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:
BULLSHIT.
Complete BULLSHIT.
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.”
L’Anne (Libby Anne) herself made this comment:
“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.
Baby Raptor then responded to Libby Anne:
“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.
Secular Patriarchy 
It’s kind of sad that first feminism seems only to be concerned about those who are either gay or confused about their gender and second that some women truly believe that patriarchy hurts women. You even see Christians and conservative women believing that patriarchy is bad. Marriage isn’t just a “piece of paper” it signifies true male responsibility. Men won’t invest in women otherwise no matter how much feminists may want it. Men won’t accept responsibility for women or children without marriage (not true responsibility anyways). That “piece of paper,” before feminism, was the man’s legal obligation to be responsible for the woman. It was the woman’s security and the security for her children meaning they would have a home to live in and food to eat provided for by the father instead of just being left out there to be “equal” and fend for themselves. I’ve never felt that I was bending over backwards to please my husband or was worth nothing more than birthing his kids. In fact, I don’t have to do really anything to please my husband. Men seem to like it best and feel more masculine when they work hard to take care of women and women should never get it in their heads that real men would be burdened by having to support their wives or protect them from danger. Women being “equal” IS bad for men’s egos. It changes the nature of men where they are no longer strong, loving and protective. Why would any woman want to emasculate a man in such way to where he doesn’t care if she even gets sent to war to come home in a body-bag? Real men would give their lives to protect their wives and children from danger. Feminists know men must be emasculated that way no man will ever want to protect and control a woman ever again. It serves their purpose of causing society to see women other than as being precious and nurturing and in need of protection from men. Statistically we are having LESS sex than we were in the 1950s and men are turned off by women who earn more than them so “Baby Raptor” up there needs to rethink that theory. Then feminists always pull the “women were denied education” bs even though there is no basis for this in history. In fact, it had always been a sign of affluence to educate one’s daughters. At least she/he didn’t pull the whole “forced into marriage and forced to bear ten children” bs we hear all the time. Women have had the right to choose who they wish to marry for over a thousand years in the Western world.
Feminists just have a hateful attitude. A woman doesn’t need to do much to secure a man’s affection but just to sit back and allow him to care for her. That’s what I’ve seen that men like best and REAL men do not feel it to be a burden. I know my husband works very hard but he is glad to do it. He’d give me anything he could if I’d only ask it of him. That’s how much real men love to take care of women. The worst thing a woman could do is tell a man she doesn’t need him to support her.
“Women being “equal” IS bad for men’s egos. It changes the nature of men where they are no longer strong, loving and protective.”
Absolutely. Being an ‘equal’ infuses a man’s whole character in a way that causes him to lose purpose, self-confidence and that manly-type of kindness. Men who are ‘equals’ seem to often be sort of selfishly closed-in on themselves in a way. Just one of many practical evidences for the truth of patriarchy.
Hi Mr. Powell,
I just came across this. I read Libby’s blog frequently, and I’m sorry that you were banned (though it wasn’t Libby Anne’s doing.)
Honestly, I am just sad that your feelings were hurt by that. I take that as evidence you’re not a mere troll.
If you’re interested, I wrote a short little article on Homeschoolers Anonymous that might explain a little of how I became a reluctant feminist (I know, I know.. the horror.)
I think I could probably sum it up one line, though: “Self-preservation should be an option for women, regardless of whether marriage is on the table.”
I look forward to poking around this blog. I used to think very similarly.
Hello Teresa. Thank you for commenting at my blog.
It is true that Libby Anne did not personally flag or delete my comment it appears, apparently some anonymous moderator made the decision to permanently delete the comment after it was originally flagged for moderation.
Libby Anne has publicly stated however that her commenting policy apparently bars people like me from commenting at her site so the deletion of my comment does fit with the policy Libby Anne promotes at her site even if Libby Anne herself did not take the specific decision to delete my comment.
This is what Libby Anne said under her post:
Housekeeping! – May 17, 2014
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/housekeeping-2.html
“To hit the highlights, I ask that readers refrain from personal insults and engage other commenters in good faith, and I do not allow sexism, homophobia, etc., a place on my blog. (Commenters are free to discuss sexism, but they are not free to be sexist.)”
Presumably I am 100% sexist in what I advocate and probably also “homophobic” as well so it makes sense that comments from me wouldn’t be allowed at her site. It is amusing that people are allowed to “discuss” sexism at her site but not “be” a sexist. In other words no arguments in favor of traditional gender roles are allowed while discussing traditional gender roles. The “discussion” must be completely one-sided with the “correct” answer already known and agreed upon ahead of time before the “discussion” takes place.
I am interested in the piece you wrote at Homeschoolers Anonymous about how you became a “reluctant feminist.” If you could link to it or something, maybe give the title so it could be found through a Google search, that would be good.
As far as self-preservation being an option for women regardless of whether marriage is “on the table”; are you talking about being in favor of no-fault divorce? Traditionally divorce has always been allowed for cause. Also abuse of women and bad circumstances for women is a lot more common today under feminism than it was long ago under patriarchy. Patriarchy had a lot of protections for women and heavy responsibilities imposed upon men and in general family life was very stable. Social indicators of all sorts got much worse after feminism was introduced.
Definitely poke around my website. You used to think very similarly to me? Let’s hope you will return to the fold then and not fall too deeply under the spell of feminist brainwashing! 🙂
You lost me at “the TWRAs refused to obey me”.
To be perfectly honest, I am a feminist. I don’t agree with the whole “marriage should always be traditional thing” at all and I disagree with everything you wrote in your comment on Libby’s blog but even I think it’s pretty messed up that your comment was flagged and taken down while the person who called you several names got off scot free. I would have been up for a debate without hurling insults. I’ve seen plenty of sexist/homophobic comments at that blog and yours was extremely mild in comparison.
