Tradition

Before we get into any political drama, let’s talk about tradition.

Cognac in elegant glasses. Cigars in wood-paneled libraries. Shotguns and tophats as we stalk our wily prey throughout the countryside. Horses, athletes, and warriors struggling against all odds. Gentlemen who could kill at a word, then return to friendly shores to read books, drink tea and fix things around the house.

Tradition carries with it an important weight. This isn’t just the stuff that’s left over from the collapse of other ages; it’s the stuff that survived because it kept its meaning through good times and the bad, through the rollercoaster of life, and made people seek it out.

We tend to think of tradition as rules, but perhaps tradition is something else. Perhaps it is a vessel for our sacred delights, and the products of hard-won wisdom, such as comes after a ten-year voyage in a forgotten war blighted with betrayals, misfortunes and epic victories.

So why are MRAs afraid of tradition?

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is split into two groups: the masculinists, who want a positive role for men that fits into a positive role for society, and the Feminist Men’s Rights Activists (FMRAs) and Pick-Up Artists/Gamers (PUAs) who want a defensive role for men, like feminism is for women.

The MRM is divided between these two impulses. To the masculinists, the idea of adopting feminist-style victimhood politics and demanding equality strikes us as too humiliating, too broken in spirit and too passive. The FMRAs fear tradition because it would force them out of their defensive role.

Luckily, Bonald intervened with a compendium of quality points:

Rather that seeking to dignify men by rejuvenating patriarchal gender roles, [the traditionalist movement] seeks to help men achieve power, power in the service of self-gratification rather than service. Individualist “empowerment” is a Satanic goal.

{…}

It is acknowledged that traditionalism and the alternative right represent a more radical critique of feminist society than the MRM, which only wants to relieve men of intolerable iniquities without questioning the Leftist/feminist order as a whole. – Throne and Altar, “So traditionalists and MRM can’t work together after all?”

I want to set aside his use of the term “Satanic,” which is designed to provoke anyone who has a battered old Slayer CD hidden in their desk, and look at the salient points of this conflict.

  • Feminism is individual empowerment through equality. In the feminist view, society/nature is bad and the individual needs to go on the defensive and by doing so, achieve certain rights that are granted by society. Anyone else see the paradox here?
  • Real power comes from self-actualization. You cannot buy power at a store, and you cannot produce power by repeating actions that once made you feel powerful. Having sex 1,000,000 times will not replace the feeling of being with a lady you really esteem. Getting drunk 1,000,000 times will not replace the rush of conquest, or the sensation of personal victory. What defines men? Setting aside the pleasures of boys and focusing on real pleasure, which is making things happen. Conquest.
  • Modern society is based on individual empowerment. Feminism is not the exception; it’s the norm. Feminism is like ordinary grocery store white bread that, at the factory, someone poured butterdough flavoring on. Now it’s butterdough bread. Still the same essential stuff. Our society is powered by individualism, and feminism is just female-tinged individualism, or “I’ll take everything for myself.”
  • This attitude is what makes modern life miserable. Men no longer have a role where they are appreciated. In fact, all those individualists out there are trying to figure out how to steal from us or take from us because they think we are strong. And they’re using society’s pity for them as women, GLBT, minorities, blind, deaf, stutterers, etc. to justify taking that power from you.

Don’t believe me?

The unemployment rate for males between 25 and 34 years old with high-school diplomas is 14.4%—up from 6.1% before the downturn four years ago and far above today’s 9% national rate. The picture is even more bleak for slightly younger men: 22.4% for high-school graduates 20 to 24 years old. That’s up from 10.4% four years ago.

{…}

“We’re at risk of having a generation of young males who aren’t well-connected to the labor market and who don’t feel strong ownership of community or society because they haven’t benefited from it,” says Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at the University of California, Berkeley. – The Wall Street Journal, “Generation Jobless: Young Men Suffer Worst as Economy Staggers”

Your civilization has been so busy worrying about individuals that it forgot to put together a sensible society!

The basis of civilization after all is that “it just works” meaning that there are jobs, social roles and ways of handling transgressions. All of this has been upset because we have no direction. Instead of a direction, we stagger around trying to make sure every individual need is fulfilled.

Every individual need except those we think should be fine because they’re stronger or richer, like men. Men? They’re the ones who are oppressing those individuals, so if they do get jobs, tax them double.

What happens in a society of individualists is that the underdogs are defended from the stronger. They do this to preserve equality, because no one needs equality except the underdogs. Soon the quest for fairness gets re-styled into a quest to take from the strong and give to the weak.

You cannot have feminism without first having this underlying attitude.

What’s scary is that FMRAs want to preserve this attitude by trying to make men into victims, too! That’s not going to work. Underdogs always need a target, and they’re not going to target women just because some men claim to be injured.

Instead, they’re going to take from men and give to women, GLBT, minorities, the deaf, blind, stutterers, etc. and those people will take over this society, much as in the Soviet Union, those who joined the Communist Party got ahead, or in Revolutionary France those who joined the Revolution got ahead.

Women are overtaking men in education and in the workplace, a senior Government minister said yesterday – creating a new generation of stay-at-home fathers.

Universities minister David Willetts predicted relationships and traditional household structures will be transformed as the fairer sex powers ahead, and women earn more than their male partners.

