The thing that struck me most about the gathering was the palpable lack of gender tension. Men and women at this conference seemed to be on the same page, and the same team, in a way that seems almost surprising in these gender-divided times. Maybe that's because gender-talk, long a female domain, is also now about men. As another speaker at the conference, Warren Farrell, said, women can't hear what men don't say. So it's good that men are speaking up. As Farrell concluded in a Friday night dinner speech, the goal is "not a men's movement, not a women's movement, but a gender liberation movement."The problem is that the sort of men and women who have combined to construct the current anti-male legal regime are exactly the sort of men and women who were not at the conference. And it remains to be seen how many of the women who publicly portray themselves as pro-male are genuinely pro-male as opposed to attempting to coopt any pro-male movement into the service of the Female Imperative.
With men and women both talking and listening, it gave me some hope that perhaps we'll see something new, and better, in the politics of gender. Will this spirit be able to overcome the politicized divisiveness that marks today's gender discussion? If enough men and women of good will come together, it just might.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Ever the optimist
Glenn Reynolds attends the First International Conference on Men's Issues and comes away considerably more optimistic about the present state of intersexual relations than I am:
21 comments:
As another speaker at the conference, Warren Farrell, said, women can't hear what men don't say. So it's good that men are speaking up.
Yes, naturally. Couldn't be that women don't listen; has to be that men don't talk.
As Farrell concluded in a Friday night dinner speech, the goal is "not a men's movement, not a women's movement, but a gender liberation movement."
Ugh. I don't think you could find better proof of Dalrock's contention that conservatives are merging with feminists. They're even using the same jargon now.
Women who are truly pro-male don't go to conferences, for the most part. They stay home and take care of their families. So while you might get a few outliers (that Honey Badger group, maybe), what you'll mostly get at a conference like this is women who want to keep an eye on what's going on and make sure the men keep things within the acceptable boundaries already set by feminism. As long as the guys work within the female imperative and make sure that women are never criticized more than men or any particularly female faults addressed, naturally there will be no "gender tension." Everyone's on the same page.
By the way, the picture with that article is perfect for the "man up" attitude. Pretty girl wearing a mildly dressy shirt, sitting with good posture, looking smart and sort of ticked off or disappointed. Next to her, a man wearing a t-shirt with some sort of logo or picture on it, slumping, scruffy, uncombed hair, a chagrined look on his face like he just got busted or chastised for something. I clicked the picture, and apparently it comes from a movie where the man is a typical bumbling dad. The problem is, virtually everyone believes that's the reality, including the people putting together men's conferences. That's their default impression of all men: sloppy, slumping man-children.
While I'm working 50 hours a week to take care of my family, the socialists are pushing for laws that require me to provide for then to. I can push back and win 100 times in a row and it doesn't change anything for them, but they win just once and I'm legally required to change to accommodate them. This is why socialism wins over the long hall. I believe one of the founders said we have a republic "for as long as we can keep it."
Liberty lovers held a conference. Meanwhile, socialists are fighting for laws and running to court. Their legal victories have more teeth than our debate victories.
Feminism is the new Ku Klux Klan.
Feminism is a culture of gender hatred.
Feminism is evil.
Feminism, like most movements that untimely stifle liberty, is based on noble sounding coverage. Opponents are too easy maligned and supports are too easily defended.
I thought the Honey Badgers site said they were feminists, pro-male, but still feminists. I know VERY little of what they believe, other than that they wouldn't let masculenists (sp?) post on their site. I have no idea what those are.
"gender liberation movement
Urgh, fuck off.
Why can't we stop pansying to either gender, and just get on with fucking life instead.
I don't want to be "liberated", I just want to be left the fuck alone.
I've asked several times, do you not believe in love VD? In the complimentary spiritual nature of men and women, in the rather pleasurable symbiosis of our co-existence? Judging from the names you've called me, I'll have to assume the answer is "No."
I'm sorry. Not sorry I quite rightly told you to F-off, I'm sorry you can't see something so beautiful about life that's right in front of you.
GG, you again illustrate his point. He's posting about a bias unfair legal environment, and your response is to question him about love. Separate issues.
VD, from what I can tell, is happily married. In fact, I've red columns where he says he loves being married to his wife. But what does that have to do with his analysis of the legal climate?