Your comment was perfectly respectful. I’m sorry you got banned when the person (BR) who responded with personal insults was accepted. I am a long time reader of Libby Anne’s blog. I am also a practising Christian, and my home business is teaching classes for homeschool students. I stumbled across her blog while I was researching the current homeschool environment so that i could be as aware as possible of the world my students come from. I keep reading because i see the homeschool world is going through some pretty big shifts, and I want to stay aware, although i don’t tend to get the students from the very conservative families. My students come from families who are happy to outsource high school teaching to a person with a masters degree who specializes in homeschoolers, and nearly all my students are college bound.
I find your perspective valuable, and you should have a place at the table. I don’t feel that way about the abusive Men’s rights people who show up at Libby Anne’s blog from time to time, who just seem to want to bait people, and insult women who have clearly already suffered a good deal of abuse, and hit their triggers (it appears) for fun.
I went to a womens college, one of the Seven Sisters, and so i was exposed to feminism, and radical feminism. I’ve seldom been comfortable calling myself a feminist, although I am in favor of education for women, equal rights under the law, equal pay for equal work, ect. I was also a stay at home mother & wife for 14 years, and have really only worked part time during the times when I did work. I appreciate having a husband who has worked very hard to provide for me and our children, especially since i did not have a father who did this. It is something I don’t take for granted. I know what it is like to not have that. I also see the protection/provision drive as a deep male drive, and something that all societies have tried to tap into in various ways, to keep things running.
I am in favor of equality, but also in favor of the genders working together. Both feminism and men’s rights seem to stir up a fair amount of antagonism between men and women. I recently found a movement that is about equality, but also about tapping into the unique drives of men and women, and encouraging them to work together: mutualism. Mutualism also addresses the economic difficulties women have faced as caretakers in the modern economies, the fact that caretaking of the young and the old is labor intensive, necessary to society, and pays very little. Sometimes it is called Partnerism. More about it here: http://www.partnershipway.org/Economics-Politics/building-a-new-economics/what-is-partnerism
If you are interested, this is a post by me about long term relationships – about marriage anf family really:
http://graceomalley.hubpages.com/hub/The-Power-of-Sexuality
I also wrote this post about how caretaking and relationships have shifted, with often disasterous results, as humans moved into the modern era. I think this questionably successful shift from clan living to modern nation states has complicated gender dynamics along with every thing else ; http://www.partnershipway.org/Economics-Politics/building-a-new-economics/what-is-partnerism
Glad to have met you.
When you say the homeschool world is going through some “pretty big shifts” I am curious what you are talking about here. A greater proportion of homeschooled children coming from conservative Christian families perhaps? Homeschooling becoming more popular in general? Homeschoolers facing more regulations that they will need to comply with? I really don’t know what you are talking about when you talk about “pretty big shifts” in the homeschool world and I am curious.
Also, the last link you offered points to the same webpage as your first link. Look at the websites’ addresses closely and you will see they are exactly the same. Is this intentional? You said you wrote an article about “how caretaking and relationships have shifted” but then you link to the “what is partnerism” page again. If you could provide the link you originally intended to provide that would be nice.
Onwards to responding to the substance of your comment!
I’m not familiar with the particular nature of the men’s rights type commenters who show up in Libby Anne’s comment section but I in general am not a fan of the MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists). I see feminists as being female narcissists and MRAs as being male narcissists; them being much the same. Also if you look carefully you will find that feminists and MRAs actually agree on a lot of fundamental attitudes and beliefs. Feminists have a female supremacy bias and claim women are the “true victims” while MRAs have a male supremacy bias and claim men are the “true victims.” That is really the only difference between the two. Both feminists and MRAs are opposed to DUTY on behalf of the opposite sex or DUTY on behalf of children. It is interesting that the Libby Anne blog appears to have a greater tolerance for MRAs than they have for me even though MRAs are notoriously insulting and bad mannered.
The basic problem with feminism and “gender equality” is that gender equality and male support of women don’t mix. If you look at other kinds of relationships you will see that when one is the giver and the other is the receiver the giver is always dominant. For instance the employer is dominant over the employee because the employer is giving money while the employee is receiving money. Patriarchy fits with the transfer of resources from men to women; this being exactly why patriarchy is good and why patriarchy works. Feminist style “gender equality” is also female supremacist in practice because women are demanding “equality” in the masculine sphere while at the same time accepting women’s natural superiority in the feminine sphere as a given and just “the way things are” so feminism equates to female supremacy overall; women being equal in the masculine sphere and superior in the feminine sphere at the same time. Also in practice men having authority and men being assertive is always attacked and vilified by the feminists while women having authority and women being assertive is praised and glorified and celebrated; this naturally leading to a female supremacy bias.
You say “I am in favor of equality, but also in favor of the genders working together.” Not really sure how men and women are supposed to “work together” in your vision of things here. Patriarchy is definitely about men and women working together where both natural male strengths and advantages are highly prized and honored and natural female strengths and advantages are highly prized and honored. I suppose you see men and women working together as a “team” while I see men and women working together under a hierarchy. I’m not sure how “two leaders” is supposed to work in practice and besides men are to give to women; not the other way around. Masculine strengths and feminine strengths really are different from each other.
Men and women not only have unique drives, they have different skill sets as well; and even more importantly men and women have different roles. I am interested in this idea of “Mutualism” but patriarchy worked in real life in the past and feminism with its supposed “gender equality” has proved a disaster so I am suspicious of anything that purports to represent “equality” between the sexes as just being another version of feminism.
