Well, I have some news to report. I have been censored at Libby Anne’s blog Love, Joy, Feminism. Perhaps this is not news at all; it is simply what is to be expected. It is the first time however I have ever experienced censorship of my views when commenting at a website so it is new for me, it is “a first” for me.
This is the oh so horrible comment that just couldn’t be tolerated or allowed to be seen in the Love, Joy, Feminism blog’s comment section:
“I see my website Secular Patriarchy has been referenced in this discussion. Also, by the way, I am now calling myself a Traditional Family Activist or TFA rather than a Traditional Women’s Rights Activist or TWRA.
Anyways, patriarchy is best because patriarchy is necessary for men to invest in women. In all relationships that are functional and not abusive the giver is dominant and men are the givers so men have to be dominant in order to protect themselves while being the giver. You will notice under feminism men’s investment in women goes way down and relationships between men and women are much weaker and less stable. In the era of patriarchy, particularly under coverture, husbands had a literal legal duty to fully financially support their wives. Today a married woman is only about 10% less likely to work than a single woman showing that the ethic that husbands are to financially support their wives has almost disappeared from the culture. In 1890 among whites in the United States being married reduced a woman’s chances of working by about 95% because in 1890 the patriarchal ethic that men are to provide for and protect women was still very strong. Of course numerous social indicators such as divorce and out-of-wedlock births were also much better in 1890 than they are today. Feminism destroys men’s investment in the welfare of women because it is not safe for a man to invest in the well being of his “equal” because if the woman is “equal” there is nothing to keep the woman from squandering or wasting or otherwise using for bad purposes the man’s investment in her. Men have to control women in order to protect their investment in women; this is the fundamental reason why “male rule” or patriarchy is necessary.
As far as men abusing their authority, it needs to be kept in mind that under a patriarchal social system there are many many social rules and moral obligations imposed upon men by men as a collective body. Also religion and obedience to God is a very strong ethic in patriarchal social systems, religion being very strong in the past when the social system overall was still well intact and when patriarchy and relations between men and women were still strong. Patriarchy of course is not perfect in practice but it is much better than feminism and “gender equality” in practice.”
To me this comment is pretty pedestrian and pretty tame stuff. It is just boilerplate really, the basics. I decided to submit the comment to the Love, Joy, Feminism website under the post “The Patriarchal Man’s Burden” because my website had already been linked to by a previous commenter named Purrtriarchy as part of Purrtriarchy giving some commentary about the TWRAs (Traditional Women’s Rights Activists). Since the TWRAs had already been mentioned and my website had already been directly linked to in the discussion in the comments section I thought it was reasonable for me to “chime in” and speak for myself on the topic. Other people’s comments centered around how men “protecting women” is a joke or a fraud and how if you give men authority of course they will abuse it and other such arguments belittling and undermining the claim that patriarchy serves women and is best for women. From my point of view the main thing that was being missed by everyone is that patriarchy is necessary for men to support women, for men to provide for women. That gender equality and women being provided for and protected by men totally don’t go together. So I submitted my comment to add this new perspective into the discussion that nobody else was talking about one way or the other. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time.
My comment was approved automatically but it only lasted about 10 minutes before being flagged for moderation and removed from view. Baby Raptor however saw the comment while it was briefly still up and gave this reasoned response in return:
“Edit: The comment this was responding to seems to have gone into mod oblivion, so if the mods wish to erase this as well, I have no problems with such.
Dear Jesse Powell:
How far up your ass did you have to stick your head to get that crap?
I am a gender-fluid person who mostly identifies as male (but am physically female). I don’t have to be in a relationship with my female friends to be invested in them. Further, I have two male partners and two male best friends. None of the 4 of them have to be (or had to be, in the case of my partners) dating me before they were invested in me.
Men are the givers? Right, that’s why people with vaginas are the ones who have to “submit.” We’re the ones who have to bend over backwards to keep ya’ll happy, raise your kids, birth your kids and kiss your asses.
Egalitarian relationships aren’t the ones that have problems. Statistically, egalitarian relationships work out the best and have the best sex lives. For both people, not just the male.
There’s nothing wrong with divorce. People who don’t want to be married *shouldn’t* be married. It’s worse for the kids and the adults. And you know why there were fewer out-of-wedlock births? Because jackasses like you pushed the same teenagers you forced to get pregnant by denying them a real education into hasty marriages because there’s supposedly something shameful about having a child before you have a piece of paper.
Women being equal is bad for men’s egos. That’s your entire money argument. That and she might use the money in a way he doesn’t approve of. Men do not need to control women to have an investment in them. All I really have to say to that is that you can go die in a fire if you honestly feel that a woman needs a Fucking male to be of any worth.
In fact, how about you just go die in a fire anyway? You might be a sexist prick incapable of caring about a woman that won’t bend over backwards to kiss your ass, but not all men are. And the fact that you lie and say we are is not only insulting, it shows exactly how little character you have. Own your Fucking problems instead of projecting them on everyone else and making us all look like assholes.”
