Trump: the re-establishment of white male privilege
The left is never going to stop the rise of President Trump, the worst imaginable outcome, without acknowledging reality: the US election is not a debate over ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. No amount of emotional appeals to do what is ‘right’ or ‘good’ or ‘fair’ or ‘smart’ is going to convince Trump’s growing legion of supporters that they’re making a horrible mistake voting for this lunatic. We grow up thinking that when we’re arguing with someone, all we have to do is bring them around to our way of thinking and then they’ll agree with us, and we’ll all move on happy that the issue has been solved.
But this is not the reality of Clinton versus Trump. The reality is a battle between the new American social order of inclusion, multiculturalism, tolerance, a black man as President, a woman as President, a society where there is no longer a pecking order of privilege where white men rule, versus Trump’s promise to take America back to the old order, to ‘make America great again’, code for ‘put American white men on top again’. There is no argument that will stop these people fighting for this hand-break turn, because, to put it bluntly, they have primal urge they don’t even consciously realise they are craving. But, like a dog chasing a rabbit, these voters are going after their prey with a determination which clouds any resemblance of rationality. Like zombies, the movement is contagious in its urgency and zeal.
George Lakoff explains the cognitive causes of this phenomenon in his description of the two types of thinking, which inform two world views; left wing nurturing views, which Lakoff calls the ‘mothering’ side of ourselves and the right-wing authoritarian ideology, which Lakoff calls the ‘strict-father’ side. Lakoff’s explanation might sound simplistic, but he does acknowledge that all of us have the ability to think using both perspectives, it’s just that all people sit somewhere left or right on the continuum, where one type of thinking dominates our thoughts. Lakoff says Trump’s success has come from a connection he has made with the authoritarian side of American thinking, which wants to reinstate the social order, where strict-father is again head of the family. It’s important to note that this viewpoint can belong to both men and women who prefer to see men as the ultimate authority. And here is the crux of Trump’s success: he represents the perfect strict-father because he promises to put white men back at the head of the American family, back where they feel they belong, back where they are again ‘winning’ and in control of ‘their family’, or in other words, ‘their country’.
Progressives automatically celebrate milestones in America’s history such as the success of the civil rights movement, greater tolerance and celebration of gay rights, multiculturalism, increasing participation of women in the workforce and in positions of authority, the election of a black President, and now, the nomination of a female potential-President, as proof of the country’s fortunes. But, the left won’t win this election until they realise that for a huge number of Americans with authoritarian world views, many who feel disenfranchised and resentful due to growing wealth inequality, all these social changes represent an uncomfortable undermining of their perception of their own control over their country.
It’s no coincidence that Trump’s political career grew from his ‘birther’ movement campaign, framing Obama as an ‘illegitimate President’. Julia Gillard faced the same accusations of illegitimacy as Australia’s first female Prime Minister, culminating in misogynistic and sexist abuse by men who could not abide such a shift in the social fabric of their lives, where men were no longer in control. Trump’s constant catch-cry of ‘lock up crooked lying Hillary’ is a metaphorical promise to ‘put that damn woman back in her place!’
Lakoff says the authoritarian viewpoint places the social order in a neat hierarchy of privilege with white men at the top, followed by white women, then black Americans and Latinos, gay people and other cultural, religious and social minorities such as Muslims, cascading down the rungs of power. When authoritarian white men see these groups as gaining more rights, and therefore, in their perspective, undoing the natural social order, it is akin to their delinquent children running the family, and they will do anything to take back control.
So we see this play out Trump’s promise to ban Muslim immigration and to make Mexicans build a wall. We see it in literally tens of millions of Americans accepting Trump’s outlandish, nasty, cruel, racist, sexist, defamatory, hypocritical, contradicting and scarily unstable statements, like water off a duck’s back.
It is too simple to just say ‘why are all these Trump supporters so stupid’, or ‘how can they all be so nasty’, or ‘so easily fooled?’ The truth is, it actually doesn’t really matter who Trump is or what he says, or how he says it; all he has to is promise to put white men back on top of the pecking order, and they will fight tooth and nail for him to bring about this outcome. Rational facts, emotive appeals to reason, hope and dignity, are irrelevant.
The left need to realise there isn’t an argument going on where Trump supporters will suddenly feel enlightened by the persuasiveness of a different viewpoint. Until the left understand that Trump supporters want a very different world than the one the Democrats represent, they will never convince them. I don’t have the answers, but it’s clear that the Democrats must start looking at the world through the authoritarian viewpoint in order to understand the end goal of a huge proportion of American voters.
This is not to say they should pander to hatred, encourage division, or go down to Trump’s level. But you can’t persuade someone until you understand them, and you’re not going to change someone’s mind until you know what that mind is. The Democrats needs to find a way to frame their policies which works for everyone. The left needs to find a way to show why inclusion is good for everyone, no matter their worldview. And the left needs to get to work, because the problem is getting worse, and the election is only three months away.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
91 comments
Login here Register here-
Jaquix -
mark delmege -
Michael Taylor -
mark delmege -
Michael Taylor -
Klaus Petrat -
Klaus Petrat -
mark delmege -
diannaart -
Michael Taylor -
Matters Not -
DisablednDesperate -
silkworm -
Annie B -
Duffa -
mark delmege -
Carol Taylor -
Matters Not -
Annie B -
mark delmege -
Catriona Thoolen -
paulwalter -
diannaart -
mark -
kim southwood -
Michael Jones -
Matters Not -
mark delmege -
Möbius Ecko -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
kim southwood -
Annie B -
Michael Jones -
Deanna Jones -
Matters Not -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Mark Gee -
Annie B -
Alan Baird -
kim southwood -
paulwalter -
Michael Taylor -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Michael Taylor -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Jeffrey -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Michael Taylor -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Deanna Jones -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Annie B -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Deanna Jones -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Annie B -
Michael Taylor -
Michael Jones -
Alan Baird -
Annie B -
Kaye Lee -
Deanna Jones -
maxpowerof1 -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Deanna Jones -
Kaye Lee -
Michael Jones -
Michael Jones -
Annie B
Return to home pageThank you Victoria. Ive been in and read Professor Lakoff’s blog, and he is definitely onto something there! Fascinating reading, and interesting lessons to learn, by those who want to “beat”, “argue with”, “engage with” or even just “understand” the other side.
You are seriously deluded to even think Clinton is left, that the democrats are left or that in any way the US elections are democratic or even to think that we celebrate US milestones. Guess where Trump got the idea to build( extend) the Wall? This sort of binary thinking will trap you into believing one of these arseholes is better than the other.
It disappoints me when someone who disagrees with the author starts off with something like “you are seriously deluded . . . “.
One would think they might have something to offer to the debate other than petty, meaningless comments.
you would say that, michael
Now how about getting back to the topic.
Sorry to say that I agree with Mark Delmege. She is not anywhere near left. Sanders has pulled the political gravity so far to the left that Hilary had to acknowledge a movement that is no longer stoppable. This is lip service, nothing else. Dressing up.
However, the maniac Trump does nothing smart. I don’t know whether you suggest he is knowingly (meaning smartly) tapping into a national psyche, is overrating the man. He is a maniac, who is being supported by an awful lot of dim idiots. And that is the lesson that needs to be heeded by the left.