Successful women will have to ‘marry down’ by choosing partners less qualified than them – and may increasingly select men based on how supportive they might be to their careers, rather than whether they can support them financially. – The Daily Mail, “Intelligent women forced to ‘dumb down’ and find a less-educated man to marry”

Traditionalist MRAs are trying to rip out the problem of anti-male bias by the roots, while FMRAs are trying to apply symptomatic treatment. A daub of calomine lotion; there, that takes care of the itch. Have a shot glass of brandy to take away the pain. You get extra dessert tonight too.

But the problem remains. In fact, as traditionalists see it, the traditionalist solution is the one that addresses the injustices both men and women complain about — by giving men and women each a complementary, sacred role in which they have a guaranteed place of value in society.

Modern civilization fears that idea. In the name of the individual ego, it will enforce the ultimate conformity, which is (just as in high school) a dominion of what is popular over what is not uniformly pleasant and therefore unpopular.

Fame is the No. 1 value emphasized by television shows popular with 9- to 11-year-olds, a dramatic change over the past 10 years, UCLA psychologists report in a new study.

On a list of 16 values, fame jumped from the 15th spot, where it was in both 1987 and 1997, to the first spot in 2007. From 1997 to 2007, benevolence (being kind and helping others) fell from second to 13th, and tradition dropped from fourth to 15th.

Community feeling (being part of a group) was the No. 1 value in 1967, 1977 and 1997, and it was the No. 2 value in 1987, the study found. By 2007, however, it had fallen out of the top 10, to 11th. – Science Daily, “Popular TV Shows Teach Children Fame Is Most Important Value, Psychologists Report; Being Kind to Others Fell Dramatically in Importance Over 10 Years”

This is a problem because as men we are there for the unpopular problems. Our goal is not to flatter others, but to take on the hard challenges and fix them. This is our role. But the individualist-dominated society wants to exclude us, and replace us with chestless automatons, because individuals fear the stronger beast.

If you want to apply some calomine lotion, getting legal approval from society for you to be a victim and because it hurts so bad, to get extra sex from sluts and to stay in your apartment playing video games, well, that’s OK. It won’t change the problem.

But if you want to fix the problem, which seems to me a reasonably masculine way to handle any situation, then you’re going to have to go deeper, remove the underlying roots of the problem no matter how pleasant they seem, then face the unpleasant truth and correct it. That will require something like the traditionalist approach.

38 Responses to “Tradition”

  1. USMaleSF says:

    If equality (often disguised as “justice”) is the most important value and (importantly) the natural state of things, then inequalities of any kind are the most heinous crime and equality by any means necessary becomes the default required and unquestionably virtuous attitude.

    What is contemporary liberalism but the belief that the lesser status, resources and power of traditionally less successful groups (aka, official victim classes) must be redressed and balanced by using State power and social control to reduce the (unjustly) greater status, resources and power of traditionally more successful groups (aka, official oppressor classes)?

    Redressing the inequalities means simply replacing one group with another…by force.

    This is the belief, narrative and outcome of the liberal society.

    What is more deeply distressing than this unreal project is the acquiescence of traditionally successful groups in their own downfall, replacement and erasure as indications of the highest ethical standards.

    • vir says:

      What is contemporary liberalism but the belief that the lesser status, resources and power of traditionally less successful groups (aka, official victim classes) must be redressed and balanced by using State power and social control to reduce the (unjustly) greater status, resources and power of traditionally more successful groups (aka, official oppressor classes)?

      Succinct analysis of liberalism. I like Jim Kalb’s view of liberalism as a demand for “equal freedom,” which because it’s an unstable demand automatically requires some form of strong control force, whether social (as in anarchy) or organized government (as in Communism). Different shades of the same color.

  2. [...] on behalf of traditionalits, Brett put it this way: Traditionalist MRAs are trying to rip out the problem of anti-male bias by the roots, while FMRAs [...]

  3. person says:

    “Feminism is individual empowerment through equality. In the feminist view, society/nature is bad and the individual needs to go on the defensive and by doing so, achieve certain rights that are granted by society. Anyone else see the paradox here?”

    Yes, I do, because you put it there. Trouble is, it’s not true. The feminist view does not say “society/nature is bad”.

    If you get to just make up things that your opponents supposedly said, then of course you can make it as nonsensical as you like.

  4. Michael says:

    @person

    “The feminist view does not say “society/nature is bad”.”

    It sure does that, if you have enough brains to infer, from what feminists say and do what their underlying motivations are. They are profoundly at war with the idea, that a stable and prospering society needs for women and men to fulfill roles, that are supportive of such a society. They claim that by abandoning the primary values of our society (personal accountability, responsibility, selflessness, respect for gender differences), they are still building a better society, which goes against natural law. It’s human nature, that they are trying to redefine for their own gratification and self-interest. But human nature does not let itself be redefined, hence the decay of our society, gaining momentum fast now.

    • vir says:

      It sure does that, if you have enough brains to infer, from what feminists say and do what their underlying motivations are.

      This is a really good point. It’s unwise, if your ideology is confused, to reveal your actual goals until forced to do so. This is why most liberal movements and all feminist movement have vague goals and even less clear plans for how to reform the world. Yet they’re sure they must do it.

  5. person says:

    @Michael, well, as a feminist myself, I am quite sure that my underlying motivations are not those, and I’m pretty sure it’s not the underlying motivation of most other feminists, not that I can read the minds of all of them. It doesn’t matter, anyway, since it’s not the underlying motivations that matter, but the ideology itself, which stands on its own independent of any individual practicioner.

    Feminists are not against the idea that women and women should fulfill roles, they just don’t think that those roles need be decided on the basis of whether someone is a man or a women. Believing that certainly doesn’t mean that they are against society. It means they are against a particular type of society, which is not the same thing.