I do like your main point in your “The Power of Sexual Intimacy” post. I actually wrote a post at this website echoing the point you are trying to make:
The Romantic Power of Women under Patriarchy https://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-romantic-power-of-women-under-patriarchy/
Jesse,
A few questions (this is the only post I’ve
Do you not see women, wives, as giving anything substantial to their husbands? Do you not see marriage as an arrangement of mutual self-giving?
If it were truly one-sided — if men did all the work, harnessed all the resources, and women simply took these from them — then women would not have much to stand on to claim equality.
But surely you do not see child bearing, child rearing, child educating, family healing, food planning and preparation, and overall household often including budgetary management — the traditional role of women in patriarchy — as nothing, or as unequal to earning a wage?
Thanks,
Ann
Ann, perhaps you understand my overall perspective here quite well. Men give to women, women do not give to men. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations under patriarchy. This is a fundamental aspect of gender relations in general. Now this is not true 100% of course but it is true in general; what men give to women in a practical direct sense is much more than what women give to men in a practical direct sense. This is exactly the way it should be by the way. To expect women to give to men equal to what men give to women is very abusive towards women and destroys women’s ability to contribute to society effectively and hurts children most of all. This imbalance between the genders furthermore is exactly what makes patriarchy necessary for relations between men and women to work well and by extension makes patriarchy necessary for society to work well overall.
Definitely marriage is not “mutual self-giving” as you refer to it. Marriage is idealistic and about sacrifice on behalf of the other. Marriage is mutual generosity, not mutual selfishness. Marriage is mutually beneficial at the emotional and spiritual level but a man is not going to make a financial profit off of marriage, practical benefit to himself is not the point of marriage for the man. A woman very definitely should expect to receive practical benefit from marriage but for the man on strictly selfish terms marriage represents a financial loss. A woman costs money; that is just a plain fact.
But surely you do not see child bearing, child rearing, child educating, family healing, food planning and preparation, and overall household often including budgetary management — the traditional role of women in patriarchy — as nothing, or as unequal to earning a wage?
These things are most definitely not “nothing;” they are very valuable and very honorable indeed. These things however only peripherally benefit the man directly; they instead benefit the man indirectly based on the man valuing the moral contribution these things represent. The woman is directly benefiting the children here mostly, not the man. Men give to women directly and women give to men indirectly by directly benefiting third parties (usually children) the man wants the woman to benefit. The woman is acting on behalf of the man in service to others (mostly children) rather than the woman directly contributing to the man. Men on the other hand directly contribute to women with the understanding that the woman will use the benefit given to her to serve those the man wants the woman to serve (his children with the woman for instance). Men serve women directly and men have authority over women. Similarly women serve children directly and women have authority over children.
A woman working without formal pay not working a formal job being financially supported by her husband and respecting her husband’s authority over her is contributing more to society than a feminist woman in the paid labor force. A woman earning money is contributing less socially than a woman supported by a man doing feminine things with her time; this is because women are weak in the masculine realm but strong in the feminine realm. The world of making money is the masculine realm while the world of the home and children is the feminine realm. Domestic “work” has more value to society than paid employment for a woman; not equal value or less value.
This is so convoluted… But first, mutual self-giving means each giving of themselves to the other. So, we’re in agreement on that.
You seem to see money as the primary mode of giving — unless a woman is giving money to a man, she is giving him nothing directly. Have I got that right?
Does a man lose out on anything — anything directly — by not having a wife? Is a clean, well-kept home only an indirect benefit? Are regular nourishing, good tasting meals you don’t have to plan for, budget for, or cook yourself only an indirect benefit?
I am not interested here in working out the social benefit to women working or not working, or men supporting or not supporting 100%. That is distracting.
I am asking about the premise: That men have the right to control women because men are the givers and women are the takers.
The implication is that men would do just fine without women, if all women do is take. Is this right? Do men need nothing from women, commensurate with what a wife who is or could be a mother needs from her husband?
Do you actually get out at all? Women make up almost 50% of the workforce. They do not need a mans/husband authority over them to live a long and happy life. It amazes me how you can go through your life as a presumably intelligent adult yet fail to perceive what is going on right in front of your eyes. We do not live in a patriarchy!
Whether a woman works or not she expects to be treated as an equal by her partner/husband whether this person is paying the bills or not. She does not expect to be treated as some unpaid housekeeper who should be thankful for anything her ungrateful “employer” deigns to bestow on her.
Thank you, Joe. You are a real man.
@Anna,
No, he’s not.
You ARE a real man! Don’t listen to Chia maria’s assertion down there that you’re not. Since I can’t directly reply to him/her, I’m writing to you instead, as your viewpoint really resonates with me.
As a woman, his viewpoint doesn’t resonate with me at all. He doesn’t speak for me, and I’m sure for some of the other women who follow this blog. I don’t want to be treated as an equal, I want to be treated as someone who is of EQUAL VALUE. There is a difference. Keep up the good work, Jesse.
@Chia maria
What is the difference between someone who is treated as an equal, and someone who is treated as a person with equal value? It’s all the same to me so I don’t catch your meaning here. Would you mind explaining, please?
Of course. Being treated as an equal implies that men and women are the same in every respect, and we’re not (don’t blame me, take it up with biology). Being treated as someone who is of equal value means that she is treated like a woman who has her own feminine qualities and responsibilities, which are equally as important, and what she contributes should be considered of equal value to what a man contributes and she should be treated with respect and love and not seen as inferior like what MRAs like to think. I’m concerned that in our society, home-making skills are considered outdated, worthless and the hall-marks of an intellectually stunted person, and that’s simply not fair nor is it true. I mean, you don’t want stupid people to be full time carers for the next generation of humans, so it doesn’t make sense to see home-making as for the stupid. Jesse isn’t implying that women overall are inferior. He is trying to elevate women’s status if anything, but sadly a lot of people are determined to misinterpret what he says, no matter how he says it.