Same with Abbott (maniac) and Turnbull (void of any principals and conviction).
For all the good work Bernie did in raising the level of political debate over social issues in the USofA about all he could get from Clinton was some vague comment on rates of pay per hour – which in many states is around $5 per hour. Raising that to a comparable $15 p/h which is about the minimum rate here would be a revolutionary act in the US. But like so much else that comes from the establishment owned and rotten Democrats it will be little more than an insect smear on the windscreen of history.
Excellent article, Victoria.
I would not consider Clinton as especially left wing…. until she is placed next to Trump where she looks positively socialist…AND female FFS! All a matter of perspective, of course.
Victoria also provided some very good advice in summing up her article:
This advice applies equally well to the Australian Labor party and to a lesser extent the Greens – stop the tag-game and get on with working to get the LNP out in 2019. Because, in 2019, we may have a USA government headed by Trump – that’s way too many right-wing nut-jobs in power on this planet.
Mark, my apologies if I came across a bit terse. I get a bit protective of the authors. ?
Don’t think the left versus right continuum really works when trying to understand the current USA Presidential contest. Getting citizens out to vote will probably prove difficult for both candidates. Trump at times seems completely moronic. Take the ‘hispanic’ vote as an example. Historically, the Republicans attract about 25% of that demographic but most pundits seem to think that Trump has really pissed them off. Not good. The ‘black’ vote is owned by Hilary and they do turn out in disproportionate numbers. She is the favourite to win but all along Trump’s been the underdog. Also poorly funded and badly organised. Yet he is the winner of the Republican nomination.
Mention’s been made of minimum ‘hourly’ rates of pay (minimum wages etc) in the USA and comparisons made with Australia and that exercise has its difficulties. In the USA, the minimum wage is set by a network of federal, state, and local statutes. It’s difficult to generalise but the article below suggests that the federal minimum wage peaked at about $10 in 1968, as measured in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars. In Australia, the current minimum hourly rate is $17.70 with casual employees covered by the national minimum wage also getting at least a 25 per cent casual loading.
Low paid workers in Australia are much better off than their US counterparts, many of whom actually work for nothing, relying solely on ‘tips’ and often tips don’t go totally to labor, with management taking a share. As an outsider, I can’t understand how the workers ‘cop it’ but with a largely non-unionised workforce they seem to have little choice.
Trump’s solution will rely on ‘trickle down’ economics and while Clinton may have kinder words, the effects will be little different.
The USA is not really a left versus right type of nation.
Excellent as always and right on the money. The Left won’t win in this election whoever wins.
Elections are never won on logic.
Bill Maher just did an interesting monologue about Clinton needing to show her strong side but I don’t think that will work either. She’s a woman. A monster but a woman.
Bernie has extracted more than raising the minimum wage from Hilly. She has also promised to push for universal healthcare.
I was watching Stephen Colbert the other night, and he was saying that the Bernie supporters were planning a fart-in at the convention for when Hilly accepted the nomination, and they loaded up on beans before they went in. I thought I could see a green mist arising at the back of the arena, but I suppose it could have been a cloud of medical marijuana smoke.
Superbly written article Victoria. … Thank you.
“the movement is contagious in its urgency and zeal.” ….
It is toxically contagious, and will gather momentum simply because the American idea of their superiority over all, is indeed authoritarian, through and through. … Precious few of them have open enough minds to embrace new ideas. …
Anything new is downright scary to a majority over there – it rocks the boat, it destabilises the status quo – which relates back to their outmoded and oh so precious Constitution, their devotion to militarism, and the grand old Flag. “Stop (rocking) the boats”. They believe themselves to be exceptional, and the most powerful country on earth. That in itself is a give-away, to their collective mind-set – and it is this that Trump appeals to – whether by design and expert cunning, or because he is spouting maniacal inanities that resonate.
He’s like a B grade soap opera. ‘ What will happen next ? – tune in and find out – isn’t it exciting ! ‘ Americans seem to love that kind of thing. Drawn like moths to a flame. And they will be burned, because of their lack of caution, their lack of embracing so much else that is in the world.
Someone may well build another Berlin / Mexican wall there, but they have already surrounded themselves with huge moats and battlements, from behind which – they dictate to the world. … And all the while, they send their military out – in aggression or peacefully – to place themselves in strategic positions the world over, in order to ultimately dominate, and have that authority over all – ( they believe ).
Australia ‘ welcomed ‘ 200 U.S. military personnel, initially – and this is expected ( and agreed ) to become 2,500 by next year. …. I would bet it will be more than that, as they already control to a large degree, Pine Gap, under classified secrecy and other little hot spots dotted here and there. There is U.S. presence in military form, in 49 of Africas’ 54 countries – this is termed ” Cooperative Security Locations “, but would think it means a whole lot more than that.
But I have digressed somewhat …….
Will leave it at that.
p.s. I have a sneaking suspicion there will be an all time low turn out of voters in November. ??
I am a bit confused (that isn’t hard to do). The author talks about the task for the left (my words) and that task is to counter something which is not of the traditional right. But she continues to treat the task as one for the left.
The Authoritarian concept seems to ring a bell but I wonder if it really the heart of the movement or just how it is manifesting and manipulated by Trump. Three phenomenon have occurred over recent months Trump, Brexit and the vote for non-major parties in Australia. Each could be the result of people feeling insecure and hanking back to a time of more certainly. In America; where men felt strong and in charge as factory workers etc. In Britain; back to they masters of themselves if not the empire. In Australia it is less pronounced but still a longing for a time where we less multicultural and still made things.
The Authoritarian situation appears to be a desire for John Wayne to protect the little town from the rogue gun slingers but doesn’t stop them being the boss of their own little nest. How do help make people secure????
Duffa I think the vote against the established order is largely the result of the internet. No longer are we lulled by the MSM with their pat answers and questions to the issues of the day. These days we can know world events before the MSM even get to spin their distortions. We have the world at our fingertips – of facts, interpretations and past lies to check through. Politicians and ‘leaders’ who bullshit and embedded media types who have a lot to lose but telling it like it really is – have us bemused, at times bewildered but at the very least we are suss to them and we are rejecting them en masse.
It seems to me that voting for Trump is akin to barracking for the biggest, ugliest bruiser in the boxing ring perhaps giving the barracker a sense of double-dare, a sense of empowerment for going against all sense and sensibility. I Vote For Trump..because I can! Consequences be-damned.
Yes Carol there’s a fair bit of ‘I don’t care’ in the wind. The promise versus the performance of the democratic process has failed ‘me’ as typified by the concept of ‘the average worker’. There hasn’t been a real pay increase for the average US worker for 40 years. While in that time period, we have seen the ‘elites’ engage in ‘gambling’ of the highest order and when the ‘bets’ were lost we witnessed a ‘bailout’ of monumental proportions.
When the ‘elites’ f@cked up they were rescued. There was no ‘moral hazard’ of any consequence. The bigger the f@ck up the bigger the rescue.
So I will vote for Trump while knowing in my heart he’s all bullshit. But then again, why not give him a chance. After all it can’t get any worse for me, the average US worker. ?
Sometimes you just have to lash out. And bugger the consequences. Pull the house of cards down.
I pay tax. They don’t. I go to gaol when I commit crimes. They don’t.