This comment by Baby Raptor is still up though what it is responding to, my comment, is gone and deleted. After Baby Raptor’s epic rant she got a chorus of support from the other comments at Libby Anne’s site with some additional interesting things being said.
“Jesse was here a few months back, and we don’t need any of his shit stinking up the place again. Bizarre and disturbing.”
Michael W Busch fessed up that he was the man who took it upon himself to make sure that the readers of the comments section would be protected from the emotional trauma of reading an opinion contrary to the atheist feminist party line against patriarchy:
“I saw that comment, and promptly flagged it – can’t say if the mods have tossed it permanently or not.
Having encountered Jesse Powell once before, I set a very high prior against his contributing anything actually useful here.”
“I wish I could see the comment because your [Baby Raptor’s] comment made my interwebz day.”
This is an interesting thing for Libby Anne to say. It indicates the decision to delete the comment was made by someone other than Libby Anne even though the comment itself was deleted from Libby Anne’s own blog.
“I still have the email Disqus sent me notifying me of his comment. It has the text of his blathering. I could forward it to you if you want, but I don’t think reposting it here would be a good idea. Deleted already, triggery, ETC.”
“Leave it [Baby Raptor’s comment]. Men who can’t become invested in others around them without being the Super Authority In Charge of Everything are just bullies and sociopaths demanding their own way. Your post needs to be heard, whether “Jesse Powell”‘s post stays or goes.”
This might be a ridiculous thing for me to say, but my feelings are hurt by all of this. I strangely feel kicked out of a community I vaguely felt myself to be a part of. It’s one thing to make a comment and be dog piled by everyone telling me how stupid and irrational I am with lots of personal insults added in for good measure, that’s what I’ve come to expect commenting in hostile territory. To be outright censored however is different. It is a stronger “you’re not welcome” message and it gives the feeling that I am seen as a threat and a “disturber of the peace” rather than just an oddity with unpopular views. It is flattering in a way, I must admit, to be “taken seriously” in this way. Also the “go die in a fire” part bothered me; it seemed a bit extreme and vaguely violent.
In a certain way the response to me is mystifying. What did I say to cause such offense? Really everything I said is just common sense. Not only is it common sense but I even provided statistics to back up my point. What is common sense and really quite obvious however is totally verboten to be spoken of out loud apparently up to and including outright censorship at least in the environment of the comments section at Love, Joy, Feminism. The comments section at Love, Joy, Feminism is apparently a “safe” environment where no direct clear and convincing arguments in favor of patriarchy can ever be spoken of or heard.
I would say of all the prominent atheists out there Libby Anne is the one who has showed the most interest in me. Libby Anne was raised in a very conservative Christian Patriarchy home but she converted to atheist feminism after going to college. I on the other hand was raised in an atheist mother in charge home and converted to patriarchy while still being and remaining an atheist when I was college aged (though not actually in college at that time). Libby Anne first noticed me and did a post specifically about a comment I had made at The Thinking Housewife on February 12, 2013 titled “Which Is More Rage-Inducing?” In response to this post at Libby Anne’s I then wrote “The Atheist Case for Patriarchy” on March 16, 2013. In response to this Libby Anne wrote “Why I’m a Feminist First” on April 7, 2013. That being the end of that little exchange. I made many comments in the comments section of the “Why I’m a Feminist First” post and all of my comments were accepted, none of them were censored.
So here we are a year after all of that and I decided to dip my toe into the discussion going on under “The Patriarchal Man’s Burden” post because I figured I had something useful to add and I had already been linked to and referred to earlier by another commenter but this time my comment is flagged for moderation and deleted immediately but not before an angry rant denouncing me got put together by one of the few who saw the comment.
I have commented at several different forums hostile to me and my message. I started a series of topics at The Slymepit and made many many comments as part of the topics I had started. The crowd at The Slymepit was universally hostile towards me but they still let me debate as strongly as I could. I had entered the comments under a post at Ophelia Benson’s Butterflies and Wheels site and all of my many comments were accepted. I have made many comments at Mano Singham’s site and all were accepted. I made comments at the Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men site and all were accepted. I made many comments under Libby Anne’s post responding to me “Why I’m a Feminist First” and those comments were accepted. Now, finally, I have finally run into blatant censorship for the first time under Libby Anne’s post “The Patriarchal Man’s Burden.”
In all of this I think it is fair to say that the commenters at the Love, Joy, Feminism site have been the toughest and most hostile towards me; the least likely to actually debate me on the issues and the most likely to hurl hostile personal insults my way. In this sense it is not so surprising that the Love, Joy, Feminism site was the first to censor me outright. At the same time the Love, Joy, Feminism site is the biggest most prominent atheist site to actually pay attention to little ole’ me in a serious way. These things are probably not unrelated; that those most hostile towards me are also those most interested in me. The specialty of Libby Anne is bashing patriarchy as an atheist from an “insider’s” perspective. My specialty is promoting patriarchy as an atheist. I suppose it was inevitable that we would “find each other” out here on the internet.
For whatever it’s worth, all commenters from Libby Anne’s site are welcome to comment at my blog.