@Chia maria,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, and being respectful about it. Some people are just plain rude and obnoxious in their stances for traditional roles, etc. That being said, I completely understand that some people can say the most terrible things in the politest way, but I think in your case you are not doing this but just sincerely disagreeing with me.
Okay then.
“Of course. Being treated as an equal implies that men and women are the same in every respect, and we’re not (don’t blame me, take it up with biology).”
I’m completely aware that we have biological differences (for instance, women menstruate and men don’t, and women are generally, though not always, physically weaker than men).
As an egalitarian I believe biology is our only main difference and it should be respected and acknowledged because it is natural, and all others are societal and therefore arbitrary. No one is arguing with the fact that men and women are different biologically. What we’re arguing with is that the other differences (and sometimes the biological ones) are used to hold women back constantly from pursuits they want to follow and purposes they want for their lives.
That being said, do you think we have neurological and other such functional differences as well?
“Being treated as someone who is of equal value means that she is treated like a woman who has her own feminine qualities and responsibilities, which are equally as important, and what she contributes should be considered of equal value to what a man contributes and she should be treated with respect and love and not seen as inferior like what MRAs like to think.”
I agree with this thinking, in and of itself. There are only two problems I have with it – a woman should be valued for her humanity first and foremost, and supposing a woman contributes something to society that is not traditionally feminine? Such a definition has the potential to exclude not only the trans community but also cis women who don’t match up to the “traditional woman” model. That being said, I still agree with the principle of your main point. Women do deserve to be treated with equal value, and this holds especially true when biological differences (menstruation etc) display themselves. Thanks for sharing, I will remember this tidbit for the future. I would just say that women need to be treated both as equals and as people with equal value from now on.
“I’m concerned that in our society, home-making skills are considered outdated, worthless and the hall-marks of an intellectually stunted person, and that’s simply not fair nor is it true.”
I agree with this. Third-wave feminism embraces homemakers IF they choose this path for themselves. This is an area where second-wave feminism erred greatly, I admit. Which is why I don’t buy into the “all women must have a job” dogmatism, because the traditional role of homemaker is just as meaningful as anything else you do. Therefore, if that role has such value, why shouldn’t men participate in it as well? Masculine experiences are not the only meaningful ones out there.
“I mean, you don’t want stupid people to be full time carers for the next generation of humans, so it doesn’t make sense to see home-making as for the stupid.”
No, of course not! Especially considering the strong traditionally feminine overtones of homemaking, and the important role it plays in developing future citizens, it is an insult to femininity and to humanity to treat homemakers as inferior and idiotic. Mary Wollstonecraft, the Mother of Modern Feminism (who second-wave feminists revered) stated that one of woman’s many purposes was to bear and raise children; however she departed from the norm because she *also* strongly advocated financial independence for women, and strict intellectual disciplines rather than fashion and arts that made women pretty and dependent rather than useful to society. I recommend you read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. It’s a very good book.
“Jesse isn’t implying that women overall are inferior. He is trying to elevate women’s status if anything, but sadly a lot of people are determined to misinterpret what he says, no matter how he says it.”
I can assure you, I didn’t come here to misinterpret anything he said. I came to have respectful debates with him. I have had many respectful discussions online with people who believe differently from me on a variety of issues and visiting his site is just an extension of that. I will withhold judgment on what he says and does until I read further, but I hope that he and I can stretch each other’s brains by making each other think about points we never considered before. Although I can understand the reactions of many people to what he says, I am a staunch pro-feminist who is interested in a different view and has no desire to cause trouble.
I have a lot more thoughts, but I think this is enough for now. Except this – thanks for answering the question and I look forward to many more respectful debates in the future.
Hi Crystal. Seems that Jesse has addressed your post extensively, but I’ll chime in a bit cause you’re quite respectful. I do believe that men and women think quite differently, if that’s what you mean by neurological differences. Studies even show that there are differences in the brains of men and women (women having more grey matter etc). Men and women may mentally process things differently to come to the same conclusion, and that’s not a bad thing at all. It’s just the way it is.
Regarding the workforce. I believe that if a woman enters the workforce, she should clearly be treated with equal respect to her male peers. She’s there presumably because she’s proven herself capable, so she deserves it. However, I don’t believe in enforcing the 50/50 gender rule. I think people should choose to pursue what they wish, and they should get the job based on their own merits rather than what gender they are and if the field happens to have 90% males and 10% females or vice versa, then so be it. I think if the market were to run free with no rules or quotas imposed (such as 50/50 gender participation in a company), and that if anyone could choose what they wanted, you will find that women will generally tend to gravitate more towards feminine roles and the men towards masculine ones. Enforcing the 50/50 rule proves that it is not natural, if it has to be forced. I work in a male dominated field actually, and in my few years of working, doesn’t matter what company I was in, the overwhelming majority has been males. I know that women are faaaaaar from stupid. It’s just that this field is not something that a woman’s psyche finds interesting in general. In the Western world, a woman is pretty much free to pursue whatever she wants, and it has been like that for a while now, and there are even programs encouraging girls to enrol in masculine courses, so given that, why have we still not achieved 50/50 in the field I work in? Why are university enrolments still showing the majority to be males in this field? This says to me that something else is at play, and it’s the biological and neurological differences.