    In your list of primary values, I don’t see one which feminists are against, not even necessarily “respect for gender differences”, unless by that you mean “forced behavior based on gender”, which is all feminists are against and which in my opinion is not necessary in order to respect gender differences. They also prefer that we be clear on what are actual, fundamental gender differences, and what are simply conventionalized ones, which I think is not unreasonable.

    There is no such thing as “going against natural law”. A natural law is, by definition, inviolable. Examples include gravity and conservation of mass. No one has ever been punished for violating those laws, because it’s physically impossible to do.

    What you probably mean by “natural law” is really social laws, like the “law” that men and women should behave in certain ways. Those are not natural laws, and violating them is not necessarily detrimental to society.

    Human nature, again by definition, can’t be changed, I agree, at least not in the amounts of time we’re talking about here. But human nature allows for a lot of different types and organizations of society, as you can plainly see by looking at human history and the current landscape of human culture, which varies widely across a genetically homogenous species. So changing society does not require changing human nature, and change of society does not necessarily mean decay of society.

    @vir, the goals are pretty clear to me, although they are far-ranging, and include both short-term and long-term goals, some of which are easier, and hence earlier, to reach than others.

  6. Tim says:

    Feminists are not against the idea that women and women should fulfill roles, they just don’t think that those roles need be decided on the basis of whether someone is a man or a women. Believing that certainly doesn’t mean that they are against society. It means they are against a particular type of society, which is not the same thing.

    Feminism is a sexual strategy which seeks to maximize the sexual pleasure of the female at the expense of the male. Indeed, one merely need look at the name “feminism” to see clearly that it is “female first”. If it weren’t, it would be called “humanism”.

    It is not that feminists oppose the enforcement of gender roles so much as it is the advancement of male sexual freedom they oppose. Men hold the capacity to reproduce even into an advanced age, whereas women cannot. What feminists suffer from is “male role envy”, but one must be very careful of envy, for envy does not seek to raise up the one who envies, but rather, to bring down the object of one’s envy.

  7. person says:

    Well, that’s just not true. Feminism has nothing directly to do with sexual pleasure. Feminism certainly does teach that women should seek to fulfill their own sexual desires in a sexual relationship (not in any way at the expense of the male), but that’s just part of the broader advocacy that women should look after their own interests in any situation.

    It’s called “feminism” because females have historically been the ones disadvantaged, and it’s their situation the movement is looking to improve, not because it sees as its goal that females would have more power than males, except in a few radical cases.

    Feminists do indeed oppose the enforcement of gender roles; that’s the core of what they believe. I don’t know what you mean by saying they oppose male sexual freedom. They don’t. They don’t have any problem with men reproducing into advanced age; they only have a problem if the man abuses a woman.

    You say feminists suffer from “male role envy” and don’t seek to raise up the one who envies but rather bring down the object of their envy. That’s puzzling, since feminists try to do the exact opposite, raising up women, and generally not seeking to bring down men. A case in point is reproduction into advanced age; some feminists have advocated treatments to allow reproduction for women at higher ages; no feminist has advocated sterilizing men after a certain age.

  8. Tim says:

    …that’s just part of the broader advocacy that women should look after their own interests in any situation.

    And there we have it. You said it yourself. “Women should look after their own interests in any situation”. Women have not been the ones who have been historically disadvantaged. I don’t know where you came up with this absurd claim, or how you arrived at this conclusion, but the truth is quite the opposite. The dynamic, all through history, has been about men putting women–their safety, provision and comfort–before themselves. Whether they were lowering women into lifeboats and drowning with the ship or being shot at or gassed in a foreign land, men have always been the disposable sex. That you claim this is not so is rank narcissism, and sick.

    Feminists do indeed oppose the enforcement of gender roles; that’s the core of what they believe.

    Oh rlly?

    Exhibit A:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8774295/White-Feather-women-didnt-impress-those-at-the-Front.html

    Feminists oppose the enforcement of gender roles – for women. They are happy to see men trapped in theirs. And here is the rub: *men cannot abandon their role, because to provide and to protect will always be demanded of men.*

    Don’t respond with something along the lines of, “well, women are in the army, too!” Yes, they are, but they’re useless, and destroy morale.

    You’re a narcissist, person, that’s all you are.

  9. person says:

    Well I guess it depends on what you mean by “disadvantaged”. As I said in my response to another thread, women may have been protected and supported throughout history, and even that hasn’t applied to all women, but they haven’t been given choices, they haven’t been allowed to control their own destiny, nearly as much as men have. That is the type of disadvantage that feminists work to correct.

    “Exhibit A:”

    So I suppose you’re implying that the women who did that were feminists. It didn’t say so in the article.

    Now I’ll admit there are some feminists who don’t mention that men should be treated equally, too. But mainstream feminism advocates exactly that; that both man and women should have equal rights.

    “You’re a narcissist, person, that’s all you are.”

    I don’t think you know what that word means. A narcissist is someone who only cares about themselves. When have you heard me talk about myself at all?

  10. Tim says:

    I’m not going to play games with you, bitch. This is a juvenile exercise but I’m doing it anyway because it is fun. I can tell you are young and do not have any children. This puts you at a massive disadvantage, for you haven’t obtained wisdom yet. Bitch.

    As I said in my response to another thread, women may have been protected and supported throughout history, and even that hasn’t applied to all women, but they haven’t been given choices, they haven’t been allowed to control their own destiny, nearly as much as men have.

