Debate: Is Feminism Toxic for Men?

sillymod · 2013-11-27T16:50:44+00:00

I watched it. It wasn't a debate, it was a farce.

The topic of the debate was almost completely neglected after the first opening statements by Elam. Clymer successfully railroaded the whole thing. Elam went on the defensive. And few issues were actually addressed.

SwanOfAvon22 · 2013-11-27T15:18:40+00:00

My sympathies to Paul. Not his best performance (as he's already admitted) but I think we all know what it's like to be called a misogynist for being even slightly critical of feminism. Extend that frustration over 60+ minutes and I'd get a little pissed off too. Clymer made a fool of himself

JeremyKean · 2013-11-27T12:57:11+00:00

While I agreed with Paul on most of this, and I hate to sound like I'm tone-policing, I must say Paul made a total ass of himself in this. Specifically in the final unstructured portion of the debate.

There is a major difference between being unapologetic and politically incorrect, and straight up mocking someone for stuttering. Charles was at least right on that part, Paul was acting like a fifth-grader.

There's a point where Paul's "Fuck you, I'm right! And I ain't sorry about it!" attitude just seems juvenile. And that point would be in a debate, where at least a modicum of etiquette is expected (like not talking the fuck over people. They both did it, I'll admit. But it's like 2 kids slapping each other and saying 'he started it!' It doesn't matter, don't fucking do it.)

I feel like they both missed the fucking point of a debate. One of greatest things about open debates like this, is that neutral parties can look at them, and get a more critical view on the issue. Instead what happened is both sides showed up to impress the people who already agree with them.

Which I'm sure worked like a charm, and fellow MRAs will read this and explode into rage at the very thought that I could have the audacity to criticize the wise and wonderful Paul Elam. But admit it, Paul was behaving like a dickbag. I really hope the next debate is GWW vs someone else. I feel like Karen could maintain that acerbic tone, while still being rational and on-point.

(I'm actually quite happy this subreddit is a different entity from AVFM. I know how butthurt and extremely defensive Paul gets when anyone calls him out for acting childishly.)

Imthere · 2013-11-27T14:46:27+00:00

Paul was a bit upset at the end. But Charles scored few good points. He avoided talking about the topic. He didn't really address Paul's issues.

IMHO, I would have stopped as soon as Charles said you need proof to get a TRO. I'd continue the debate, but I'd hone in on that topic.

It's proof that Charles is totally out of touch with reality. I'd take the tactic that of course he supports feminism. He doesn't know the facts! If I believed false-hoods about feminism, I'd support it, too!

The debate could then move to convincing Charles he's been duped. The rest of the topics can be ignored, because they come from the same base set of lies. The number one topic is that he's been lied to. Nothing else matters.

I'll also bet money that he won't come up with counter-arguments like he said he would. Or, the counter-arguments won't say what he claimed they would say.

That's another topic to hit on. His opinion is based on lies. So he has to lie about everything. He has no choice. If his opinion was based on facts and evidence, he could point to them and win on that alone.

He has to dissemble, resort to ad hominems, ignore the topic, lie about statistics, claim ignorance, etc. The alternative is to admin that his belief system is a total fabrication.

And he can't admit that.

SirSkeptic · 2013-11-27T13:34:28+00:00

As much as I respect Paul, I wish it was Karen or Typhon who was debating. Charles sets so much store in conflating feminism with women and the MHRM with men that he can't see the ideas and actions.

If he were debating a woman he couldn't make stoopid statements like "you can't see it because you're male" or "women spend their days in fear".

unexpecteditem · 2013-11-29T05:19:13+00:00

One of the things that struck me was when Paul's opponent started talking about how women constantly face harassment and sexual assault every time they leave the house. Leave aside all exaggeration in the phrasing and accept life is not always a bunch of roses for the ladies. Still, there is a reflexive focus by society now on women's personal lived experience and no correlate focus on men's.

I think it may be necessary to counter this as men by bringing the focus to our personal direct lived experience which has as much right to state its case. Society does not tolerate men complaining about personal stuff and that always makes it hard but we may need to bite the bullet even if it does leave us open to ridicule. Feminism too was very much open to ridicule in its early days and chose to endure that to make its case. For example, the idea that a woman could drive a bus was once considered self-evidently ludicrous and was a hopeless corner to defend as little as thirty years ago, well within living memory, though we forget.

This part of the debate has rightly been won by feminists, but feminism quickly moved on to focus on the notorious and still taboo and unmentionable "rape" and its attendant continuum, including harassment and sexual assault.

Oppression Olympics is the derisory name given, I think, to what I propose, but without it we cede the whole dramatic spectacle to the default victim of oppression: the poor, weak, vulnerable and precious female with her emotions and her tears.

Our society just does, though others may not, construct a game between the sexes whose contours are so familiar as to be the invisible background to all our social interaction.

Principally, women remain, for all the talk, and for whatever reason, construed as essentially passive participants in the game whose primary mode of expression is through the visual social presentation of the self. There are few ten year old girls who do not already know this, though they not be able to articulate it. Soon they will be cast into a world of hair, clothing and make-up whose easily analysable function is to draw the eye, no matter what superficial purposes of feeling comfortable and looking good they learn to prefer the better to hide it even from themselves.

Men, by contrast are construed as the active protagonists of the game. It is for them to act on women out of a motive of desire seeking to persuade, impress and pleasure them. Feminism has settled for embracing and extending this passive status to lend women an antagonistic posture that is both a revolutionary act and a device within the game. They call this empowerment.

The direction of social interaction between men and women is construed as active males towards passive females.

This brings with it a particular lived experience for men that correlates to, but is not necessarily the same as, the lived experience of women. No one experience deserves to be privileged over the other. Neither need bear the finger of shame. Each stands in need of empathy.

It has been one of the unique successes of feminism to relocate sexual shame from the female body to the male mind.

Mythandros · 2013-11-27T21:48:08+00:00

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

NiceIce · 2013-11-27T16:32:05+00:00

Next, we'll debate whether the sky is blue and water is actually wet.

Title	Debate: Is Feminism Toxic for Men?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	30
Comments	33
Date	November 27, 2013 10:46 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rkcgy/debate_is_feminism_toxic_for_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/debate-is-feminism-toxic-for-men.1157653 https://theredarchive.com/post/1157653

Comments