As if yesterday’s post on the asshats that were dressed like Duke lacrosse players at Beta Breakers chanting “No means yes,” was not enough, this just troubles me so much further. The women’s lacrosse team of Duke is planning on wearing bracelets saying, “innocent” in their game against Northwestern. The complex system of issues this brings up for me is profound, but when it comes down to it, all I can think is how stupid of them. This is indeed the type of solidarity that often makes our culture intolerable for me.
via AP.
In a show of solidarity with the Duke University men’s lacrosse team, members of the school’s women’s team plan to wear sweatbands with the word “Innocent� written on them.
The university canceled the rest of the season for the highly ranked men’s team because of a woman’s complaint she was raped in March at a team party where she had been hired to strip.
The women’s plan to wear sweatbands on their arms or legs was reported Wednesday by The Herald-Sun of Durham. The teams plays Northwestern in the NCAA semifinals Friday.
The university has no objection to this, but you know damn well if they were wearing armbands reading, “Kill those Nazi rapists,” they would. But really, this is not only an example of how (white in this case) women are complicit in their own oppression but also involved in the silencing and vicitimization of women of color. I mean they are making themselves look so stupid to stand in solidarity with accused rapists. Have gender relations in upper middle class white world shifted such a small bit? I mean really?
Would David Usher tell us this is an example of feminism “taking over” Duke? My head spins in horror.
434 Comments
It is interesting how few posts in this thread actually mention the Duke case, much less the Duke women’s lacrosse team support of the accused. If we all keep our eye on the ball (me included), we can avoid ugly, runaway threads such as this.
“is misandry even a word”
LOL
It’s funny years ago in schoolI used to ask feminists or just people in general;
“What’s the word for men that hate women� to witch they all answered misogyny.
Then I would ask what is the word for women that hate men.
Blank stares and confused looks.
It kind of speaks of feminisms effect on society,
Where the last thirty years the idea of men being misogynist has been rammed down our cultural throat, via magz movies tv literature and man hating women received no major attention until somewhat recently, thank god.
As we can see in this thread there are many misandristic women,
Thankfully women now must face the same consequences and labels for being hateful sexist.
Welcome to equality.
No, just a spellcheckian slip, Very funny though.
I may have gotten ahead of myself by saying women share the same consequences for being hateful of men.
I can see this thread sure drifted but Samhita kind of ducked out w/o apology and did Jessica ever write her “long response”?
But hey at least now we have a label for man-haters!
I think we can all stand behind thit little happy bit of gender equality!
(oh this thread is dead anyway)
Thanks to meee?
I don’t really no where the term originated? Was it coined by Paul Nathanson?
http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1323
Anyway pretty good book, I recomended to many of the ladies on this site.
The term witch thanks to me har har read that fast! DeR!
Whiney little white boys? Well the words I’m hearing most from men to describe the boys on this thread are “sissies” and “losers.” I’m not particular fond of the first word tho and its sexist connotations. But “loser” seems highly appropriate because these boys’ entire manhood and racial and sexual identity rides on the bullying of women and people of color. The main fear being that men won’t identify them as men and won’t accept them as men. And what that means is that they have the violence done to them like women instead of being the ones who get to do the violence like men.
But as one guy put it to me, men that have already been accepted as men and have nothing to prove consider it beneath them to bully women or others that are not on the same level playing field as they are and considered less powerful than themselves. Which of course defines the word “bully.” And is considered cowardly. As he explained, men are well aware of the inequality of the world and their position in these hierarchal structures and as a result, the power they wield, especially over women. They know damn well that the bread is buttered on every side in their favor. And so men who have nothing to prove and consider it beneath them to bully the less powerful take responsibility and care not to abuse that power.
And so that gives us insight into the men on this thread. Their manhood is in question so they feel horribly insecure and threatened by women. Because if they don’t do the violence to women, they will become like women and will have the violence done to them by other men. It’s really not about women at all. It’s about how they will be viewed by other men. And that’s what’s really important to these losers.
Except it’s liable to backfire on them. Because men with nothing to prove despise rapists and rape apologists far more than any feminist does. Often times these men have daughters, wives, gfs, sisters. They view these girls and women as their property. And so when other men infringe on their “property rights,” these men take it personally as a direct challenge to them. Which is a real no-no in boy world.