    This implies there were a surplus of choices to be had by all, but which were denied to women, which would of course be discrimination, but again, you merely assert it. You don’t support this statement. (which is why I call you, “bitch”) As long as you continue to simply assert things and never back them up, I will call you out, you dirty little whore.

    You would, of course, have to enumerate those things which were denied to women. But before you do so, bear in mind that the vast majority of men were also denied choices. Most men were serfs. They worked for a Master, or a Lord, who provided them with food and shelter in exchange for protection. Regarding my own personal background, my ancestors are Irish, who only won the right to form a nation less than 100 years ago. So you are full of shit, you little whore.

    So I suppose you’re implying that the women who did that were feminists. It didn’t say so in the article.

    Feminism means different things to different people. It is not “fixed”. But you cannot deny the reality of that particular form of gender enforcement. It is manipulation at its most grotesque.

    When have you heard me talk about myself at all?

    Shut the fuck up, whore. You little baby. We are talking about ourselves whether we like it or not. You need a baseball bat shoved up your ass, bitch.

  11. person says:

    “This implies there were a surplus of choices to be had by all, but which were denied to women,”

    All it takes is one choice that men can make but women can’t. An example is the pattern in many socities, including Victorian Britian, where fathers would choose husbands for their daughters among bachelors, where the bachelors had free choice to marry or not marry any woman whose father approved.

    This tended to apply only to upper crust families. Yes, in many cases in history, the lower classes had equally shitty treatment for both men and women; both were serfs, or slaves, or the like. None of that discounts the fact that when there were choices, it was the men who got them, and there are very few counterexamples to that.

    “Feminism means different things to different people. It is not “fixed”. ”

    Nice dodge. But if the women who participated in that feather-granting were not feminists, you have no argument that feminists are happy to force men into a certain role, only that some women are. I never said that all women were feminists.

    “But you cannot deny the reality of that particular form of gender enforcement. It is manipulation at its most grotesque. ”

    No, I can’t. It’s just as bad as men yelling at women to “get back to the kitchen”. Not worse though.

    “Shut the fuck up, whore. You little baby. We are talking about ourselves whether we like it or not. You need a baseball bat shoved up your ass, bitch.”

    So this is the “wisdom” that I haven’t acquired yet? The wisdom that it’s appropriate to resort to threats when you’re losing an argument?

  12. Tim says:

    All it takes is one choice that men can make but women can’t.

    This is again merely an assertion, and as always, you do not support it. Or rather, you do not complete your thought. All it takes is one choice that men can make but women can’t…for what? To what end? Are you suggesting that we are only fully human by our ability to make choices? Are we less of a person the fewer choices we have? You would have to prove this, first, before we go further, because it sounds like this is the philosophy you are espousing. I don’t believe in the idea that we are made human by being self-defined.

    An example is the pattern in many socities, including Victorian Britian, where fathers would choose husbands for their daughters among bachelors, where the bachelors had free choice to marry or not marry any woman whose father approved.

    The key word is “approved”. In other words, you had to “prove” something. So men were also limited in their choices, as having to prove your worth in order to obtain a favor is not real freedom at all. Therefore, the oppression of which you speak is not specific to women.

    This tended to apply only to upper crust families. Yes, in many cases in history, the lower classes had equally shitty treatment for both men and women; both were serfs, or slaves, or the like. None of that discounts the fact that when there were choices, it was the men who got them, and there are very few counterexamples to that.

    And yet you never flesh out your argument, you merely assert it. I continually ask for you to go into detail, and you fail to do so, every time. Is it on purpose? What were these choices of which you speak? I need details.

    But if the women who participated in that feather-granting were not feminists, you have no argument that feminists are happy to force men into a certain role, only that some women are. I never said that all women were feminists.

    Fail. Any time a woman wants to, she can call herself a feminist. There are no union dues or meetings to attend. You can wake up one day and be a feminist, and the next day change your mind. No one will find that odd at all, and no one will hold you accountable for your actions.

    No, I can’t. It’s just as bad as men yelling at women to “get back to the kitchen”. Not worse though.

    Glib.

    So this is the “wisdom” that I haven’t acquired yet? The wisdom that it’s appropriate to resort to threats when you’re losing an argument?

    So far I am crushing you to death. All you have are assertions, with nothing to support them. The baseball bat I alluded to earlier being crammed up your ass was a wake-up call to flesh out your ideas. All you’ve done thus far is regurgitate platitudes that aren’t even your own original thoughts. You need to think deeply and critically about what you say. You’re just a kid in first year Gender Studies, I know, but still, it’s not too much to ask that you think hard about what you say. Here’s an idea: list all of the choices that were denied women, but when you’ve completed that task, describe in detail, in your own well-thought out words, why you believe that women were specifically MORE oppressed than men. Remember, you are trying to convince me that this oppression constitutes very real suffering, so much so that it led to an asymmetry between the sexes.

  13. person says:

    “This is again merely an assertion, and as always, you do not support it. ”

    It’s an assertion of what constitutes discrimination. That doesn’t really require support, just agreement on the definition of a word. So I’ll give you the relevant Wiktionary definition of “discrimination”. If you don’t like that definition, or prefer to discuss the meaning of the word “oppression” or “disenfranchisement”, be my guest; it will amount to the same thing.

    “distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit”

    “The key word is “approved”. In other words, you had to “prove” something.”

    Oh, god. You don’t know the difference between the words “approve” and “prove”?