And so on.
Great, informative, and other-ways-of-thinking comments, from Duffa, mark d, and Carol T.
duffa – The ‘authoritarian’ movement … has been there for a very long time…. It festers. And along comes some one ( Trump ) to burst the large boil, and release the pus. The pain subsides and a euphoria takes over – ” yaaaay … someone who knows how we have really felt, all these years ” …. Definitely not all, but many – too many. … He appeals to the dark side of humanity over there … and because he is a nominee for Presidency ( remember their devotion to the Constitution, weapons and exceptionalism ), he fits a lot of the bills. And as you mentioned … the feeling of insecurity. There is much of that out there, these days.
As for the Internet – there are many times ( no offense intended to AIM ) … that I wish it had never EVER happened. Social media in particular, produces many ‘off ‘ types of posts, downright lies, abuse, conspiracy theories by the thousands, deeply personal grudges against this and that, and depending on the authenticity, or not, of those personal grudges, others who read them are influenced ( whether they think so or not ). I speak from experience, because I will have a ‘go back’ at offensive or obtuse commentary, and so I am sucked in to the overall social media phenomenon. ….. Not something I am particularly proud of. Often wonder afterwards – “why the f**k did I buy into THAT “, and have removed some of my responses. … I am also removing myself slowly but surely, from social media. But this is not about me.
It’s about the effect rapidly dispensed information via the Internet can cause. And despite where it is shown, there is absolutely always an ‘agenda’ behind it. … Be that personal or journalistic.
mark delmege summed up a lot of that. …. We are bemused because, in research we are led down paths that never end. … and many do research before posting anything, anywhere. So we get a hackneyed form of information, spread on the Internet. On the other hand, we have the MSM to rely on – ??? we CANNOT rely on them for proper reporting. …. and true journalism doesn’t even come into it, these days. … so where do we go from here ?
And Carol T … the ‘bruiser’ appeals to people everywhere, but no more than in the U.S. … They promote violence at every opportunity, and we follow their output in our nightly newscasts, and elsewhere. We listen to their propaganda. Sure, many U.S, citizens refuse to acknowledge it, anchors on TV besmurch it as inappropriate, bad, evil – but they still put it out there for all to see. One has only to watch some of the series emanating from the U.S. to realise just how much they like the ‘blood and guts’ format, and they promote those vehemently. Sadly, the world follows.
Matters Not – a good mouthful there. “Bugger the consequences” might in fact be a big factor in the coming election there. People must be very confused, alienated, and feeling more insecure than ever. hmmm. !!
Enough already ……..
I read this series of articles a couple of months ago. There is a statement in there that says something like “The left are unable to ‘reframe’ the question.” There are examples of this failure (and as I recall) an example of when Obama was able to reframe successfully.
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/framing-the-political-debate-the-key-to-winning
Why can’t the ‘left’, the ‘progressives’ reframe? I think it is because we tend to believe that most people aren’t awful, that we should not have to push the boundaries to ‘convert’ others to seeing the benefits of a community, a society, working together for the benefit of all (or most anyway).
Sadly worldwide it appears the appeal to individuals to think of themselves first appears to be more powerful…which is why Trump will probably win.
He won’t change the world. Half the republicans in Congress do not support him, all the democrats do not support him, so he will be limited by his own government.
He will make us sadder…but maybe that is what is needed for his supporters to realize that to progress we all need to work together?
“…a dictatorship run by competing right wing factions” is the outline. Hillary Clinton was criticised more than once in recent times for her links with Wall st neoliberalism, as Turnbull has been so identified here, in competition with the rustic social conservative religious right dominated by Tony Abbott here and now Trump in the USA. Seriously, I sometimes wonder if Trump wasn’t a “blind” for Clinton all along.
Clinton will have to get in because TINA is operative, but be realistic about what to expect from her.
She will do better than the others because she is more competent, but I do not like her foreign affairs and neolib economics.
@paulwalter
Agree w/you regarding Hillary w/foreign affairs & neo-economics. I am not holding any special hopes like I did with Obama, mainly because if Obama couldn’t change USA to a more democratic socially agreeable government, Clinton won’t.
With Trump I believe he started his campaign just to see how far he could go, now he has actually achieved nomination for president I doubt he will stop until he either wins or loses.
Could not the culture that promotes the masculinity of trump ,and the femininity of clinton,be the problem,and ours.mark
In democratic countries there seems to be an emasculation of major parties through their transparent lack of capacity to address the forces of fear and precarious economies. Performance between elections might even suggest they are at the root of these forces. Trump is a beneficiary of this tendency. Ever the player, he already sees his name up in lights. Clinton can simply point to his myriad shortcomings but offer nothing really new or meaningful in their place. She is the wind beneath his wings. People who don’t care to think in too many directions at once find him a breath of fresh air. He vents all their frustration, their rants, their shallow pining for the days when America was great; full of glittering and attainable bling! Furthermore he has derailed the apparatus of the grand Republican tradition to add further updraft for his ascendance. On a hopeful, or irreverent note, after the election most Americans will join us in a rousing chorus of the old classic: Am I ever gonna to see your face again… no way, etc. Otherwise, we’re all … in trouble and I’m seriously going to have to stop following the news.
“This is not to say they should pander to hatred, encourage division, or go down to Trump’s level.”
The left, specifically the modern feminist dominated left already, do this by singling white (heterosexual) males out as the cause of all evil and hoarders of unearned privilege in this World. Never mind that when they actually describe white male privilege, it inevitably entails the sorts of upper middle class and elite male privileges only enjoyed by a small minority of rich white men. Understandable given that they are probably the sort of men regularly encountered in day to day life by only slightly less privileged white girls, who enrolled in gender studies and literature at university in preparation for a career as a feminist blogger or academic. These privileged but bitter little girls are probably genuinely clueless that what they observe of white male privilege is so far removed from the reality of life for the average Trump supporting white man, that the Trump supporter would scratch his or her head at the notion that he is privileged in any way.
In reality the Trump voter has probably busted his arse in a blue collar job to support his family for 25 years, only to be laid off because of screw ups of those rich white men who are actually privileged and replaced by cheaper immigrant labour. The Democrats used to be interested in looking after the interests of men like him and families like his, but now they have ditched socialism/social democracy for “inclusiveness” and are dominated by people who instead demonise him. They rub salt into his wounds by telling him that he is privileged, when he is actually unemployed or trying to meet his responsibilities in some menial job where he earns half of what he used to.
And people here wonder why men like this are raising the middle finger and voting for Trump? The solution for established parties in the US and in Australia is simple. Stop listening to the insecure little girls in the feminist movement and other minority groups, who believe that white, heterosexual men have to lose for them to win. Even more simply put, stop treating these men like shit.
Fail to get that message and they will only have themselves to blame when white , heterosexual men say “get stuffed” and vote for the likes of Trump and Hanson.
Michael Jones has something to say. It’s all the fault of the ‘females’.
How original. But I think he’s just ‘taking the piss’. And if he isn’t …
He has more to say than just that if you read. Besides all that the political system there is as bent as can be. As I keep saying there are no good horses in this race. Its hollywood and gangsters and the gangsters will win. For all that was said about the leaked emails very little has been spoken about the contents – like how Killery helped al qaeda and IS and effectively took their money. Surely any decent person who knew that…would not favour her.
