subjective as some suggest, the entire concept would be worthless

From Wiki:

Many advocates of privilege theory believe that the main reason why privilege must be pointed out is so that those in positions of power can realize that they are privileged and can use this privilege to combat inequality (or perpetuate it).

If I have no hope of understanding my privilege because I was born with a penis, then how can I possibly combat an invisible enemy? If privilege can't be pointed out, then there's nothing to correct. Those who claim social privilege is beyond the scope of reason are simply trying to obfuscate the issue because they can't quantify it.

Wiki lists the following social privileges:

White privilege
Male privilege
Heterosexual privilege
Christian privilege
Class privilege
Cisgender privilege
Neurotypical privilege
Able-bodied privilege

Every single one of those except for 'male privilege' can be easily quantified and there are few, if any, privileges associated with being outside that class. Certainly there are privileges associated with being male just as there are privileges associated with being female. If 'male privilege' exists, then so does 'female privilege' and the very same people who promote the idea of 'male privilege' never seem to accept 'female privilege'. Very telling that.

[nomorenomore08]

64. So you can objectively prove that women in America are "privileged" over men much the same way

white people are over black people?

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Does the fact that blacks are incarcerated at a rate 6x whites reflect white privilege?

In my experience, when DU'ers are asked this question the answer is "of course".

When I ask; "Does the fact that men are incarcerated 11 times more often than women reflect female privilege?" they say "No, because being the criminal bastards they are, men just suck."

I really don't think I could improve upon that answer as proof of my point.

But you and I have been around this block. You're too heavily invested in "the truth must lie somewhere in between" to acknowledge even the most patently apparent facts.

Of course there are female privileges. Google "scholarships for women" Google "scholarships for men". How many hits did you get?

And while we're at it... where the hell did the scare quotes around "privilege" come from? Did it suddenly become woo because it was used in proximity to the word "female"?

[nomorenomore08]

71. So you're convinced that women have (nearly) all the advantages, and men (nearly) all the

disadvantages? That's hardly a very balanced view either...

I never said that women are helpless victims in this society. The vast majority certainly aren't. But this "female privilege" stuff just reminds me way too much of College Republican types whining about "affirmative action = reverse racism" and so forth for comfort.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Not balanced?

A) The answer to this question is "no", and you know it because I've told you exactly what my views on relative gender privilege are. Further, I don't give a shit about "balanced". I care about "true".
B) Your attitudes on gender privilege must stand on their own. They don't derive any credibility from leaning on demonstrable racial privilege. (e.g. "This is just like affirmative action = reverse racism&quot
C) You didn't answer any of my questions, or in fact respond to the content of the post in any way. I take this as tacit acceptance of my "yes" answer to your question in post 64. You instead deflected into an ad hominem, a bad habit that can be attributed to hanging out in the wrong places.

[nomorenomore08]

84. Yeah, I overstated things a bit. Didn't really mean to put words in your mouth or anything.

I took about a 10-day break from DU because I was getting too emotional, and getting into stupid fights for no reason. Not out of personal animus toward anyone but out of letting my own psychological issues intrude where they shouldn't.

That said, in answer to your earlier question, I think higher male incarceration rates would be indicative of "female privilege" if it were part of a larger pattern of male disadvantage in society, which for the most part, I don't see. What I do think is that both genders pretty much get a raw deal in this society, which in large part is due to ingrained gender roles, which might be termed "patriarchy." Just because I see men as having the overall advantage, even still, doesn't mean we're not screwed in our own way.