Our ancient laws, which haven’t changed much over the centuries, reflect these very values. Rape was never considered a crime against women. Because women were considered property. So it was a considered a crime against men and was looked at as a trespass and infringement on the property rights of the men who “owned” these women. And many men still feel that way today.
Part of women’s value, even today, is whether or not they’re “owned” by men. Which is why the loser men on this thread feel free to disparage this poor woman and women in general. Do we think for one second any of these cowards would say the same thing to this woman, or any woman for that matter, in the presence of a husband, father, bf or brother? **chuckle** Not on your life!
I remember well how my brothers use to threaten every guy that showed interest in me. And when my brothers weren’t around, the entire football, basketball and wrestling teams filled in for them. It was horrible. Especially since I was very popular. Countless boys would be jacked up against the lockers daily, raised 2 feet off the ground, without warning, and I’d be asked, “Is this guy bothering you?” And I’d say, “No. Now could you please let go of his throat and put him down?”
Well gosh, what could my brothers and their teammates possibly be concerned about? How innocent and how unfairly treated guys are and how they might be unfairly accused of sexual assault? Just why don’t men trust other men around the women they care about?
Sorry, boys. But your hypocritical words belie your very actions. Men trust other men about as far as they can throw them when it comes to “their” women. Just why is that? Hey, how ’bout trying to run your line of bullshit by them? Especially the one about how one is innocent until proven guilty. Think they’ll buy it? LOL. You know better than to. Because who knows men better than men?
There is a reason why men don’t trust other men around their wives, gfs, sisters, daughters. Now take a wild guess at what that reason is. Here, let me explain it for you. It’s because men know you boys can’t be trusted around women. It’s because men know you’re guilty of exactly of what you’re accused of. It’s because men know you will get away with it too if they don’t step in. They’re not interested in your silly little games and your silly little statistics and your silly little protests of innocence. They know it’s complete and utter bullshit. And so they make it clear to you, “Don’t even try it.”
In short, there is no better proof of how guilty men really are of the crimes they’re accused of than how much men themselves distrust other men. Sorry boys, but actions speak louder than words.
On a personal note, to the loser boys on this thread, hush up now or they’ll be no milk, cookies and cartoons for you before bedtime. I’m sorry. Did you think anyone might actually mistake you for being men?
Carpenter,
You mentioned that orchestras are still hiring more men than women and that certain sections are overrepresented by men. Even worse is the fact that there had never been a female conductor of a major American orchestra until this year. It was shocking even to me.
http://www.marinalsop.com/maestra_marin.html
Luckynkl-
So, your contention is that any male that thinks there is a good chance that the Duke Lacrosse Players did not sexually assault Jane Doe is a loser or a bully with something to prove? Don’t you think that is a gross and negligent distortion of reality?
I do.
I’ve deliberately avoided this thread except for one comment because it’s stupid to spend time arguing over other peoples’ problems and making an emotional investment into what did or didn’t happen, except in the sense that it affects the wider society, which in this case I don’t think really applies. But apparently that was a mistake as the thread has exploded and got (thankfully) off topic.
As to the term misandry, no one’s saying there shouldn’t be a term for the concept of hating men. However to claim that a huge misandry in society is more harmful than misogyny is misguided. Firstly lets not only look at American society but the world society. The world over its men who are in the dominant position over women, and mens hatred of women finds expression much more effectively than vice versa. This is much less true to the West but the dynamics are the same. Anyone who says women are relatively more advantaged overall are misleading themselves. Ironically, some of the area where men are most able to claim that they are discriminated against, would have been fixed by the Equal Rights Amendment which the anti-feminists rejected, to the detriment of mens’ rights. So they kind of shot themselves in the foot on that one.
AngryLeft, if you truly want a level playing field and for the gender barrier to dissapear…you have to work for equality.
Equality means an equitible sharing of all roles and responsibilities.
Equality means that hatred of men is equally as intolerable as hatred of women.
Equality means equality.
Women don’t hate men. Women hate sexism.
There are alot of whiny white people here who are terrified of losing their privilege. The truth is they aren’t losing any privilege in our lifetimes.
anonymous,
Feeding includes grocery shopping, cooking and cleaning up after eating.
Cleaning means “picking up after people” and that takes hours a week. It takes me hours a week just to pick up after myself.