    “So men were also limited in their choices, as having to prove your worth in order to obtain a favor is not real freedom at all.”

    You’ve never even causally studied what is meant by “freedom”? It does not include the freedom to control the actions of others.

    Therefore, the oppression of which you speak is not specific to women. ”

    No. The bachelor in this situation does not have limited choice in the same way at all. He is free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, any women whose father is willing. The father is free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, his daughter to any man he chooses who is willing. The women is not free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, anyone. She can’t make any choices in the situation. There’s a clear difference.

    “And yet you never flesh out your argument, you merely assert it. I continually ask for you to go into detail, and you fail to do so, every time. Is it on purpose? What were these choices of which you speak? I need details. ”

    I’ve already given examples. Choices like who to marry, who to vote for, what career (if any) to pursue, where and what to study, where to live, in some cases what to wear, etc. I don’t see why you need these details anyway, since as I said, it only takes one choice taken away from women but not men.

    “Fail. Any time a woman wants to, she can call herself a feminist. There are no union dues or meetings to attend. You can wake up one day and be a feminist, and the next day change your mind. No one will find that odd at all, and no one will hold you accountable for your actions. ”

    There are no union dues or meetings (unless you’re part of a feminist organization, which exist), but there is a core set of beliefs. If you don’t have those beliefs, you’re not a feminist, by definition. And there’s good reason to belief that the feather women were not feminists. Furthermore, you haven’t even shown any evidence that they *did* call themselves feminists, or that anyone else did.

    “Glib.”

    Does that mean you disagree?

    “Here’s an idea: list all of the choices that were denied women, but when you’ve completed that task, describe in detail, in your own well-thought out words, why you believe that women were specifically MORE oppressed than men.”

    You haven’t actually shown that men, QUA MEN, were oppressed at all. You’ve shown that certain groups of men were oppressed, but not because they were men, but rather because they were poor, or the like. That doesn’t count as men being oppressed as much as women; for that they’d have to be oppressed FOR BEING MEN. Because we’ve both agreed that the converse holds for women; women were oppressed FOR BEING WOMEN.

  14. Tim says:

    It’s an assertion of what constitutes discrimination. That doesn’t really require support, just agreement on the definition of a word. So I’ll give you the relevant Wiktionary definition of “discrimination”. If you don’t like that definition, or prefer to discuss the meaning of the word “oppression” or “disenfranchisement”, be my guest; it will amount to the same thing.

    Fail. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. People discriminate all the time. They discriminate when they look for a house to buy, when they look for a school for their children.

    Oh, god. You don’t know the difference between the words “approve” and “prove”?

    And your point is?

    You’ve never even causally studied what is meant by “freedom”? It does not include the freedom to control the actions of others.

    And your point is?

    No. The bachelor in this situation does not have limited choice in the same way at all. He is free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, any women whose father is willing. The father is free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, his daughter to any man he chooses who is willing. The women is not free to marry, OR NOT MARRY, anyone. She can’t make any choices in the situation. There’s a clear difference.

    Fail. The bachelor in this situation MUST PROVE he is worthy to any woman he desires to marry. The bachelor in this situation MUST PROVE he is worthy to the father of any woman he desire to marry. The women ARE FREE to marry, or not marry, anyone. She CAN make choices in the situation.

    I have no idea where you got the nonsense you are trying to peddle here. It certainly cannot be found in history books. It can’t be found in literature or in law. I guess I will have to say it again: assertions alone are useless. Without support, utterly and totally useless.

    I’ve already given examples. Choices like who to marry, who to vote for, what career (if any) to pursue, where and what to study, where to live, in some cases what to wear, etc. I don’t see why you need these details anyway, since as I said, it only takes one choice taken away from women but not men.

    You haven’t given me any examples. None. The examples so far – marriage, voting, career, study, living, clothes – you have not proven a denial of choices. It does show, however, that as a species, men innovate, and women come later. It shows me that men are driven, and are fueled by testosterone. But I see no evidence of oppression. That is what you must prove.

    Furthermore, you haven’t even shown any evidence that they *did* call themselves feminists, or that anyone else did.

    As long as you are absolved of the responsibility of self-identifying as a feminist, I am absolved of the responsibility of ascertaining your feminist credentials.

    Does that mean you disagree?

    You’ll have to look up the meaning of “glib”.

    You haven’t actually shown that men, QUA MEN, were oppressed at all. You’ve shown that certain groups of men were oppressed, but not because they were men, but rather because they were poor, or the like. That doesn’t count as men being oppressed as much as women; for that they’d have to be oppressed FOR BEING MEN. Because we’ve both agreed that the converse holds for women; women were oppressed FOR BEING WOMEN.

    Again, just an assertion. How many times must I repeat this? Assertions alone are utterly useless. They do not constitute a proof. Where did I agree that the converse holds for women? I’ll say it again, and keep saying it until you get it: how does not being able to vote constitute oppression? I don’t want an assertion. I want an explanation.

  15. person says:

    “Fail. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.”

    It depends what kind of discrimination. Feminists argue that there is something wrong with discrimination based solely on sex. You can disagree with that, but you seem to be saying that there was no discrimination based on sex at all. That’s just factually untrue.

    “Fail. The bachelor in this situation MUST PROVE he is worthy to any woman he desires to marry. The bachelor in this situation MUST PROVE he is worthy to the father of any woman he desire to marry. The women ARE FREE to marry, or not marry, anyone. She CAN make choices in the situation. ”

    What choices can the women make in this situation? Can she tell her father “I don’t want to marry that man that you’ve chosen for me”? She can say it, but the father doesn’t have to respect her wishes. No, the woman CAN NOT make choices in the situation.