However, things do become more complicated when you throw kids into the mix. When a woman has a child, it’s no longer just about her. She didn’t pop out a toy, she’s brought a whole new human into the world, and this human needs her nurture and attentiveness. The child won’t know nor understand that she’s pursuing her dreams and career, much less care. Her child wants, and needs her here right now. So I believe that when a woman has a child, she has to understand this and be happy to make sacrifices. But if she’s happy to take on this role, then it won’t really be a sacrifice. Continuing to pursue her passions at the expense of her child is poor and abusive parenting in my opinion. If/when I have my own kids, I will gladly give up my work to focus full-time on them, as I have a duty and responsibility to them first and foremost. This is why women and men can never quite reach true equality in the workforce, no matter how many programs or incentives you introduce to help women. Men have to understand this too, and should work as a team with women by supporting and protecting them to make it easier for women to create a suitable home in which to raise kids. When done right, it’s beautiful.
So getting affection isn’t a benefit?
Get help! No wonder you were rebuffed, you are a MRA and a Red Piller and in serious need of charm school and a therapist! Get help.
you are close to the quoran verse that states a man is ‘SUPERIOR’ due to the fact that a woman is dependent on his expenditure…a verse that has led to enslavement & infantization of women,you don’t mention that under patriarchy an abused woman has no where to turn or no one to blame except her own faults…not to mention personality wise these women are bland & boring their husbands seek pleasure with their nearly always female staff,who have conversational skills,i would feel imprisoned staying with my kids all day,& discussing how to make my own soaps,stretch each dollar a little farther & accounting for each dollar spent.i work my husband is home due to two facts,i earn more & my husband has a health problem but I would have little to nothing to say if all he discussed was home making clothes,& his teaching the kids blah blah,he needs autonomy as do women
While I love reading at Libby Anne’s blog and would consider myself a feminist-oriented person, I do not agree with their philosophy of deleting comments they disagree with. I am also prolife, and strongly opposed to Islam, so I try to be careful of what I say. You are not the only one. I disagree totally with your statements but believe they should have been left up there so that people could *respectfully* respond to them. If they made it clear in the commenting section that it was a safe space for abused people (I believe the reason you received your reaction was that many of the people there feel triggered and threatened due to unpleasant reminders that certain viewpoints bring with them so for that reason I seek to balance the need for respect with the need to express anger) then everyone would be better off. I don’t comment there very often, as you can understand. Some of my beliefs on euthanasia and abortion also went into moderation. That’s a real shame. The Friendly Atheist is much better at taking disagreement although you will find some of the commenters might fire insults at you. So while I don’t agree I sympathise. Sincerely, a pro-feminist woman
That being said, I deeply respect the commenters at Love Joy Feminism (in fact I have made friends with at least one of them) and cannot support your worldview in good conscience, despite my disapproval of the way matters were handled. Just making things clear, as I have no desire to gossip about anyone behind their backs, or hurt them unnecessarily through anything I say.
Pingback: Should Women be Treated Equally or are Women of Equal Value? | Secular Patriarchy
Censorship would be if WordPress deleted your blog because it didn’t approve of its content. Not being allowed to comment on a complete stranger’s blog because that stranger or her moderator doesn’t feel that your comments add to the subject being discussed is not censorship. It’s curation. You assert that men are the givers, women are the receivers, and that everyone should adhere to your worldview that men should be dominant and women submissive, with zero evidence to support your claim. Why should a total stranger give space to this unsupported claim? You have the space to make your ideas known – here. Nobody else has a responsibility to spread them, particularly people who disagree with them.
When you only spread the ideas and beliefs you agree with, that isn’t a authentic debate or discussion, that is just propaganda. Propaganda breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds bigotry and eventually hatred. Yes, a moderator has the right to delete comments with which s/he doesn’t agree but it isn’t ethical, fair or just because it impedes a thorough, complete and comprehensive analysis of a subject. Everyone has an ethical and moral responsibility to provide all views of a particular subject in order to provoke more thought and analysis. Unfortunately, many feel that spreading a belief system is more important than spreading the truth.
Yo, late to the party…
Why are you surprised that Baby Raptor’s comment was left up?
Libby Anne’s comment section is a party that you are not welcome at. You aren’t welcom because you are a, your term, “Traditional Family Activist”. And if you remain a “Traditional Family Activist”, that welcome will never be extended to you, regardless of how “tame” or “pedestrian” or “boilerplate” or “basic” or “polite” you are. Baby Raptor is an intersectional feminist, though I don’t know if they would use that term. Love, Joy, Feminism is an intersectional feminist blog. They are welcome, even though they aren’t “polite”. Does that actually surprise you?
Now, obviously you think that comment sections shouldn’t be run that way, and I can understand that. I sharply disagree with you, but I can understand.
You’re probably thinking about quoting Libby Anne’s comment policy at me about “no personal insults”. You’re not wrong, exactly, but please understand this: you were disruptive first. You said you thought you had something constructive to add, but you utterly failed to convince Libby Anne and company that you were engaging with the ideas in good faith. I think you must have at least partially realized this, I mean, you used the word boilerplate yourself. That statement, regardless of your intentions, was going to be received as a screed, not an honest argument. You must have enough foresight to have known that.
But here’s the thing: I don’t think you actually care about any of this. I also don’t think you’re acting in good faith, and there’s really nothing you can do or say to change my mind. So here’s my burning question, the whole reason I’m writing this on a long-dead wordpress page:
Do you believe the same about Libby Anne? And about me? Do you think we’re acting in good faith?
Do you think there is something a queer, trans, intersectional feminist, anarcho-socialist and a patriarchy apologist can *profitably* debate?
You could just ignore us. We don’t really have any power over you, even when we talk about you.
Even when we tell you to go die in a fire.