My reply focuses only on the womens’ team and those bracelets. Do not accuse me of any sympathy for those idiots with the no means yes crap and so on.
That said, there are some problems with your position. First, these women KNOW these men. They think they’re innocent. The evidence so far suggests they’re probably innocent too.
Then, there is precedent for minority women to make up claims like this against white men simply BECAUSE people like you will believe it no matter what, precedent for people like you to believe them, and precedent for people like you to use “think of what she’s going through” as an all purpose excuse to not examine the facts at all and just declare people guilty by virtue of having a Y chromosome and a certain pale skin tone. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped of course, but what it does mean is that your blanket willingness to simply assume guilt and treat people who believe otherwise as “wrong” is unjustified.
You’re mad at these women for making a statement of a belief that disagrees with you even though they’re in a much better position to judge than you are. You want women to be a solid block against men in any dispute, but it doesn’t make any sense.
I don’t want to say I know for a fact that it is true, because I am no mind reader, but you act as though you would rather this woman have been raped because it supports what you believe in and (to you) legitimizes your worldview. That’s sick.
The fact is simple: living in a free society means that people have the right to their beliefs and to state them. These women are not acting out of some mindless mob mentality – by their own statements, they believe that these guys did not do what they are accused of. That is their right.
TheTruth,
I know what equality means.
AngryLeft, why would you even compare the severity of hatred of men and women then?
Don’t you think that implying that the hatred of women is worse or more worthy of disdain than the hatred of men works against the notion of equality?
I do.
why did it say my name is angry left.
WTH?
I dunno, but I hereby disavow that post
I wasn’t comparing the severity of the hatred itself but the severity of the impact from an aggregate societal level, since after all we are discussing society, and not someone’s personal story. If the slave hates the master so what? If the master hates the slave then the slave is in trouble. Not that it’s that extreme with gender but you get the drift. Men generally dominate positions of power and prestige, which mitigates the impact of misandry relative to misogyny.
I think that your metaphor is not applicable.
The relationship between a man and a woman is quite dissimilar (especially in the U.S.A.) to the relationship between a master and a slave. Unless, that is a man and a woman happen to fancy S and M… But, that’s besides the point.
My point is simply that by comparing their societal impact in that way you are in fact reinforcing a barrier between the sexes. A barrier, that hopefully you would prefer to break down instead of hiding behind.
Yeah, I explicitly pointed out the master/slave analogy was only to illustrate the impact of different social power.
There is a barrier between the sexes, but not one that is reinforced by my pointing out its existence. If we all ignored it it would still exist. In any case I think it’s better served by focusing on specific issues, which this thread is failing to do. So I’m finished. Buh-bye.
You reinforce the barrier when your response to “Women who hate men suck!” is “Men who hate women suck harder!”. Which is how your response sounded. An appropriate response, would be “HELLS YES WOMEN WHO HATE MEN SUCK!” “AND SO DO MEN WHO HATE WOMEN!”.
Back to the subject at hand.
How does everyone here feel about the fact that the alleged victim has received a complete scholarship to college from Jesse Jackson?
That’s you misreading what I said. People who hate the opposite sex suck equally, but those who have more power, relatively, do more damage by their hatred than those who have less. That’s all I’ve said. If you’re misreading it it’s not my fault.
Anyway, to bring it to specific issues, for men who feel as if they aren’t getting a fair shake, it’s historically been the feminists who have been fighting for mens’ rights. When the Titanic sunk, was it fair to the men that they had to wait and allow all the women and children to get on the life boats first before any man could get on? Of course not. Is it fair to men that because we have no Equal Rights Amendment men are eligible to the draft and men are less likely to get custody of their children or get alimony? Of course not. Yet who are the ones arguing against mens’ rights? Not the feminists, but the anti-feminists. Liberal feminism has historically supported mens’ rights.
I wonder if they would ban racists if they, spoke so poorly of blacks?
Obviously they don’t care about being hatefull of white people.
Nonwhiteperson, how are the male genocide plans going?
Collected enough sperm yet to do away with all the penis owners?
Actually, I think it is quite fair that lifeboat policy has been “women and children” first.
As a man I have absolutely no problem with this policy. Biologically the “women and children first” policy makes the most sense. Biologically, my penis is more replacable than a woman’s uterus is. Perhaps this is an antiquated policy, but I find no reason to fight it.