So many get the makeup of American politics wrong, as Michael Jones illustrates on his statement that the Democrats used to be socialist.
Indeed it was the Republican party that started as a socialist anti-slavery party and only moved to conservatism because of one man, a failed Republican presidential nominee. You can listen to a short history here from an ABC Late Night Live piece: The Grand Old Party: The Republicans
And the two major parties aren’t made up of solid to the core ideologues either. Because of the way the U.S. democracy works they consist of a bunch of amorphous individuals each with their own agenda and allegiances, usually tied to vested interests. These individuals horse trade within the party for position, policy and programs. At the moment that system is collapsing within the Republicans and is shaky in the Democrats.
The collapse of this system, which is strange to most other democracies in the world, is probably not a good thing.
What’s wrong with American politics. Again a piece from ABC Radio Late Night Live but worth a listen.
No Matters Not, I was not talking about females, I was talking about feminists and despite what the latter would have us think the two groups are not entirely mutually inclusive. And I don’t hold feminists responsible for economic predicament of lower middle and working class white men, but they have certainly led the charge to falsely demonise them as privileged alongside the patricians who actually run the show.
Mobius Echo, I know the ancient history of the US political parties on slavery but beyond historical interest that is irrelevant today. Since the civil war and up until recent times things shifted so that the Democrats were the ones who looked after the interests of working people.
Now that they only seem interested in special interest groups, Trump is filling the void by pinching voters who might otherwise have voted for them. Personally I doubt he will win unless more scandals arise for Clinton, he is too loose, but I think the Democrats would do well to reconnect with those voters in case the Republicans put up a more moderate candidate with the common touch next time.
Insecure little girls??? How very patriarchal of you. Your unreasonable reaction to any mention of feminism smacks of insecurity to me. People who feel secure are not threatened by calls for equality.
I don’t really care about your characterisation of my approach Kaye Lee and therefore don’t feel the need to justify it to you, or to engage in a tit for tat. I am just here to suggest to people with an open mind the course of action to get them out of the political predicament they find themselves in. Stop treating ordinary white heterosexual men like shit for problems we have not created, or we will continue to bite back at the ballot box like we have just done with Hanson and like those in the US threaten to do with Trump. It really is that simple.
As a female in support of equity, I find much sense in what Michael Jones is saying. The issue in our global system cannot be reduced to the male/female dichotomy . It is about equity, which seems to have become a lost goal in the major parties supposedly representing ‘left’ and ‘right’. Whether we live in one or two party systems the mantra of the dominating parties seems to be economic growth, with total denial that the concept might be completely unsustainable and fully responsible for the serious (and inevitable) economic downturns. Yes, it seems that our wealthiest billionaires are men, but there are many women clamoring up that ladder with their feminist mind set on supplanting the top bloke. If that is a ‘feminist’ ideal, I am definitely not in their group. However feminists are themselves across a broad spectrum and can be quite exclusive of each other. That tiny group of mainly white males who pull the strings in the political arena do so through the influence of power and wealth. They create the enormous global inequity in the world today through their elite networks with a equally minute group of non-white males in exotic lands with enormous populations that live in abject poverty and often over represented by poor white males who have been favored over women to do the heavy lifting in cheap, poorly regulated working conditions. We have a global economy which depends on unbridled growth and inequity within society and between nations. A handful of white males at the top may be largely responsible. Gradually the rest of us, male and female, are becoming more and more frustrated with the inequity they proliferate. So, what does Trump promise: a return to isolationism, an enterprising society with full employment for all, security from poverty, terrorism, involvement in foreign wars and, for a bit of light relief, lots of glitz and glamour, boys and girls. He’s offering the alternative many people really believe will make America great again. Unfortunately, feminism is a side show for them and always will be. The antidote to Trump’s ‘American dream’ is Sanders’ logical argument in support of social equity. There’s plenty of room for feminists in his realm.
Well said kim southwood – and well written.
There has been an increasing distrust of the word ‘femininism’ in recent years, and of alleged feminists particularly. This is shown in Michael Jones comment which included the ‘gas lighter’ dig “but bitter little girls are probably genuinely clueless”. … He did go on to explain that comment in context, but still could not resist putting in a narcissistic plug – which ultimately said more about Michael, than it did about anything he wrote.
What Michael fails to see, is that people are people – no matter their gender, or what they take on in their life as a passionate fight and right for fairness. Feminism has always been about women being treated equally to men – in pay, in work conditions, in positions of responsibility. Decent men respect that, but men ( of any stature ) who are insecure, resent it….. Why ? …. I’d like to know.
I am a female, a woman – and nothing more. Am happy and don’t have to attach labels to my life style or choices. … But I have been called ‘feminist’ at times, because I DO believe in equal rights for both men and women, in life choices, remuneration conditions, opportunities etc.
In every walk of life, one will find decent men and women, and those of the other persuasions ( both genders ). This very fact, makes us ‘equal’ … although it has to be acknowledged that % wise, more men seem to be the perpetrators of brutal deeds – against both women AND other men. And THAT kind of person, I suspect, is who follows the likes of Trump. It could be hardly any other way. …. He appeals to the basest in human endeavour ( both men and women ).
“He’s offering the alternative many people really believe will make America great again.”
If that becomes a reality, then there is something seriously wrong with the thinking of those who follow him with such gusto. … [ A needless comment no doubt. ? ], and I despair for the future of a country that bows to imperialism, to brutality, to racism, and misogyny – and worse, to someone who has yet to utter one word about how he intends to implement his ‘ideas and ideologies’. Clinton is a tough nut, and is not much better, but at least she is fully aware of how politics works, for or against – the wealthy and the poor. And she knows her limits insofar as what a Presidency really means.
It’s a mess – – – and …
Democracy there, is in its’ death throes.
I agree that decent men support equality, but it is a lie to suggest that this is what feminism is now about. It is about supremacy and obtaining privilege without accepting responsibility. Warren Farrell described the problem 25 years ago on “The Myth of Male Power”, it has just taken men this long to start to do something about it.
And there are plenty of decent women who agree. A great example is how Corrinne Barraclough from the Daily Telegraph brilliantly called out insecure little girls like Clementine Ford and Van Badham, who profit from peddling man hating, in the article below.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/feminism-or-victimism-bashing-men-is-not-the-answer/news-story/aeb9c10c379e8733a62ac90fead7b0e6
The worm is turning and if feminists want to be heard where they have concerns in the future, they are going to have to speak in a manner that is respectful of everybody’s rights. Otherwise people will simply ignore them and they will become irrelevant.
Michael Jones is not actually referring to feminist ideology here. He is referring to bogus lies, myths and stereotypes about feminists that were created and disseminated by men. He has not cited any actual principles of feminist ideology or any feminist theorists. The feminist movement is quite simply about ending the routine, individual and systemic violence, discrimination and exploitation, in all it’s varied forms, that is perpetrated by men against women and children, globally. Speaking up about domestic homicide (the count is now up to 40 dead women in Australia so far this year), and speaking about the cultural and language practices that support it, is not ‘man-hating’.
‘Man-hating’ is not in fact a ‘thing’ with any political, institutional or individual power in our society. It does not lead to anything that has any real consequence for men other than to make them feel defensive when the subject of violence against women and children is raised.
