Currently about halfway through the video and I have some points. While I agree with most of her points, I wouldn't really say that men are worse off than women. The system seems to be harmful to both genders, but it's in a very different way that, in my opinion, you can't really compare and say that one is 'worse' than the other.
Also, I object to the whole circumcision argument. Yeah, I guess it is a bad thing that the procedure is done to so many men without their consent, but claiming it is just as bad as female genital mutilation is wrong. If I understand correctly, FGM is a highly variable process, but in the worst cases it involves removing or damaging the clitoris. That's not analogous to removing the foreskin. That is analogous to removing the entire penis.
EDIT: And now I'm finished the video, and I really quite disagreed with some of the stuff she said towards the end. Mainly the stuff about feminism being a load of feminine entitlement. I'm sure there are some very misguided or just plain wrong feminists out there, but that is no reason to dismiss an entire movement and its historical importance like that. I think feminism was a good thing. Maybe we need to start doing it differently now, but you can't deny that feminism has achieved positive things. It's not perfect, but that doesn't make it rubbish.
edited 14th Mar '12 10:38:41 PM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
Lover of masks.
You think the worst cases are just the clitoris? Oh my.
No no. Worst case is when they remove almost everything down there. Clit, hood, outer labia, and inner labia. It's not a pretty sight. Part of having sex is the wound being ripped open again.
Now clitorial hood removal? Maybe equivalent to circumcision. Don't know. From what I read they are pretty much the same thing.
Also the equivlant, sensation wise, to clitorial removal would be removal of the glans. The more you know and all that.
Please.
cannot into space
@Dead Man: Yeah, I actually did know that... but it isn't my point. My point is, claiming male circumcision is just as bad as FGM is incorrect because the structures aren't analogous. Maybe on principle (i.e. cutting bits off babies is bad no matter how functional or otherwise the bits are) they are similar, but they're not the same thing at all.
Be not afraid...
Face Time
@Loni: To be fair, she most likely meant the radical feminism.
And I have two things to say: since she talked about men going off to the military, I'm surprised that she didn't bring up the WWI poem "Dulce Et Decorum Est," which is pretty much a refutation of the idea that dying for your country is a glorious thing. Second, as to circumcision, male circumcision, if done by professionally-trained medical staff, can apparently protect against some STDs and reduce the risk of penile cancer. FGM is flat-out detrimental.
edited 15th Mar '12 11:13:15 AM by RocketDude
"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel
Awesome Lightning Mantra
To be honest, she already addresses many of those arguments in other videos.
Circumcision:
Also, about feminism:[1]
(tried to embed it, but it didn't work for some reason)
I'm also pretty certain that not every person who labels him/herself as a feminist are sexist against men, but many famous and respected feminists were. Also, some feminists claim to be about equality, but did little in favor of men and their issues, while always looking for more privileges for women.
edited 15th Mar '12 8:28:51 AM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I watched that video yesterday, and I don't recall that it addressed my problem with considering male and female circumcision equal. And I believe that you can only embed one video per post.
Awesome Lightning Mantra
They are most certainly not equal. It doesn't change the fact that circumcision is still a form of mutilation on someone who has no control on it whatsoever.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
NOT THE BEES
So reading the Sentinel article...are they calling the Oregonian the foreskin of newspapers...?
No arguments here about that.
But I think the greater furore over FGM is at least partially due to how damaging it is. It doesn't seem honest to attribute all of the difference in priority to people simply not caring about men's welfare.
Be not afraid...
Awesome Lightning Mantra
There are many issues other than circumcision there, though. The way male death is often portrayed as superfluous in comparison to a woman's death in the media, for example.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
Oh, yes, I definitely agree with that bit. I agree with the majority of what Girl Writes What said, actually.
For example, even people who are in favour of a draft if one becomes necessary with usually balk if you suggest women be included. I personally would hate it, but I think we should be included anyway. It's only fair.
Be not afraid...
I actually only came across GirlWritesWhat's videos today — it's been that sort of day — and I think she's fantastic. I've most been reading the transcripts from her blog rather than watching the videos but her arguments are perfect. They completely deconstruct any arguments opposing the men's rights movement and her logic is impeccable.