There you go TheTruth, here you are complaining about misandry yet you are defending a misandrous policy. But what I find even more disturbing is that you’re replacing a misguided attempt at sexual utility for basic human rights.
I don’t think that “women and children first” is a misandrous policy. In my opinion, it isn’t.
If you despise that, you would despise the fact that when I am walking with a woman, I tend to try and position myself in between her and traffic. Similarly when walking down stairs, I try to stay in front of her, and when walking up stairs, I try to stay behind her. Perhaps it’s instinctual, but I happen to think it’s a good way for me to be. And apparantly people have noticed, as I’ve had girlfriends comment that it was a comfort to them.
TheTruth,
You can do whatever you want to do. However, just because you say it isn’t misandrous does not make it so. As a man, I happen to believe that a policy that implicitly values the life of someone over mine, and which forces me to conform to it, just because they are a woman and I am not, is misandrous. It is devaluing my life, and possibly causing my death, simply because of my gender. There is nothing more misandrous than that.
Again, I find it extremely amusing (yet am not surprised) that you have just been here complaining so loudly about misandry yet are now vehemently the worst manifestation of it. This is why you idiots have absolutely no credibility when you try to talk about “misandry”.
I never used the word “misandry” until my last post. I guess I misunderstood the word.
What I complained about was “the hatred of men”. The “women and children” policy is not a policy born and bred out of man hatred…but rather was born and bred by men out of chivalry. That is why I don’t think that the policy is “misandrous”. Because it is not born out of man hatred or perpetuated because of man hatred.
TheTruth, you need to get a clue. Misandry is defined as “hatred of men.” That is the dictionary definition.
As for what you think the women-and-children first policy was “born and bred” of, I couldn’t give a damn. If I had been on the Titanic I damn well wouldn’t be willing to die for some convention that apparently you value. If you wanted to give your seat up to someone else then that’s great, but I don’t see why I should be forced to stay on a sinking die and drown to death just because I’m a man. If you have a problem with that then too bad, but in effect it’s an extremely misandrous policy. There is nothing more hateful toward men then what you’re defending now.
Oh luckynkl.
I didn’t read much past whiney little white boys. But if you choose to use ridgid masculinity as an insult or weapon then you are no more a feminist than I.
Oh our poor little male ego’s!!
Thanks for the laugh!
Like I said, since it isn’t born or supported by man hatred, it isn’t a misandrous policy. Simply telling me that I’m wrong doesn’t make your assertion correct.
TheTruth, regardless of the supposed intent, the effect is the same as the most vicious hatred of men. You can’t prove anything about intent, because different people have different, possibly secret, intents for supporting things. You evaluate a policy by its effect. And this policy, in effect, is extremely misandrous. If you disagree on that point then I see we probably won’t get very far, but I consider the devaluation of a person’s basic right to life just because they have a penis to be one of the most anti-male things imaginable. And I also see that your statement a while back that women are somehow more valuable because a penis is more “replaceable” to be extremely anti-male. Your previous complaints about “hatred toward men” as you say simply become more and more comical with each post you make.
” There are no men in my life. I’ve terminated all personal relationships with them. They weren’t happy about it, but oh well, them’s the breaks! But you know, as the old saying goes, a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” – Luckynkl – May 26, 2:38 am
” Well the words I’m hearing most from men to describe the boys on this thread are “sissies” and “losers.” But as one guy put it to me , men that have already been accepted as men and have nothing to prove consider it beneath them to bully women or others that are not on the same level playing field as they are and considered less powerful than themselves. Which of course defines the word “bully.” And is considered cowardly. As he explained , men are well aware of the inequality of the world and their position in these hierarchal structures and as a result, the power they wield, especially over women.” – Luckynkl – May 27, 3:56 pm
Do you make this stuff up as you go along, Luckynkl?
LOL. I cut off Luckynkl’s original post (May 26, 2:38) a little. Right before she says, “There are no men in my life. I’ve terminated all personal relationships with them”, she says, “And pssst… I practice what I preach.” Classic.
Let’s welcome Shiloh, Brangelina’s baby girl!
Forget about the current immigration bill approved by the Senate but loathed by Congressional Republicans.
Forget about the political merry-go-round of Republicans defending corrupt Democrats because they think their arrest was unconstitutional.
Forge