That’s the trouble with little men and their little minds. ? ? ?
I notice that Obama has outed himself as a feminist . As if there was any doubt.
Michael,
Step back for a moment and look at what you are doing. You generalise about all feminists whilst decrying feminists for generalising about all men.
And I would never bother reading anything in the Telegraph. I detest sycophantic gossip columnists.
You say feminism “is about supremacy and obtaining privilege without accepting responsibility.” Could you explain what you mean by that and how it in any way relates to feminism which, for the umpteenth time, means the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Well that is your problem Kaye Lee, I offer you an article providing alternative point of view on feminism and you dismiss it because of the publication. Very convenient. And you completely ignore the reference to the Myth of Male Power, a seminal text on men’s rights by a PHD qualified psychologist, who was heavily involved in the feminist movement until he was cut off for daring to suggest that men also get a fair go.
Why don’t you go away and do some reading then get back to me, look up Erin Pizzey while you are at it. It is all there for those with open minds.
I am a feminist. I am not defined by the actions of others. Just as you do not want to be blamed for the epidemic of violence against women by their male partners, I do not want you to ascribe to me your stereotypes.
And there is nothing “convenient” about refusing to read the gossip columnists in the Telegraph. I have no intention of contributing anything to the coffers of Murdoch to read the rubbish written in that propaganda sheet. As to the “myth of male power”, it ain’t no myth – ask any woman. I could give you countless examples from my own life. Reading a man’s view on it is rather pointless. I have lived it – he hasn’t.
When I say spot the bitter, parochial feminist who conflates the illusory pay gap with poor choices in education and vocation, don’t think for a second I endorse the hapless Hitler than is Drumpf/Trump!
To Michael Jones :
You have put forward some reading … the “Myth of Male Power” which I have accessed, and read a precis of, and then I began a total .pdf available.
http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/viewFile/35/36
The above link begins with a centred line : ” Why Men Are the Disposable Sex “ which implies a heavy emphasis … It is a hefty read, and long – but repeatedly comes back to what manifests as ‘power’ and ‘powerlessness’. I think the author, Warren Farrell, tries to be fair. And in doing so, he refers to just ‘gender’ rather than feminism or masculinism. However, he does do quite a few jumps to men not expressing their rights, as women have done, beginning ( I believe ) with the suffragettes in the early 1900’s.
Michael – I would ask – dare you – to read the following link :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/womens-rights-news/what-is-feminism_b_6985612.html
This emphasises many things, but what most stood out was : ” Feminism is a movement towards equal society for male, female and transgender people, without discrimination.”.
If you want to argue about just that statement, then you have a lot to learn … about gender overall, rather than just feminism, as you seem to think it is.
We are people … simple as that, and must find a way to get along with one another. No matter what. … And hopefully the law will deal with the monsters that are found in ALL genders … the rapists, the brutes, the domestic varmints, … which to date number ( statistically – irrefutable ) most in the male category, but also include female monsters.
As said before, I am female, a woman and happy to be so. …. But I take no sh*t from anyone, no matter their gender. …. If that makes me feminist, then I am a feminist. … Don’t like labels on my life, but don’t mind how others see it, if that’s what they want to do. …. I do my own ‘thing’ … just as all have the right to do.
I hope you too, can have an open mind.
Good to see some replies nailing the idea that Hillary was “of the left”. This dovetails nicely with an article elsewhere in this issue on the plague of neoliberalism. The Clintons are not lefties. They make leftISH noises every so often but are content with the status quo. Bernie was Left. There are a few items in Trumps spray of thought bubbles that are actually to the left of Hillary but he has the accuracy of a loose hose at full pressure and can’t be taken seriously. We must divest ourselves of this Left-Right idea with Oz and US. It’s more accurate to say Right Wing (Dem/Lab) and Extreme Right Wing (Rep/Lib). Socialism doesn’t get a look in. Most Congress-persons would be horrified to be so-described. They BOTH want the State to be as laissez faire as it can get away with. It’s not as bad in Oz but it isn’t wonderful either.
Fully agree.
Re Deanna Jones, yes
I wish dogmatic Michael would drop hassling Kaye Lee and and try to contribute something beyond sloganeering derived of a persecution complex here.
Paul, I’m guessing the reason Michael Jones has a bee in his bonnet over Kaye Lee is because Kaye stands up for herself and bites back. He clearly doesn’t like that. How dare someone stand up to him. And a woman at that!
I don’t think Michael really means to hassle me personally. From what I can gather, a friend of his had a bad domestic violence experience and perhaps the system failed him, as it does so many women and children. Even without the trauma of DV, custody battles can be heartbreaking and often bitter.
What I wish Michael would understand is that discrimination and oppression in all its forms are unacceptable, regardless of who commits them. Whilst feminism does focus on women’s issues, the battles they have won, and continue to fight, benefit all society. If women didn’t speak out about DV do you think abused men would have started the conversation? I have not had to deal with the family law court but I think men’s custody rights are improving? Women entering the workforce brought a huge economic boost to the country. Do you think men would have fought for paternity leave or carers leave?
“Reading a man’s view on it is rather pointless. I have lived it – he hasn’t.”
Well what is the point in me explaining things to you as you have requested then, you clearly wouldn’t listen anyway?
“I wish dogmatic Michael would drop hassling Kaye Lee…”
Oh please, I responded to her comment taking issue with my characterisation of certain insecure little girls in the feminist media as such, with an “I don’t care “, and she continued to engage me. I in no way hassled her and your transparent attempt to play the victim card on her behalf, and the white knight on your own, is pathetic.
Kaye Lee, regarding your suggestion that feminism has berm a catalyst for rights for all, it is technically true but you can hardly expect men to trip over themselves in gratitude when feminism have fought a rearguard action against those rights being extended to men. Feminist thinking is largely a zero sum game with any gains for men being begrudging, incidental and firmly secondary to the rights of women.
Whether you know it or not you demonstrate this yourself by your abject refusal to even consider well considered arguments by an eminently qualified man like Warren Farrell, backed by research, that provide an alternative point of view. Furthermore Erin Pizzey isn’t a man, she is the woman who established the shelter movement, so why won’t you consider her views on domestic violence?
Why are you so scared of even considering alternative viewpoints? That you might have to reconsider your beliefs? That the basis for rights that you have gained might not have been as fair as you think ? Questions you need to ask yours, me thinks.
” … your abject refusal to even consider well considered arguments … ”
Michael, I could say that about a lot of people but Kaye Lee is not one of them.
“you can hardly expect men to trip over themselves in gratitude when feminism have fought a rearguard action against those rights being extended to men. ”
I don’t want your gratitude. I want you to back up your assertions with some facts. How have women fought against rights for men?
I am not scared of considering alternative views from credible sources but you have not proposed any alternative views. I believe in equality and freedom from discrimination and oppression for all. You have given me no reason to change that view. In fact you cannot change that view because it is fundamental to who I am.
The problem is coming from you telling me who I am and what I think and you are absolutely completely and utterly wrong. But you persist in telling me what a “feminist” is in your very twisted viewpoint. Stop your ridiculous hatred. If you see a problem identify it and offer solutions. Your hatred of feminists is irrational.