There's far too much to praise her for than I have time to go into but I have a lot of praise for her points about the hypocrisy of MRM critics thinking George Sodini is representative of men's rights activists while Valerie Solanas and Lorena Bobbit were praised by far more high-profile feminists than Sodini ever was by the MRM. There's also the issue of people who try to undermine men's rights cherry-picking the angriest posts they can find from Reddit while GirlWritesWhat has found a far more disturbing "feminist" forum called RadicalHub and reads excerpts in her "All those dangerous woman-haters!" video.
Like I say though, there's far too much I could praise her for but don't want this to be too long-winded. Besides, I've only watched three videos! However, in response to the original post, I wouldn't say it's ironic that one of the best representatives of the men's rights movement is a woman because a lot of great ones are, such as Christina Hoff Summers and Katherine K. Young (who wrote Misandry trilogy with Paul Nathanson). Her arguments are great though and I think they come across as more fresh when coming from a woman. She actually kind of referenced that in her first video, saying something along the lines of "I'm not living in the basement, playing World Of Warcraft, with a neckbeard" and it made me think about how we probably wouldn't automatically disregard a woman's argument based on her appearance.
edited 27th Aug '12 7:41:50 AM by Guest1001
Awesome Lightning Mantra
I've recently watched her "are the vaginas in the house?" video, and I'm disturbed. It's truly disgusting how the atrocities committed upon male victims of war in Africa are completely ignored, even when they are nearly as frequent as female victims. It makes me want to start a revolution, seriously (not just because of the injustice against men, but injustice in general). Being powerless sucks.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."
EDIT: I actually wrote a ridiculously long post in response but honestly, it was mostly rubbish. To try to undermine and trivialise a very mildly popular blogger by posting a controversial opinion of hers? Well ... there's a ton of downright barbaric things that far more prominent feminists have supported. However, people like yourself don't shrug off feminism because they supported psychotics such as Lorena Bobbit and Valerie Solanas. So you want to trivialise GirlWritesWhat's argument? Just ... watch this and you'll realise how petty that is:
edited 27th Aug '12 5:03:04 PM by Guest1001
Whoa. I'm not sure that I'm following what she's saying. Sex and violence follow the same basic pattern of 'build up, explosion, happiness', therefore... women secretly want to be hit, or something? O.o Are we serious here? We're honestly claiming that women who yell at their partners are deliberately trying to goad them into hitting them because they get off on it?
edited 27th Aug '12 4:59:19 PM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
Zzzzzzzzzz
No. She's not saying that women want to be hit. She's saying that in some situations, the woman is trying to get a reaction (anger, jealousy, whatever), but the man won't allow himself to react until he completely loses control and then the reaction is physical violence.
Not all women, not all men, not all the time.
But speaking from personal experience, there can be something very powerful and attractive about getting under a man's skin completely enough to make him let his civilization slip a bit. The danger is that it won't slip at all until it falls completely off.
Johnny, I said we were through
Just to see what you would do
You stood there and hung your head
Made me wish that I were dead
CHORUS
Oh, Johnny get angry, Johnny get mad
Give me the biggest lecture I ever had
I want a brave man, I want a cave man
Johnny, show me that you care, really care for me
Every time you danced with me
You let Freddy cut in constantly
When he'd ask, you'd never speak
Must you always be so meek?
CHORUS
Every girl wants someone who
She can always look up to
You know I love you, of course
Let me know that you're the boss
CHORUS
"Johnny Get Angry" by Hal David and Sherman Edwards, 1962
edited 27th Aug '12 5:56:50 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
@Madrugada: Well, that makes more sense, and I do know how sometimes you just get in a nasty cycle where you poke at people until you get a reaction.
But this: It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our "never EVER hit a woman" mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they're demanding.
... certainly is phrased in such a way that it sounds like she's saying that what women are 'demanding' is to be hit, and if only men would get over their chivalry and hit them a bit sooner it would be better.