    “Where did I agree that the converse holds for women”

    You never disputed that, by law, no woman could vote, and there was no such parallel law for men.

    “I’ll say it again, and keep saying it until you get it: how does not being able to vote constitute oppression?”

    I did explain it. It doesn’t look like you know what an explanation is. An assertion is “not being able to vote constitutes oppression”. And explanation is what I gave, “not being able to vote constitutes oppression because the vote was denied to women, because they were women, and not to men, because they were men. There was unequal treatment of men and women, with women getting the short end of the stick, and that constitutes oppression.”

    I guess you disagree with the latter claim, but if so, no proof is relevant; we just disagree on what the word “oppression” means.

    What kind of proof do you want, documentary evidence? You haven’t provided any such evidence for any of your claims. It could be done, but these are not controversial claims.

  16. Tim says:

    You can disagree with that, but you seem to be saying that there was no discrimination based on sex at all. That’s just factually untrue.

    No, you are arguing that there was. So you need to prove it. The one who makes the claim needs to provide the proof. So I’m waiting. Moreover, your original claim was that this was oppression. So you need to prove this, too. I’ll wait for you.

    What choices can the women make in this situation? Can she tell her father “I don’t want to marry that man that you’ve chosen for me”? She can say it, but the father doesn’t have to respect her wishes. No, the woman CAN NOT make choices in the situation.

    Neither does she have to respect her father’s wishes. Whether you like it or not, the woman CAN AND DID make choices in the situation.

    You never disputed that, by law, no woman could vote, and there was no such parallel law for men.

    I did dispute this. You need to study history.

    And explanation is what I gave, “not being able to vote constitutes oppression because the vote was denied to women, because they were women, and not to men, because they were men. There was unequal treatment of men and women, with women getting the short end of the stick, and that constitutes oppression.”

    Again, this is false. I don’t believe women were denied the vote because they were women. I do believe they were denied the vote, and I do believe they were women, but I do not believe they were denied the vote because they were women. Since you are the one making this claim, it then falls on you to support this claim. You have never furnished an explanation. All you have done is asserted it, and nothing more. I will wait for you.

    I guess you disagree with the latter claim, but if so, no proof is relevant; we just disagree on what the word “oppression” means.

    I don’t disagree, I am simply waiting for evidence. You’ve made a claim. The claim is, women were oppressed. I asked for evidence. You responded by saying, women could not vote. I countered with, “big deal, men could not vote, too.” You then replied with, “women could not vote because they were women.” I then asked for evidence for this claim. And that is where we are now. I agree that women were denied the vote, but it’s quite another thing entirely to say that women were denied the vote because they were women. This is what you need to prove. Now, if you can prove this – and I can be persuaded – you may have a case that women were discriminated against. But you would have to explain this, first. Bear in mind, also, that discrimination is not the same as oppression. So you would have clarify which word you really mean. I will wait for you. As regards the word “oppression”, no, we agree what that means: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

    What kind of proof do you want, documentary evidence? You haven’t provided any such evidence for any of your claims. It could be done, but these are not controversial claims.

    Anything. Use your imagination. Oh and yes they are controversial claims.

  17. person says:

    “Neither does she have to respect her father’s wishes. Whether you like it or not, the woman CAN AND DID make choices in the situation. ”

    Any source on that? My understanding is that they had no legal standing to make their own choices on who to marry.

    “I did dispute this. You need to study history.”

    No, you didn’t dispute it before. Are you disputing it now? Could women vote before the 19th century in Britain or the US?

    “Again, this is false. I don’t believe women were denied the vote because they were women. I do believe they were denied the vote, and I do believe they were women, but I do not believe they were denied the vote because they were women. ”

    If you’re talking about the underlying psychological motives, that’s irrelevant. The vote was denied to all women, and any new citizens that were women were categorically denied the vote. This was not true categorically of men. That is all that is required; if you were a women who wanted to vote, you obviously wouldn’t care *why* someone thought that being a woman was justification enough to deny you that ability.

    “You responded by saying, women could not vote. I countered with, “big deal, men could not vote, too.” ”

    And that wasn’t true. Some men could vote, just not all men. A false claim is not much of a counter.

    “Now, if you can prove this – and I can be persuaded – you may have a case that women were discriminated against. ”

    As I said, all that is required is that, by law, womanhood constitutes non-voting. Psychological motives are irrelevant.

    “Anything. Use your imagination. Oh and yes they are controversial claims.”

    No, they are not. A few fringe right-wing groups do not make a controversy.

  18. Tim says:

    No source. I just figured it was commonly understood. Do you have a source which proves otherwise?

    I don’t dispute that women could not vote. I dispute that this is oppression.

    If you’re talking about the underlying psychological motives, that’s irrelevant.

    No, it is not. Motive is central to everything. It wins or loses cases in courts of law. Motive IS everything.

    The vote was denied to all women, and any new citizens that were women were categorically denied the vote. This was not true categorically of men.

    What does this prove?

    That is all that is required; if you were a women who wanted to vote, you obviously wouldn’t care *why* someone thought that being a woman was justification enough to deny you that ability.

    What does this prove?

    And that wasn’t true. Some men could vote, just not all men. A false claim is not much of a counter.

    What does this prove?

    As I said, all that is required is that, by law, womanhood constitutes non-voting. Psychological motives are irrelevant.