Kaye Lee, I have provided you with alternative points of views eminently more qualified than mine, to explain to you what you are missing. You have abjectly refused to consider them (one because it was the opinion of a man … says a lot) and in the case of Erin Pizzey, don’t even acknowledge her existence. An eminently qualified woman who disagrees with you is too hot to handle apparently. Dunno how we are supposed to work with that apart from carrying on and voting Hanson.
What does she disagree about Michael? Your opinion of what my opinion is? Could it possibly be that you are entirely wrong about what my opinion is? How do you expect Pauline Hanson to be in any way helpful? Please explain.
I have more than adequately outlined my views on this and other threads, and I detect no open mindedness and no genuine good faith from you. Therefore I see no need to engage with you until I see that change. Go away, read what I have suggested and then get back to me, I can’t be bothered debating people who won’t inform themselves.
Michael, nothing I read will change my views about discrimination and equality. What exactly would you like me to change them to? Would you prefer me to discriminate against people? Would you like to be treated differently? I find you a very confusing person.
The fact of the matter is that you are not talking about feminism at all. You are talking about a few people you don’t like. The only thing that all feminists have in common is the belief that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, which does NOT mean my biceps are bigger than yours.
I read Michael’s point of feminism as
“a movement for equal rights for females that seems to suggest by default, that all men are privileged”
Kayes point is that she is a proponant of equal rights for all.
But michael is right in acknowledging that not all men are privileged.
Some males contribute to the hate by subscribing to the ideology of feminism, as a means of purchasing social conscious, without recognising that they still maintain their own ingrained bias.
No man ever had to quit his job because he got married. No man has ever been knocked back for a loan because he is of child-bearing age. Men don’t have to endure car salesmen and trades people ignoring them to speak to their female partners. When I was a bookmaker’s clerk, punters would ask the guy on the bag if my figures were correct, purely because I was a woman. Privilege does not necessarily equate to wealth.
Annie B,
“Michael – I would ask – dare you – to read the following link :”
No need to dare me, I have never expressed the morbid hostility and fear of an alternative point of view that others here have and it is good that you have had the courage to read at least some of the MOMP. What I would say about your article is that it expresses an ideal of what feminists believe or would like others to believe that feminism is about, that is simply not the way it presents at the moment.
For example on domestic violence, why is there so much reluctance on behalf of feminists to acknowledge that women can be abusers and men can be victims, while still providing acknowledgement and support for women who need it? The domestic violence advertisements over the years have always been framed around preventing violence against women (and sometimes children), and when questioned about why adult male victims are not acknowledged it is justified away with repetitive statistics that women are the majority of victims of domestic violence. I had that very response from Tanya Plibersek when she was the responsible minister and things haven’t changed.
And those statistics may be true, but they are not nearly the full story and to the bloke who is trapped in an abusive marriage, cops a flogging every night because he is scared to lose his kids if he speaks out and is at risk of topping himself, those statistics don’t bloody matter! He is a person who deserves acknowledgement and help, but from domestic violence advertisements, federal ministers down to service providers he is not a priority, and if he does complain is at risk being labeled the abuser rather than the victim. Furthermore beyond just these blokes who are suffering, the focus on domestic violence as a “gendered” crime explained by feminist sociological theories, downplays or ignores the complex brew of health, economic and social problems which drive domestic violence. If we continue to ignore socioeconomic disadvantage, mental health, cultural attitudes, drugs and alcohol and all the other problems which drive DV, for the sake of appeasing a bunch of feminist theorists from middle-class backgrounds who think that telling little middle class white boys not to be mean to their sisters will end DV, people will still be dying at the same rate in ten years time!
These are inhumane outcomes for all concerned, the morbid need of feminists to dominate the debate is stopping them being solved and it has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with equality whatsoever. It is the result of a authoratarian, supremacist ideology (case point from your article “you are a feminist or a sexist”), it is the very embodiment of Farrell’s concept of men as the disposable sex and it is harmful to women and men who are actually the most at risk of DV.
That is just one area which I could talk about, how feminists have successfully screwed up family law and are subverting the merit principal in workplace promotions, at the expense of not only men but also their wives and children who want to live in a traditional household, are other areas of concern. Fortunately I think that the worm is turning and that people are seeing feminism for what it is, i.e. not equality or fairness but rather authoritarianism and supremacy. If self-identified feminists like you who want people to see it as genuinely being about equality, then my suggestion would be to refute the Van Badhams and Fords of this world who are the public face of feminism, replace them with more moderate voices and demand genuine gender equality in lawmaking on issues like DV and family law. Otherwise the rest of us can only draw the conclusion that you agree with these people and take steps to ensure that your power is limited or negated, though actions like voting for politicians who are prepared to argue an alternative view on gender relations, with Pauline Hanson having been the only one with the guts to do so in Australia to date.
” … why is there so much reluctance on behalf of feminists to acknowledge that women can be abusers and men can be victims … ”
Oh no, do we have to go through this again? Search the pages of this site and you will find numerous ‘acknowledgements’.
We have been through this before Michael and we provided many links to male support services. You do not get to change the definition of feminism to suit you. The fact that a man you know has suffered abuse is terribly sad but it has nothing to do with feminism which cannot, by definition, discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender. You simply do not understand what the term feminism means.
I guarantee that most of those acknowledgements would come with a caveat Michael, kinda like the “I’m not a racist but” crowd, and that is all played bout in discriminatory policy.
Do you really expect me to take seriously what you tell me that I “get to” think or say Kaye Lee, especially when you don’t even have the courage to read material that contradicts your current beliefs?
Women can be abusive, Michael Jones, but we rarely kill you or hold you prisoner, in fear of your life for years and years. We do not routinely rape you with impunity or prey on your children. We do not traffic you in terrifying numbers into our sex slavery industrial complex. Nor do we have institutional power bolstering any abuse we might inflict at a personal level. As Kaye has said when we speak of privilege it’s not about material wealth. The poorest, most marginalised men still speak over the top of women, take up more than their share of public space, laugh at rape jokes, harass us on the street, ogle our girls and quite often enjoy some sort of domestic servitude courtesy of a woman.
Oppression experienced by men is relative of course and as with violence you experience it at the hands of other men. It’s gutless of you to go after women about this.
“Women can be abusive, Michael Jones, but …”
And there it is, the zero-sum, supremicist feminist thinking which I am talking about. It is not competition, everyone who suffers abuse deserves support, but feminists simply struggle with that notion because of their adversarial mindset. It is why they are no longer part of the solution.
I would add Deanna that many of the crimes of men you list, rape , sex trafficking, murder, are deviant behaviours by bad men who are and have been subject to severe punishment if caught, mainly by other men. The consistent attempts by feminists to characterise this sort of behaviour as institutionally supported, are amongst the most disgusting, slanderous lies perpetuated by that movement and alone are reason enough to disregard feminism.
Michael Jones ( August 7, 2016 at 1:10 pm )
You addressed your post to me specifically, so I answer, specifically.
” If self-identified feminists like you who want people to see it as genuinely being about equality…..” …. You have addressed me in those terms so —
I have not here, or anywhere, identified myself as a feminist. … I agree with some of what feminists want, just as I agree with what some men want … and with most other people no matter their labels, who want a better, more equal, peaceful and giving world. …..