Well, I guess this proves that leftists don’t really believe in a democracy. A person who disagrees with a leftist’s point of view is “disruptive.” Anyone who disagrees with a leftist must be censored and even told to “go die in a fire.” That’s how holocausts start and it is the leftists who mostly started them such as the Nazis and the Communists. Sounds as if Love, Joy and Feminism is really Hate, Anger and Sexism. Feminism has pretty much embraced sexism and racism and it’s no wonder that it is fading fast.
Hey! You replied. Neat.
Okay, let’s not talk about “disruptive” then. Let’s grant that liberals are all close-minded bigots, afraid to even converse with anybody that disagrees with them. Let’s say I’m guilty as charged.
Why do you want to talk to me?
You didn’t have to. I’m a rando burner account making a drive-by comment on a three-and-a-half-year-old wordpress post. The only people who know that I made that post were me, you, and whoever gets notifications about comments here. (I wouldn’t assume the blog writer cares, nor would I expect him to.)
If you believe in what you just posted, I can’t think of a single reason you’d bother. There isn’t an audience here, unless you decide to bring one. (If that’s even why you replied, which I hope it isn’t.)
I hope you don’t read this as hostility, I’m honestly curious. Curious enough to post here, where I know I’m not welcome.
Do you think there is something a queer, trans, anarcho-socialist, intersectional feminist and a patriarchy apologist can *profitably* debate?
Of course I replied. I believe in a democracy.
Why do I want to talk to you? You are the one who started talking to me. I didn’t post on a blog.you frequent. You posted on a blog I frequent. Are you saying that I don’t have the right to respond to you? Well, that’s not how a democracy works.
I think that there is always something anyone can debate. I don’t put labels on people but I try to counter those who clearly love to label others and then discriminate on the basis of those labels.
And since when do you or anyone else gets to decide what debate is “profitable” or not? What is your definition of a “profitable debate” and why does anyone have to abide by your definitions? And if someone doesn’t want to live by your definitions, you tell them to “go die in a fire?”
Do you think that because you declare yourself to be a “close-minded bigot,” you are free from criticism or judgment? You don’t get to decide when people should talk based on the labels and definitions you have set forth. The only way to overcome bigotry and hatred is to stand up to them and that’s something that everyone should do in a real democracy.
So I think I’ve goofed up the reply system, and this is starting a new thread? My bad.
You’re correct, you have the right to respond. I’m in your space, you’re not in mine. But even here, you also have the right to not respond. You could ignore me. You could start ignoring me now. But you’ve chosen not to, I find that interesting, and I’d like to know, why?
You’re correct, I can’t define “profitable” for you. But you could have decided I’m not “profitable” two posts ago, and you haven’t. I find that interesting, and I’d like to know, what’s your definition of profitable?
You talk about democracy, are you trying to convince me? Do you truly believe that’s possible? I hope you don’t think I’m being anything less than sincere here. I’m honestly curious.
And hey, sincerely, thanks for talking. You didn’t have to, you still don’t, I’m only here to satisfy my curiosity. I’m literally being as disruptive as I accused the original poster of being.
Thanks.
Yes, I could ignore you and you could ignore me. But we both chose not to ignore each other. So what’s the problem? Why do you care if I or anyone else ignores you or not?
You are the one who brought up the term “profitable debate” so why are you asking me to define it? I have no interest in creating and imposing definitions when it comes to an open and honest debate.
Are you saying that you don’t think a democracy is possible? That sounds sad and even disturbing. I don’t know why you think that way.
From your posts, you seem to be confused rather than disruptive. I don’t know what your background is but it seems as if you have been indoctrinated rather than educated.
You don’t seem to understand the basic principles of free speech and debate and you don’t seem to believe that a democracy is possible. You seem to be upset whenever anyone says something that isn’t in accordance with your belief system. Maybe you are reaching out because you need some type of support that you are not getting from your current doctrine, whatever that may be.
I suggest you educate yourself and learn about other people. Read about different histories, viewpoints and facts – even if they are written by people you don’t agree with. Don’t just label people based on your own definitions and then decide that there is no point to discussion. A democracy isn’t a group of people who believe in the same doctrine and ignore those who believe in a different doctrine. The more you try to understand others, the more you will understand yourself and the happier you will be.
The first thing you said:
“Yes, I could ignore you and you could ignore me. But we both chose not to ignore each other. So what’s the problem? Why do you care if I or anyone else ignores you or not?”
The almost-last thing you said:
“I suggest you educate yourself and learn about other people.”
You’re right, I still care. I care that you continue to engage with me because I do not understand it. I do not understand you. If I’m confused by anything, I’m confused by you. I wish to educate myself about other people, and you seem to be other people. I could read a book, or I could just ask you, which I have done.
The second thing you said:
“You are the one who brought up the term “profitable debate” so why are you asking me to define it?”
I’m asking you to define it, because I want to know what your definition is. I wish to educate myself and learn about other people. I truly don’t understand why you keep answering, though again, sincerely, I appreciate it.
Y’know, I’ve never actually said why I’m continuing to engage, or what my definition of a “profitable” conversation is. I assumed you didn’t care, and maybe that was uncharitable of me. Plus it’s only fair that if I’m asking these questions of you, I tell you my own answers. If you are interested, read on:
I’m continuing to engage because I’m a storyteller at heart. I want to know what makes people do the things that they do. I want to know what makes people tick, even the bad guys. That’s not necessarily a positive thing, or a helpful thing, or a healthy thing, but it’s my thing. I chose this forum because I stumbled across it. I’m still here because this has got to be the closest thing to a private conversation between two absolute strangers it’s possible to have.
I’d define profitable simply: if I got something out of it, the interaction was profitable. That “something” is often knowledge, but honestly it could be a bunch of things. Sometimes it’s encouragement. Sometimes it’s humor. Very rarely, I can teach someone else.