    Yes they are. Psychological motives are irrelevant to you, because you know you will lose this debate.

    No, they are not. A few fringe right-wing groups do not make a controversy.

    Yes, they are. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t be so many people discussing what we are discussing right now.

  19. person says:

    “No, it is not. Motive is central to everything. It wins or loses cases in courts of law. Motive IS everything.”

    Motive of offenders, yes. Motive of lawmakers is not relevant; no case in a court of law has hinged on the motive of those who wrote the laws.

    “Yes they are. Psychological motives are irrelevant to you, because you know you will lose this debate.”

    As I just said, the motives of those who make laws, or implement policy, is never relevant. Only the force of the policy is relevant. THe force, in this case, being to prevent all women but not all men from voting.

    “Yes, they are. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t be so many people discussing what we are discussing right now.”

    If you look hard enough you can find a group of people who disagree with any established claim. There’s creationists, the flat-earth society, Christian scientists, climate-change deniers, etc. There’s no controversy among anyone who knows what they’re talking about that those people are full of shit.

  20. Tim says:

    Motive of offenders, yes. Motive of lawmakers is not relevant; no case in a court of law has hinged on the motive of those who wrote the laws.

    You’re saying that women were denied the vote because they were women. So I’m responding by asking you what is it about women that would make men want to deny them the vote. It’s your claim, not mine. I’m asking you to support that claim. There is a reason for everything. So what is this reason?

    As I just said, the motives of those who make laws, or implement policy, is never relevant. Only the force of the policy is relevant. THe force, in this case, being to prevent all women but not all men from voting.

    I disagree. I think it is relevant. For example, children were denied the vote as well, as they are today. One could say it is arbitrary, but one could also say they lack maturity. As far as I know, however, it is the latter. So you see there is a reason. So why were women denied the vote. There is a reason for children. What is the reason for women?

    There’s no controversy among anyone who knows what they’re talking about that those people are full of shit.

    Nonsense. Google feminism or input it on Youtube and you will find thousands of people debating what we are debating right now.

  21. person says:

    “You’re saying that women were denied the vote because they were women. So I’m responding by asking you what is it about women that would make men want to deny them the vote. It’s your claim, not mine. I’m asking you to support that claim. There is a reason for everything. So what is this reason?”

    How exactly am I supposed to know the reason why legislators from more than a hundred years ago decided to do what they do? More importantly, why does it matter? The only question is, was it just for them to do it?

    “I disagree. I think it is relevant. For example, children were denied the vote as well, as they are today. One could say it is arbitrary, but one could also say they lack maturity. As far as I know, however, it is the latter. So you see there is a reason.”

    Yes, there is always a reason. But they’re not always a just reason.

    “There is a reason for children. What is the reason for women?”

    Why don’t you tell me, since you’re the one who seems to think that the decision was not unjust, or at least not obviously unjust.

    “Nonsense. Google feminism or input it on Youtube and you will find thousands of people debating what we are debating right now.”

    I doubt it reaches this level of stupidity, of people claiming that women were not denied the vote qua women.

  22. Tim says:

    How exactly am I supposed to know the reason why legislators from more than a hundred years ago decided to do what they do? More importantly, why does it matter? The only question is, was it just for them to do it?

    I’m guessing you are curious and you would like to attend university, and perhaps even graduate school, where you will be asked to do research. I could be wrong, but if I’m not, then you will have to think, and not just parrot platitudes from a textbook.

    Yes, there is always a reason. But they’re not always a just reason.

    Correct. So what is the unjust reason?

    Why don’t you tell me, since you’re the one who seems to think that the decision was not unjust, or at least not obviously unjust.

    I’ve done explaining for you. It’s about time you initiated some explaining of your own, don’t you think?

    I doubt it reaches this level of stupidity, of people claiming that women were not denied the vote qua women.

    It’s all over the web. It’s in university. It’s everywhere. It’s laughable that you expect me to believe an assertion you refuse to support, as thought the assertion alone carries authority. LOL! Do you not know that can get you kicked out of university?But here, I just found this on youtube, and as I said, this question as to whether women were discriminated against qua women is by no means settled:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Bcny5419M

  23. person says:

    “Correct. So what is the unjust reason?”

    The question is: what is the just reason? Without one, the action is unjust.

    “I’ve done explaining for you. It’s about time you initiated some explaining of your own, don’t you think?”

    Done before you begin eh?

  24. person says:

    The video makes the same logical error that you make; that’s probably where you got it from. And I already explained why that logic was flawed.

  25. Tim says:

    The question is: what is the just reason? Without one, the action is unjust.

    It is you who is making the claim, not I. Therefore, it is upon you to support your claim.

    Done before you begin eh?

    You have done nothing more than make assertions. So I’m waiting for you to support them.

    The video makes the same logical error that you make; that’s probably where you got it from. And I already explained why that logic was flawed.

    So you expand upon your thesis. I’ll wait for you.

  26. person says:

    “It is you who is making the claim, not I. Therefore, it is upon you to support your claim. ”

    I made the claim, first, that women were discriminated against, which you after some kicking and screaming finally agreed with. Now I am claiming that when you discriminate, it is up to you, the discriminator, to justify the criterion you used, in this case womanhood.

    “So you expand upon your thesis. I’ll wait for you.”

    What more expansion would you need, exactly?

  27. Tim says:

    I made the claim, first, that women were discriminated against, which you after some kicking and screaming finally agreed with. Now I am claiming that when you discriminate, it is up to you, the discriminator, to justify the criterion you used, in this case womanhood.