I have been called a feminist because I agree with equality for men and women. …… so what. …. I don’t wear labels. ,,, Being called a feminist, or a dogmatic prude, or a lesbian ( after a very short hair cut for heavens sake ), or an hysteric with no sense of control, or a weirdo, …. been called all those things ++ in the past – is WATER OFF A DUCKS’ BACK TO ME. …. I know best what I am and am not, try to acknowledge my accomplishments and failings … and make a whole heap of mistakes. … Like most people.
On a couple of occasions here, you have mentioned voting for Hanson – – – “apart from carrying on and voting Hanson. ” ….. Your obvious distrust and bordering hatred of ‘feminists’ would have you so beleaguered, that you would prefer to vote for a self-confessed racist, sexist, bigoted woman – – the Australian female version of Trump. …. I honestly don’t understand that line of thinking.
I don’t know what that tells other readers / commenters here, but it tells me one helluva lot – about you and the struggles you are having, particularly with DV against men. Yes – it does happen, very sadly, and men should speak up far more about it. … I have witnessed that, against one of my own, and frankly wanted to do that ‘lady (not)’ some physical harm at the time. I resisted the impulse, and instead tried talking her down, then walked away hoping all would be well. …. It was – until the next time …
That is behind him now, he divorced her, and has gone on to live an extraordinarily productive life – which embitters her no end. She is left a raging alcoholic, with deep seated problems and hatred that engulfs all. Her ( their ) son, has also left her. And while I think “serves her right “, I also believe the woman needs help – not however, something she wants ( so I have heard ).
Also agree with Kaye Lee ( August 7, 2016 at 11:47 am ) where she speaks of blatent inequality … and that is what I believe the true feminist wants to correct.
There will always be people who taint whatever field they choose to stand in. … Right across the board. There are some sportsmen, company leaders, politicians ( heaps of ’em ), farmers, charities, religious leaders, religions, school teachers and principals, and yes – some feminists. Take just one of those categories – religious leaders ( Catholic, and now Anglican and Jewish ) whose abhorrent behaviour casts a pall over the entire lot, leading many to believe they are ALL cloaked in the same cloth – paedophile. …
Much the same has happened to feminism over decades. … and so feminists are ‘labelled bad’ … to more or less degrees. … This should not be – none of it.
I trust you understand, Michael J.
“characterise this sort of behaviour as institutionally supported”
Dear oh dear. No-one said anything of the sort. Having said that, who is it that goes to Asia to have sex with children? Who is making the market?
You try to tell us that domestic violence against men is supported by feminism which is equally ridiculous.
I cannot work out if we are discussing feminism, domestic violence, family law courts, or your mate’s situation.
“Dear oh dear. No-one said anything of the sort.”
Deanna just made exactly that claim, that men gave institutional power to bolster the abuse they inflict.
The post was really more about the article you posted about feminism Annie, and how it is at best naive and at worst dishonest about the nature of feminism. If you don’t identify as a feminist that is your business, the comment was really made towards people who do
“Women can be abusive, Michael Jones, but …”
Michael Jones: “And there it is, the zero-sum, supremicist feminist thinking which I am talking about. It is not competition, everyone who suffers abuse deserves support, but feminists simply struggle with that notion because of their adversarial mindset. It is why they are no longer part of the solution.”
Oh we are very much a part of the solution, Michael, working with women and children escaping male violence, on the ground, at the coal face, every day. We are very much a part of the solution; you are just ignorant of it. The ‘but’ that you object to is a pretty big one…”but we rarely kill you”. How easily you dismissed that ‘but’ because it does not apply to you. You do not fear being killed by a woman.
To quote Margaret Atwood: “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them: Women are afraid that men will kill them”
Also, you are telling lies about feminism, lots of lies. There is no such strand of feminist thinking that involves ‘supremacism’. You are typing lies, Michael.
“To quote Margaret Atwood: “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them: Women are afraid that men will kill them””
No, men are afraid that women will make their married lives living hell and if they try to get out, use a rigged legal system to take their kids and all their money, leaving them with nothing so that they want to kill themselves. And feminists are very much part of that problem which is being played out every day for quite a few men I know. I doubt that you are ignorant of that, it just doesn’t suit your agenda to acknowledge it.
And I would add that the he did/she did nonsense is pointless. It wouldn’t matter if only one man ever suffered DV, he would be just as deserving of care as an individual as any woman. It is just like if only one woman ever wanted a job in a particular firm, she would deserve to have her application considered on her merits and without reference to her gender.
Deanna’s attempt to minimise the rights of men in DV situations, by repeating statistics that are irrelevant to the actual individuals suffering DV, is exactly what I was talking about in on my first post in the thread. It is an insidious attempt to “other” men, particularly white heterosexual men, with a view to denying them the right to fair treatment.
For those of you who are insisting that feminism is about equality, take a look at Deanna and then in the mirror, if you see the same thing you can see where you are going wrong.
@ Michael Jones
For the last time, and absolutely –
For you, or anyone, to compare these two situations in such a way ( as follows ), is ludicrous :
” It wouldn’t matter if only one man ever suffered DV, he would be just as deserving of care as an individual as any woman. It is just like if only one woman ever wanted a job in a particular firm, she would deserve to have her application considered on her merits and without reference to her gender.”
For Christs’ sake … that is beyond the pale. …. Insulting is not nearly enough the word for it.
Re-read your own words and ponder. … How could you possibly equate domestic violence against men ( which is statistically lower than men against women ), with a woman being considered for a job. “It is just like … “ ????????
Get a life – I am totally done with you. I have no wish to consider your comments any further. … I tried, we all tried … but you refuse to listen.
Period.
I’m with you on that one, Annie. I’ve mostly stayed out of the discussion. I just ‘hangs me head’ in disbelief.
Your decision not to interact is no great loss to me Annie. Anybody who isn’t trying to be deliberately antagonistic and can read will understand what I was saying, that people deserve to be treated as individuals even when their gender is in the minority of a particular circumstance. I find it hard to understand how a fair minded person could have a problem with that.
As I was saying, once there were these two Presidential candidates in USA, one of each gender and this has stirred up personal debates some distance from that country… oh, and some distance from a few of the aspects of the original debate as well. The Hillary-Trump debacle is a bit more than simply gender politics. Trump would find plenty of obnoxious things to say about anybody, even if male.
Good onya Alan B … seriously.
You have brought us back to a ( hopefully ) sane discussion about the topic as written by Victoria.
Mind you, I don’t think there’s much that is ‘sane’ about what is happening in the U.S. at present. … It smacks of ‘chaos about to be let loose’, however we just have to wait, and hang onto our hats in the meantime.
Agree with your comment about Trump – he is wilier than wile-e coyote … and could say just about anything, and a) get away with it or b) bring the whole thing down in a crumbling mess. Remains to be seen.
I think I might seek out a cave to rent, somewhere around mid to end, October !! 🙂
“people deserve to be treated as individuals even when their gender is in the minority of a particular circumstance”
Welcome to feminism Michael 🙂
Michael, I have considerable professional expertise around the family court and I can tell you that it’s the women and children who are trying to escape ‘living hell’ situations, meaning of course, violent men who manipulate that system to pursue them relentlessly and terrorise them further. It’s women and children who suffer from family court rulings where their victimisation is framed as a personal character flaw or failing. You have not acknowledged the types of violence and abuse that I have listed earlier, in particular the shameful 2016 death count of women killed by male partners or ex partners. But I agree with Annie, it’s just getting silly now; your inability to comprehend combined with your outrageous, outdated commentary, is becoming laughable.