You remind me of a woman I exchanged with over the weekend. I told her that what she does with her vagina is none of my business, but I cannot support killing human life under the "my vagina rule." Rather than discuss that point, she changed the subject to me lacking the right to an opinion bc I'm not a vegetarian.
I.guess the tactic is subtly change the subject and declare victory when the person loses interest in a topic that has nothing to do with the question at hand.
"I don't think you could find better proof of Dalrock's contention that conservatives are merging with feminists. They're even using the same jargon now."
afaik, Farrell isn't a conservative and has never thought of himself one - he was an early feminist and probably still thinks of himself as an egalitarian, a liberal, just one dedicated to "fairness" for both sexes.
I was going to post a fake GG post, mockingly. GG beat me to it.
She mocks herself much better than I ever could.
@vashine,
So if you are going to say that about.her logic, you must be able to explain why you cannot love. You are missing out in so much by not being open to love. When you can love you can have an opinion.
*sarcasm off*
Are GG and Ann Morgan the same person? I cannot keep my idiots straight.
GG and Ann Morgan are not the same person, thank you.
"He's posting about a bias unfair legal environment, and your response is to question him about love. Separate issues."
Not separate at all, Trust. Quite relevant in fact. Love conquers all. Terribly romantic, I know, but it's true.
The alternative is that we all go into our respective corners and compete for special snowflake status, reveling in one offense after another, as if victimhood is some kind of medal that can be won. And win it we will, because the legal system, bureaucracy, our Gov, benefits tremendously by keeping men and women separate, divided, and controlled.
Love conquers all? It sounds romantic, but it's just wishful thinking. You need much more than love. And in the current legal climate, men must love to take the risk... women just have to feign it long enough to cash in. You're again preaching to the wrong side.
Of course, if you aren't a vegetarian you cannot love bc you done value life. (Jk)
Not separate at all, Trust. Quite relevant in fact. Love conquers all. Terribly romantic, I know, but it's true.
GG: If you are going to think tangentially in a room full of linear thinkers, then you have to list all of the tangents that got you from the topic at hand to your conclusion, and explain how the tangent is connected and why the connection is relevant.
You are failing to do this, and therefore are failing to connect to your audience (which, by the way, is the audience that is here, not the audience to which you wish you were speaking.)
Also, the only Love that can "conquer all" is the love of God for His creation, not the WAFF that most people these days pretend is love.
"If you are going to think tangentially in a room full of linear thinkers...."
Quite true, FB. I often forget what linear thinkers you all are.
"Also, the only Love that can "conquer all" is the love of God for His creation...."
Amen. So, men and women are a part of creation and God obviously loves us. Isn't it logical to now conclude that if we wish to "conquer all," we must love each other as God intended us to?
As to why I asked if VD believed in love, it's because of things he's written in the past and in the very first sentence of this post he declares he is not very optimistic about the present state of intersexual relations.
Love conquers all? I laugh in your face GG. It didn't in the case of our adopted children and neither does it in the case of my wife and I. Our determined will to make things work is what makes it work, not some fuzzy "love concept." I think you have watched too many TV commercials and listened to too many sappy love songs.
Yeah. Watched the LDS church put up with the egalitarian twitch, then excommunicate her. Wasn't sure they had it. Looks like some large segment of the church wants to liberalize. Enough still don't. But they are anti-gun, so... Still, it was fun to watch, and see one group just say no. They did make their mens' conference public, not a good sign. Never sure which group will fall, where, or how.
I am not all that interested in conferences. If that is what men have left, then men are doomed. Don't look at me like that. For my part, I will simply part ways, as I have with politics, from the queerification of men who need conferences, and the approval and help of women, in order to... what... feel empowered? Next they will be asking the U.N. for sanctions? Fuck conferences. Silly crap.
I often forget what linear thinkers you all are.
I can't claim the distinction of being a linear thinker, GG, but at least I understand that tangential thought has to be translated to linear-speak, and vice-versa.
Reading and understanding Aristotle's Rhetoric will assist you immensely in effectively conveying your arguments to a wide variety of audiences.
About time to go in circles debating the definition of "linear thinker" I guess.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.