    You said it was unjust discrimination, because it was discrimination on the basis of sex alone. I disagree with that analysis, and asked you to prove it. So I’m waiting for you to prove it. The 19th amendment states that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex alone. However, this doesn’t prove that either sex was discriminated against on the basis of sex alone prior to the 19th amendment. I think that’s what you’re trying to prove to me, that indeed that was the case. If that was the case, then it should be easy for you to prove that that was the case. We know that women could not vote prior to the 19th amendment, but we don’t know if this was on the basis of sex alone. That is what you have been attempting to prove.

    What more expansion would you need, exactly?

    Why was the logic flawed?

  28. person says:

    “However, this doesn’t prove that either sex was discriminated against on the basis of sex alone prior to the 19th amendment.”

    What do you mean by “sex alone” again? You keep waffling about what you mean by that that I’m not going to answer any statements that use it until you clarify.

    “Why was the logic flawed?”

    It suggested that the women’s suffrage movement was misguided because many men couldn’t vote, either. That’s completely beside the point, which was that some men could vote, while no women could.

    In Britain, it may be that women couldn’t vote because they couldn’t own property, and only property owners could vote. I don’t know the facts for Britain so well. In that case, perhaps there the movement should have focused on the idea that non-property-owners, including women, could vote, or perhaps on the fact that women should be able to own property.

    However, I know that in the US, the property criterion was abolished, de facto at least in some states and de jure in all states, long before women got the vote; and I’m pretty sure women could own property in the US and still couldn’t vote.

  29. Tim says:

    What do you mean by “sex alone” again? You keep waffling about what you mean by that that I’m not going to answer any statements that use it until you clarify.

    Oh ok, on the basis of sex, I mean.

    It suggested that the women’s suffrage movement was misguided because many men couldn’t vote, either. That’s completely beside the point, which was that some men could vote, while no women could.

    Yes, but what we don’t know is if that discrimination was based on sex, and not other categories.

  30. person says:

    “Oh ok, on the basis of sex, I mean. ”

    Ok, well even your video didn’t deny that the vote was prohibited on the basis of sex. To disprove this, you’d have to show records that women were voting before this time. Apparently there were states in the US where women could vote for short periods of time in the early years of the Republic, but they were short-lived and bans against women voting were shortly reinstated.

    “Yes, but what we don’t know is if that discrimination was based on sex, and not other categories.”

    We know. It’s a matter of record.

  31. Tim says:

    We know. It’s a matter of record.

    No we don’t. We have records which will show that children have also never voted. Yet no one has claimed that they are being unjustly discriminated against because they are children. It could be that they are not mature as opposed to being children.

  32. person says:

    More specifically, we have records that show that people cannot vote until they are a certain age, which is 18 now; it was 21 in the past.

    Yes, this is discrimination based on age.

    Just like the discrimination before the 19th Amendment (in the US) was discrimination based on sex.

    For each case, the burden is on those who are in favor of the discrimination to show why that discrimination is just.

    In the case of age, the argument is, indeed, that people under 18 (21 in the past) are not mature enough. Is that a just reason for such discrimination? It’s a complex issue, and a slippery slope; it’s pretty clear in the case of a 0-5 year old, not so clear in the case of a 17-year-old, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

    What was the argument in the case of women? Were they not considered mature enough either? Were they considered not to have the type of mind to understand political issues? Were they considered not to be affected by political decisions? I don’t know; probably a combination of these and other ideas; in any case, it’s pretty clear that none of those reasons stand up to scrutiny. If you, or any would-be discriminator has another reason not to let women (any women) vote, it’s up to them to give a reason that does hold up.

    And fortunately, there’s no slippery slope in the case of women voting. Either you can discriminate based on sex in voting or you can’t.

  33. Tim says:

    For each case, the burden is on those who are in favor of the discrimination to show why that discrimination is just.

    The burden is on you because you are the one stating it is unjust.

    If you, or any would-be discriminator has another reason not to let women (any women) vote, it’s up to them to give a reason that does hold up.

    You were the one who initially stated the discrimination was unjust. I then asked you to explain, and am still waiting for an explanation. Nothing has changed since the debate began, except now you wish me to explain my position, first. I will, but not until I have heard your argument, first.

  34. person says:

    “The burden is on you because you are the one stating it is unjust.”

    I’m stating a negative. There was no just reason for the discrimination. It’s up to you to then say “no, there was a just reason for the discrimination, and here it is…”

    “You were the one who initially stated the discrimination was unjust. I then asked you to explain, and am still waiting for an explanation. ”

    As I said, the only explanation I need to give to prove my point is that there was no just reason given for the discrimination. Now, that’s proving a negative, which is hard to do; I already gave a few candidates for the reasons the discrimination took place, and showed that they were not just reasons. I cannot possibly consider all possible reasons; it is now up to you to come up with a new reason that *would* have been just.

    “Nothing has changed since the debate began, except now you wish me to explain my position, first. I will, but not until I have heard your argument, first.”

    As I said, my argument hinges on a negative claim: there was no just reason for the discrimination. There’s no other argument I could possibly give, except to list all possible reasons that could possibly have been given for the discrimination, and show that each one of them is unjust. That is an impossible task, since there are potentially infinitely many such reasons. That’s why the burden shifts to you to give *one* reason for the discrimination that *was* just.

  35. Tim says:

    I’ve moved all of our arguments over to the “Feminism” post so we don’t have to hop around. Check in there.

Leave a Reply