He was referring to the circumstance of a man being the victim of dv as a minority. You both need to improve your ability to comprehend what is wrtten.
There is no doubt that woman are the majority of dv victims.
“He was referring to the circumstance of a man being the victim of dv as a minority. You both need to improve your ability to comprehend what is wrtten.
There is no doubt that woman are the majority of dv victims.”
Correct and thank you.
Deanna, I guess you can come and tell that to my workmate, who never says boo and doesn’t have a mean bone in his body, who came to me last week at wits end because his emotionally and financially abusive wife of just became physically abusive as well. He was beside himself because he sees his marriage coming apart, together with the fears and complications associated with children, and I was so worried about him that I checked up on him to make sure he wasn’t suicidal.
But according to you that doesn’t matter, he is a bloke so we will just repeat statistics about female victimisation being worse and he can go and get stuffed. Your attitude disgusts me, you have no compassion for anybody who doesn’t fit into your narrow world view. It is pure bigotry at its worse.
Show me one instance of anyone saying that domestic violence doesn’t happen to men or that it doesn’t matter.
If you truly want to help your friend then you would stop blaming feminists and help him get some professional advice.
This may be a place to start.
http://www.mensline.org.au/improving-relationships/are-you-experiencing-violence-or-abuse-in-your-relationship
Call MensLine Australia on 1300 78 99 78 for support and to discuss your options.
They also have an online forum
http://forum.mensline.org.au/Default.aspx
Kaye Lee, nobody is explicitly saying that men shouldn’t receive services, but that isn’t the way bigots like Deanna work. They only ever acknowledge the problem for men with a caveat about how much worse off women are, with constant attempts to falsely minimise the issue for men and put their needs aside. It is exactly the same sort of thing the “I’m not a racist but” crowd use, right down to the language used, and it is endemic in modern feminism.
If you don’t think feminism should be about that, challenge these people and change it, don’t stick your head in the sand and then wonder why people have stopped listening to feminists.
As for support services, thanks but I am aware of what is available. The fact that there are some services for men doesn’t mean that we should stop engaging in political advocacy as well, because right now the system us stacked against us and we are acting to change that.
Michael Jones, all I have done is posted facts to refute your untruths. You seem to be universalising from personal experience which puts you on a bit of a slippery slope. It would probably be safe to say that in my professional life I have helped men who are actually experiencing more issues related to structural inequality and oppression, than you would even be aware of. It’s only white, middle class men who think that the major issues men experience are to do with their marital woes or the family court, which for some reason only became an issue after the introduction of the child support agency. Funny that. Family court is the least of men’s experience of patriarchal oppression and men like yourself banging your garbage can lids all the time over what is a non issue, take attention away from this. You seem unmoved by the plight of the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men (and women) in the ‘justice’ system, their shameful rates of death in custody due to institutional racism, or men driven to suicide by our inhumane refugee and asylum seeker policies, just to name a couple of issues.
I say again, I am a feminist. I offered both sympathy and a suggestion for help. You will never be a successful advocate for men Michael because you blame feminism for your problems. Feminism has only helped men in so many different ways. If you want to create positive change then you need to identify what is actually causing a problem. You are so far off the mark you waste all your time railing at women who are fighting to solve the problems you can’t even identify. Blame is such a waste of time. What would you like to see changed? What specific problems are you trying to fix? What do you think Pauline Hanson can offer to help?
Deanna,
This gets back to the point that I made earlier. These feminism inspired advertisements about violence against women only ever promotes scenes of middle class white boys being mean to their little sisters and using the word “guys” as the root cause of all domestic violence, when the reality is that the vast majority of domestic violence cases – including the deaths – are in disadvantaged and in particular indigenous communities. Erin Pizzey comprehensively outlined how in her extensive professional experience, she had drawn the conclusion that most family violence in these communities is reciprocal, with the main driver being alcohol and drugs. Of course this all gets ignored by many feminists from privileged backgrounds who have been running the show, it doesn’t impact on them and doesn’t fit in with their narrative of white men as the root of all evil, so they actively get in the way of alternative viewpoints on the matter. So really people like you are getting in the way of comprehensive solutions to these problems, for a human services worker that is pretty crap really.
So if you are going to accuse white men of being “unmoved” by the plight of other disadvantaged groups, because they don’t make a comprehensive list of othe people who suffer difficult circumstances every time they make a complaint, I strongly suggest you look at your own backyard lest somebody point out to your your hypocracy. As for me, I’m all for helping everybody who suffers difficult circumstances … I certainly did help a lot of people from different backgrounds in my 12 years as a registered nurse in public hospitals, city, regional and rural, and 3 years as a disability carer. There is a little assumption of yours about comparative experience blown out of the water, huh.
The difference between you and me is that I don’t single out a particular group of sufferers for vilification and marginalisation like you do with white men, I will help anybody in need and take their problems seriously. And trust me, based on this and other conversations I am very thankful for those differences.
Kaye Lee, I am getting tired of this conversation so this will be my last response to you. You haven’t even addressed the points that I have made about Deanna’s demonstration of bigotry against white men in her post and how that is endemic in feminism. It is just the same as if you simply wouldn’t read material that I suggested for you previously, which comprehensively outlines my arguments by people far more qualified than me.
This seems to be a theme with you, if I write something that is a bit too tricky for you, you simply ignore it or come up with a reason why you won’t read or address it, and then keep repeating the same lines and same questions. To me it has all the hallmarks of a dishonest debating tactic, but on a previous thread you got very upset when I suggested that you were being dishonest, so I will take it at face value that you are not. Rather I think you either conciously or unconciously lack the courage to truly consider alternative points of view, because it may cause you to have to question your own dearly held beliefs, and this approach is just a coping mechanism to deal with that . If that is the way you want to be then there is nothing that I can do about it, so I will leave you to it.
For anyone interested !! …….
http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/pages/domestic-violence-statistics.php
This deals mostly with statistics broken down, as to the type of violence against women. However, the last and very telling statement is as follows :
“The majority of violence against men is committed by other men. Of men who reported that they had experienced physical violence in the 12 months before the survey, 73.7% said that the perpetrator was a male.” “…. by other men”
Perhaps some might like to tinker with the statistics ? …
This does not Not NOT … excuse any woman who has perpetrated violence against a man, or children, in any way whatsoever. If there were just ONE woman in a year ~ that would be one too many.
And it certainly doesn’t excuse men. Whether they be white, black or bloody brindle.
ONE male perpetrator, is also one man too many.
This link might be of interest too : http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2015~Main%20Features~Experimental%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20Statistics~6
At least this shows the variance, but does NOT discriminate ~ and does not deny the incidences of violence ( mainly domestic ) against men, either.
While I don’t subscribe to the current 🙁 government of the day I do think they have to make sure they publish correct information for dissemination to the public.
………….
Now ~ back to the subject matter ” Trump and re~establishment of white male privilege”