In this case, this interaction could be profitable to me, because I could learn about you, and I wish to learn about you.
And that’s it really. Answer that question and I’ll count this as a success.
Or if you’re tired of this and want me to eff off, just tell me to eff off.
I don’t think I personally am the one who confuses you. You seem to be confused by anyone who doesn’t think the way you do.
So an action is profitable only if you get something out of it? What about other people? So if other people don’t agree with you, then you get nothing out of it and you decide to ignore them or tell them to go “die in a fire?” Don’t you want other people to get something out of a debate?
I don’t agree with everyone and everything but I don’t tell people to “go die in a fire” just because they don’t agree with me. I don’t censor or ignore people just because they don’t agree with me. I like to learn about other people’s point of view. Hopefully, we can all learn something.
(So can you just not reply to a comment more than a couple times? Or am I just bad at this?)
Hey! You also like to learn about other people’s point of view! That’s not nothing!
What is it that you think you can learn from me?
“Don’t you want other people to get something out of a debate?”
If the other party isn’t getting anything out of the debate, then it isn’t profitable for them, and I don’t understand why they would show up.
Very rarely, I believe I can teach someone else. More often, I can add my perspective to another’s so that we both get smarter. I count that under “knowledge”. Does that make sense?
And do you still see why I’m fascinated by you? You’re the other party, you’re seemingly not getting anything out of this, and I don’t understand why you’re still here.
It comes down to the word “believe”. You seem to like to pick up on some of the phrases that I use, like “confused” or “profitable”, but the important word was always “believe”.
I don’t *believe* we have any common ground. Your behavior up to this point, and the surroundings of this blog have told me that you have no interest in anything I can teach you. I know I haven’t given you any indications that I’m interested in changing my mind about “traditional family values” or whatever your preferred nouns are.
But you just said you’re here because you like to learn about other people’s points of view! I like that too, sometimes! We’re alike, to some microscopic degree! That’s actually exciting, assuming you meant it.
Did you mean it? Would you like to learn about my point of view? What is it that you think you can learn from me?
“(So can you just not reply to a comment more than a couple times? Or am I just bad at this?)”
I don’t understand what you mean by the question above. We both can reply or not reply to comments as much as we want in a free, democratic society. Is there a restricted number of replies you want to impose on people?
I don’t know what it is I can learn from you because you haven’t really said anything yet. You keep asking me questions.
How do you know if we have any common ground or not when we haven’t really discussed anything yet?
You are not interested in changing your mind about “traditional family values?” What does that mean? What do you think “traditional family values” are? What do you think “contemporary family values” are? Are you just against “family values” in general?
Oh crap, I should have been more clear…
That first parenthetical question wasn’t about anything we were discussing! Sorry! WordPress sometimes doesn’t let me reply directly to your previous post, so I keep having to start a new comment thread. I’m not sure if that’s something wordpress is doing, or if I just don’t know how to make it work…
And trust me, you can reply as much as you like. This is your space, after all.
Just so you don’t think I’m running from a fight:
“How do you know if we have any common ground or not when we haven’t really discussed anything yet?”
We’re in the comments of a blog post detailing an argument that Libby Anne and Jesse Powell had four years ago, to no great effect either way. One of the few things I know about you is that you’re defend Jesse. One of the few things you know about me is that I’m defending Libby Anne. We’re literally fighting a war-by-proxy on behalf of two people who abandoned the battlefield years ago. If they couldn’t come to a meeting of the minds, why would I think we could?
“You are not interested in changing your mind about “traditional family values?” What does that mean? What do you think “traditional family values” are? What do you think “contemporary family values” are? Are you just against “family values” in general?”
I’ve been using the terms “traditional family values” and “traditional family activist” because they seem to be the terms that Jesse uses. I assumed that I could use them as short-hand for the ideas and world-view expressed by this blog, and by extension yourself.
On the assumption that you’re honestly interested, I’ll try to answer all of your other questions at once, by just stating my views. Please forgive me for using my own terms, instead of yours:
There are people who don’t conform to your categories. I’m one of them. There are women who would rather be leaders. There are men who would rather stay at home and watch the kids. There are many, many more people that do both. Same-sex couples exist. Trans people exist. Non-binary people exist. Heck, some people just aren’t marrying types.
I am trans. My trans-ness has nothing to do with how good of a plumber, or barber, or teacher I am. If you exclude me from your world, you lose out on whatever I can bring to your economy. My trans-ness has nothing to do with how good of an artist, or writer, or musician that I am. If you exclude me from your world, you lose out on whatever stories I could have told. My trans-ness has nothing to do with how good of a friend or family member I might be. If you exclude people like me from your world, you miss out on so much of the richness of life.
And in turn, I can’t be friends with you. Patriarchy wants everyone to conform: man, husband, protector; woman, wife, nurturer. It thinks non-conformity shouldn’t exist. It either wants to kick me right back into the closet, or it wants me dead. If you believe in patriarchy, you want me dead. Honestly, I’ve already almost wound up dead because of you and your ideas. I can’t be friends with someone who wants me dead.
On that note: it’s been a couple days and a couple thousand words total. We both probably have better things to do. Why don’t we call things quits? I think I’ve learned what I can from you.
You can have the last word. I’ll even promise to come back here to read it, how’s that? I’m out.
But before I go, it’s only right for me to share what I’ve learned:
1. You must have a reason to engage. I offered you several opportunities to tell me to shove off, and you never took them.
2. That reason doesn’t seem to be simple, or easy to explain, otherwise you would have explained it.
3. I don’t believe, based on everything that you’ve said, that you are truly interested in my ideas. Furthermore, I’ve given you every indication that I will not be convinced by yours. Yet you still engage.