If she was talking about any emotional reaction, rather than just violence, why did she say ""never EVER hit a woman" mentality", which refers exclusively to violence?
Be not afraid...
Zzzzzzzzzz
Can you give me a link to that particular one? I'd like to hear the whole context. But if she's talking about "injuries" she's talking about physical violence. And the fact that the excerpt you're quoting starts with "It's" makes it clear that she's referring back to something she said earlier. Knowing what that something is, is rather important.
edited 27th Aug '12 7:37:37 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
That would be the link that Jewelleddragon just posted.
I mean, I'm willing to believe that she didn't mean what it sounds like, but the wording is problematic.
Be not afraid...
Zzzzzzzzzz
I don't see a problem. She's very clearly only talking about "consensual violence". The type of violent relationship where the violence is deliberately instigated and then followed by make-up sex. In that type of relationship, yes, the instigator wants to be hit. She's not talking about all violence, she's not saying all woman want to be hit. She's talking about a specific and relatively unusual relationship dynamic, one that requires physical violence to work.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
... certainly is phrased in such a way that it sounds like she's saying that what women are 'demanding' is to be hit, and if only men would get over their chivalry and hit them a bit sooner it would be better.
That's just my view. Not saying I necessarily condone the behaviour or the attitude but honestly, if it halts an abusive relationship, even temporarily, there are worse things you could do.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
and it made me think about how we probably wouldn't automatically disregard a woman's argument based on her appearance.
What planet are you on? Because it sounds pretty nice.
This is the introduction to an article portraying the conservative politician Gitte Seeberg in the Danish newspaper Aktuelt (July 22, 1999). And according to Ulrikke Moustgaard (2004, 31) it is not an exception. On the contrary, descriptions of female politicians’ appearance – clothes, gaze, hair etc - are used on a large scale in Danish newspaper articles that aim to tell the public something about the politician’s professional life. The research suggests the media are more inclined to focus on gender-based evaluations of the style and appearance of female politicians than of male politicians (e.g. Ross 2000). This, obviously, happens at the expense of reporting what they actually have to say: such preoccupations could lead to women and their achievements being trivialized. For instance, during Finnish President Tarja Halonen’s first state visit to Sweden the Swedish media were more fascinated with her plain looks and bad fashion sense, in particular her large handbag (that earned her the nickname “Muuminmamma” [Moomin-Mom]), than with the substance of her visit.
- Karen Ross (2000) studied the experiences of women politicians in the UK, Australia and South Africa with journalists and found they believe that the most frequently reported aspect of their lives is their appearance, and that such a focus is more likely to apply to women than their male colleagues: “I don’t know whether it is deliberate or it’s so ingrained, but a woman’s appearance is always commented on, her age is always commented on, her style of dress is always commented on. That never happens to male politicians, ever, unless they have made a particular point about their style, but then they are presented as extreme, exceptions that prove the rule.” (MP in Ross’ study)
- Examining the press coverage of U.S. Gubernatorial races in 1998 James Devitt (1999) found that female candidates were more often portrayed with personal frames than male candidates (for instance: “A grandmotherly redhead dressed in a sensible suit climbs out of the back seat and strolls to the hotel…If anyone in the lobby recognizes Gov. Jane Hull…they don’t let on” [Arizona Republic, November 1, 1998]). By contrast, the news media focus on the professional in covering men. This means highlighting their experience, accomplishments, and positions on the issues. As Devitt concludes, by describing a female candidate’s attire, the public may have less of an understanding of where she stands on public policy issues. Female candidates may be at a disadvantage because coverage of male candidates is more likely to include their qualifications for office and their views on the issues.
The whole article is worth a read, but this bit is particularly relevant to what you posted.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Lately, I've been doing some research on gender issues such as Misandry (thanks to pages like Men Are the Expendable Gender), and I came across a very interesting channel in You Tube: [1]
I'm still amazed at how well articulated and logical her thoughts are, and it's actually ironic that one of the best men's rights activists around is a woman.
In case you don't think that misandry is a serious issue, start with this video:
But, really, all of her videos are great.
edited 14th Mar '12 6:23:18 PM by Teraus
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."