All MRAs need to have a working knowledge and understanding of this theory, both within anthropological and feminsit constexts. "The Means of Reproduction: The Evolution of Women’s Oppression and Expl

CosmicKeys · 2013-01-12T01:00:13+00:00

It's laughable how one sided these things read. Women were being horrible repressed while men were controlling everything ^^and ^^maybe ^^constructing ^^civilization ^^and ^^working ^^and ^^other ^^shit ^^but ^^that's ^^not ^^important.

Regardless, we were not allowed the means to survive without ties to men

Or perhaps relying on men was the easiest and safest method due to biology? Perhaps all the means were there but women en masse chose to have children rather than slave in a field? Perhaps evolution rigged the system towards male and female gender roles and not an evil patriarchy born out of the age of agriculture? Perhaps most women accepted the female gender role as acceptable because of the many social benefits?

It all sounds painfully female separatist and anti-human. Born out of frustration at basic biology. The start of the article is really the crux - cavewomen could do it all and men just fucked around looking for sex, but the age of agriculture enslaved women to patriarchy. Were men enslaved to the fields? Unsurprisingly, it doesn't talk about this! Guess it's totally irrelevant. It's not gender studies if you only care about women.

We have but one purpose under patriarchy: to give men more men.

A great example. All humans exist to procreate, deal with it. But obviously it's okay for feminism to erase the even the basic tenets of humanity from men. That's feminism to me, an attempt to erase the reality of masculinity and replace it with an oppressive straw man.

I honestly take umbrage with so much of this it's futile to tackle it but here some gems

the roots of our oppression lie in our biology

Translates to: I resent the fact I was born with a uterus rather than muscles.

femininity is something created in attempt to justify and reinforce our oppression

Yeah oppression is definitely the word to use here, because femininity is a system that in no way benefits all those inherently wonderful, defenseless, sexy, beautiful, women...

It is not about just ending patriarchy. It is not just about ending capitalism. We must end both at the same time.

Feminism is just about equality y'all! Totally not Marxism or anything.

tl;dr: It's basic patriarchy theory stuff. Well written drivel.

MRB2012 · 2013-01-12T04:01:39+00:00

In fact, the father may be unknown, since the female may have had sexual relations with more than one male.

DNA testing now exists, and now fathers can be known. Get over it, feminists.

Estephe · 2013-01-12T05:03:06+00:00

Thank goodness, there are MRAs like you who point to what is important. Keep it up trollking. MRAs need a lot of education on the real character of the struggle.

Lakey91 · 2013-01-15T21:43:52+00:00

There's always the constant thought when debating: 'why do my opponents believe what they believe?' It almost seems a little strange when thinking about it; why is it that I can come to a conclusion about a point and yet someone else can come to the opposite conclusion?

I think it's often possible to judge someone's discursive intelligence, not by how well they can argue, but how well they can understand the premise and logic of the opposing argument. The top tier of discursive intelligence would therefore not be to argue your point amazingly well with statistics and charisma, rather the ability to argue convincingly for a point you are totally opposed to. Sometimes this is incredibly difficult, as people's views can be seemingly stupid, evil or insane. I think that it's a brilliant tactic because it can point out flaws in your own argument, their internal logic, and allow you to more accurately judge why your points are not getting through.

The problem, of course, is that most people start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it; the result is that you end up arguing the premise and logic of an argument that doesn't underpin their conclusion. It's like when the British created fake airbases in North Africa for the Germans to bomb, distracting them from the real targets. The notion of 'pro-choice', for example, is a complete fabrication; it was adopted and popularised by the Democrat party in America because they realised that being pro-abortion was destroying their election prospects. In reality, the reasons for supporting abortion are complex and vary between people; in the case of marxist-feminism, it is not about giving women the right to choose, but rather removing reproductive choice from men (i.e. taking control from men) and completely divorcing sex from procreation (so that women do not have to worry about pregnancy when they have sex, thus being liberated); ultimately they seek to destroy the nuclear family, which they see as patriarchal and oppressive.

The problem is that people don't give their actual arguments out willy nilly. To do so would not only, in many cases, hurt the cause, but would also open your beliefs up to actual criticism. The great fear of people during arguments is not being proved wrong, but losing their belief in the conclusion; this is often why discussions rarely get anywhere: they are simply competitions where people put out dummy targets and shoot each other's down thinking they are real.

It's easy to paint one's opponent as being irrational or hateful, because it allows one to dismiss an opponent's arguments without considering them. This explains the use of 'bigot' 'homophobe' 'racist' and 'misogynist' as all encompassing terms for people who oppose one view or another. The idea that men necessarily oppress women, that those who oppose radical feminism necessarily hate women, that society is institutionally patriarchal and that this is necessarily bad are so entrenched in feminist ideology that they are used as both the premise and conclusion of many fundamental arguments of feminism. The entire article above is completely destroyed if these premises aren't true. As much as she can justify the prevailing logic of everything she has written, if society isn't anti-women and men aren't mostly misogynists then everything she has said is wrong. Imagine you have a deeply held belief that underpins your entire outlook on life and justifies everything you believe; would you be happy if someone came along and argued it was wrong? What if you could dismiss such an argument by believing that it was based on irrational hatred? How tempting would it be to take such an option...

I think linking to articles like this is inherently helpful. It's more than just 'knowing your enemy', it's about understanding him (or her I suppose).

Comments