4. I must then hypothesize: you don’t actually know why your still talking to me. That’s not a strike against you, by the way. We all have mental habits, actions that are useful in most circumstances that we still do even when they’re not useful anymore.
5. You believe strongly in civility. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
6. You’re definition of civility seems to be merely a list of words that must not be said: “go die in a fire”, not allowed; “leftists started the Holocaust”, allowed. It does not extend to social codes or norms of particular spaces. If a place has an easily-understood “feminists only” policy, you do not see it as uncivil to ignore that policy.
5. You believe strongly in democracy. That’s a good thing!
6. You seem to think that all smaller divisions of society should be run as a democracy, all the way down to a comment section. That’s… not a super useful way of doing things to my way of thinking, but to each their own.
7. You believe strongly in free speech. That’s also a good thing!
8. You seem to think that all smaller divisions of society should be run by free speech principles, all the way down to a comment section. Again, not a line I would choose, but at least consistent.
9. You seem to have a funny idea about how democracy and free speech work, almost as if they work by absolute consensus? If democracy as it is currently practiced is your highest principle, you wouldn’t be arguing with someone you won’t convince in a forum where no-one else is listening. You’d be making sure that you can out-vote me.
10. You seem very concerned that I might think you should be censored. I’m pretty sure I didn’t bring that up, though admittedly the last time you brought it up, it was due to poor communication on my part.
11. You seem to have trouble with forming a theory-of-mind, or what we sometimes refer to as empathy. Not in the sense of I-see-your-feeling-and-I-feel-it-to, that’s sympathy. In the sense of, I-have-a-picture-in-my-mind-of-what-the-other-person-is-thinking. Long after I made my intentions clear, you kept asking why I cared. Long after I explained why I found *you* in particular interesting, you insisted that I was confused by people who disagreed. It’s okay if that is something you struggle with, I’m not super great at it myself.
12. If you actually did have a good picture of what I was thinking, you weren’t arguing in good faith.
Anyways, oh god that was a long post, thanks for reading.
And sincerely, one last time, thank you for engaging. I might never completely understand you, but you put up with me for a ridiculous amount of time while I tried to figure it out.
Goodbye forever!
Cheers!
I don’t necessarily defend Jesse but I defend people who I believe are unfairly attacked. It’s fine to disagree with someone but that doesn’t mean that people should make hostile and even threatening comments against that person.
So according to you because Jesse and Libby Anne couldn’t come to a meeting of the minds, we can’t either? Do you use other people to determine your relationships? Don’t you have a mind of your own? Don’t you want to be your own person? Just because someone else doesn’t get along with a person doesn’t mean that I can’t get along with that person.
You don’t necessarily know what my categories are. You assume you know who I am just because I defend someone who I feel is unfairly attacked. If I feel you are unfairly attacked, I would defend you too even if I don’t necessarily agree with your viewpoint. If you understood how a democracy works, you would understand my point of view. In a democracy, you don’t just defend the people with whom you agree and leave everyone else “to go die in a fire.” You need to defend everyone’s rights.
What makes you think that I am opposed to women being leaders and men being stay-at-home parents? I support the rights of everyone including gay people and trans people. I support same-sex marriage. Family values aren’t limited to straight people. A family is a group of people who care for each other. You don’t need genetics or marriage to be a family.
I don’t why you think you can never be my friend although I don’t really care since I don’t know you.You just decided that you know who I am based on some posts and that you could never be friends with me. Do you judge everyone in such a superficial fashion?
I engage because that’s what people should do in a democracy – exchange ideas and viewpoints. I don’t believe in restrictive policies. Do you know history? Don’t you know about “whites only” places? I don’t believe in unfair discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, etc. So why would you think I would believe in a “feminists only space?” Why would feminists think that they have a right to unfairly discriminate against others more than say, white men, or religious Christians? No one has the right to unfairly discriminate against anyone else. I don’t believe that a transgender person has the right to discriminate against a cisgender person or vice versa.
Yes, all divisions of society should be run by free speech and democratic principles. Why wouldn’t you want that? Are you saying that as long as everyone has the equal opportunity to be a bigot, society is just great? So as long as you have your restricted space and everyone else has a restricted space, you would be happy? What happens when someone else’s restricted space becomes larger than yours and takes over your restricted space? When you don’t try to get along with others, why would the others care about you?
There is no vote on this blog so I don’t know why you brought up the notion that I would be trying to out-vote you. Do you think that a democracy is about out-voting others based on who can control the most spaces? That is not a democracy.
You do sound like someone who believes in censorship as long as your own beliefs aren’t censored. But once you agree to censorship, it’s only a matter of time before you are censored as well.
I have more empathy than you do. Why? Because I will defend anyone whom I believe is unfairly attacked. I believe that everyone has rights. You seem to think that only the people who agree with you have rights. That is not empathy. You seem to believe in restricted spaces. That is not empathy. You decide that you can’t be friends with anyone who doesn’t seem to be like you at first glance. That is not empathy.
I am the one who argues in good faith. I never told you that you couldn’t be my friend because of some of your posts – not that I need for you to be my friend. You wrote me off completely. Is this what you do in your personal life? Should someone write you off based on first glance? Perhaps people have done it to you, but is that the way you want to treat people in general?
If that was your last post as you claim, then have a great life.
What is Feminism today? Many believes in equal rights but Feminism meaning is just a word & moment that doesn’t follow. In reality Feminist=Female+Supremacy.
Jesse, you’re a whining loser and an asshole, and your point of view REEKS of unearned, unDESERVED privilege.
Get over yourself.