Response to Arwen de Lyon, Facebook commenter

Another exchange on facebook–why does it keep having problems? Or am I being cut-off?

Link to screenshot of discussion

Arwen de Lyon said: Jamon I am a feminist and I am not living in the past. I envision a future where children’s items are not color coded by gender. I envision a future where women are valued for their talents and ideas, not their appearance, where we have the freedom not only to leave our houses and to vote but to become important, to be the movers ad shakers of the world and honored and remembered for it, not shamed, mocked, derided, and derailed as we are now.

First, that toys are colour coded means nothing, except that marketers have measured that usage of some technique sells better than others. This applies to all, the reason that it is done is not some form a discrimination, but because it works in achieving the goal of higher sales.

Second, women, like men, are valued for their talents and ideas. ALL human beings, without exception, are also valued for their presentation, not only women. You are creating a dichotomy where none exists. If you expect that to human instinct will change, then you will only be disappointed. You and I will always be judged on our appearance, regardless of our sex.

Third, You do have the freedom to leave your house and to vote–even Afghani women have this choice. Note that with every freedom–a right–comes the burden of duties. Can you tell me the corresponding duties and obligations of all parties involved? Can you tell me WHY some tribal Afghani women have the social restriction of remaining in the house without being accompanied by a “safe-male?” Go do your research.

Fourth, anyone with the genetic, mental and emotional make up can “become important.”  People don’t become movers and shakers because they are *permitted* to do so, but because they develop the acumen and skills to do so–they move and shake. None has the “freedom” to be honoured, or remembered, not shamed, mocked or derided. No man, woman, child is immune to this.

What I despise about Feminism is this very kind of airy-fairy grievance-mongering where attention to some claim victimization takes precedence over being self-responsible for their destinies.

Arwen de Lyon said: I envision a future where men know how to love and aren’t ashamed to cry.

Men _do_ know how to love, and any shame in crying is usually imposed on us by women. You can do your part: allow a man to express himself as he chooses to. Also, do not confuse women’s responses with men’s. Often, we do not feel the need to cry, we express our distress or emotion in different ways than women typically do. This is natural, and we are not obliged to do it in the same way you would.

Arwen de Lyon said: I envision a future where women and men of all sizes and ethnicities are represented, in everything from the highest echelons of politics to blockbuster epic movies and comic books.

This is already the case.

Arwen de Lyon said: I also envision a future in which family legacies are passed down through both genders of parents.

This is already the case. No child cannot be influenced by those that raise them.

Arwen de Lyon said: I admit, not everyone will embrace my vision of the future, but let’s not kid ourselves by saying feminists live in the past.

I personally don’t make that claim.

Arwen de Lyon said: Feminists are ahead of the attitudes of the times, we always have been, and we have played and continue to play an important role in changing the attitudes of the time, thank you very much.

This is false. Humans have always fantasized about their own personal version of Utopia. You mistake some form of liberalism as being “ahead,” implying a superiority. It is merely a reactionary product of the current time. I do agree that we can all play our part in creating a better world.

Arwen de Lyon said: Like I said I do not live in the past. I remember the past because if you don’t know history you are doomed to repeat it, and here we are once more.

I remember the past because I’m old and I’ve been there, have and still am living though it.

Arwen de Lyon said: Do you know that when feminists first fought for the right to vote, a right we can all now agree is basic and justified, feminists were also portrayed as man-hating caricatures?

Sloppiness. In which country? In England, for example, any land-owner could vote, male or female. Most men could not vote any more than women could. The Suffragettes actively spoke against black men having the vote. Finally, the vote was granted to men because they were imposed the duty of fighting wars, and this duty had to be balanced with a right. If the common man was going to fight and die for his country, it was agreed to, he should also have input on how the country was run. The common woman was later granted this right for no reason other than that men had it, yet, she still is still free of the call of duty to go to war. In the United States, women have the vote simply by reaching the age of majority, whereas men do not have the right to vote at this time, until he signs a document where he pledges to be conscripted.

Arwen de Lyon said: How is that any different from how people are reacting to the movement today? Oh, and don’t tell me about “females against feminism”. The name may be new, but the attitude is at least a century old; brainwashed and conditioned women have been against feminism since its conception. Tell me who is living in the past, and who has not changed.

How very condescending of you. Just as the original poster asked “What is your problem?” you imply that the very women you claim to stand for, if they hold a view other than your political preference, are somehow unable to think for themselves, victims to mental conditioning. You claim to value equality, but presume that those that disagree with you are somehow mentally inferior. Every argument that you’ve made, has been proven otherwise, countless times, yet you seem to believe that you have some special understanding that none other could have investigated, analyzed and come to a rational conclusion that is different than yours? The kind of self-absorbed ignorance that you are displaying is “the problem” with the world. While it is very prevalent amongst Feminists, it is not exclusive to it. We can find this kind of self-righteous attitude for all political, religious and cultural points of view. You, like most, never seem to think past the speaking-points that others have developed for you. Yet you will refer to others as “brainwashed and conditioned.”

Arwen de Lyon said: “If you’re so uncomfortable with using the term “feminist” because it is gender exclusive, then how about the myriad of examples of people using terms like “men” or “man” even when they mean both men and women? Do you also have a problem with the term “mankind”?

This isn’t a good argument. The term Feminist refers to a political ideology, and you are conflating a precise term with common usage of two meanings of a generalized term.

Arwen de Lyon said: How about when religious people refer to God as “Him”?

Again, this is not a good argument. “Religious” people refer to the Judeo-Christian god as a male because it is depicted as a male. Not all gods are male. Your choice is a very localized both in culture and in language.

Arwen de Lyon said: Could it be that what you in fact dislike is a movement, somewhere, shining the spotlight on women instead of men for once?

You are projecting your argument onto your Jamón. The correct way of assessing that information is to ask, not to transform or strawman the argument.

The reason that I’m not a Feminist is precisely because, as a whole, most Feminists are no more educated than you have shown yourself to be on the matter, as one-sided, and unbalanced and hypocritical.

Privilege from the Feminist perspective

Tagged , ,

3 thoughts on “Response to Arwen de Lyon, Facebook commenter

  1. Tarnished says:

    Awesome rebuttal, Francis.

    Re: the last 3 points;

    1. From
    “Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was “a human,” and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human” and “a female human” respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for “a male human,” while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for “a female human.” Despite this change, man continued to carry its original sense of “a human” as well, resulting in an asymmetrical arrangement that many criticize as sexist. · Nonetheless, a majority of the Usage Panel still accepts the generic use of man, although the women members have significantly less enthusiasm for this usage than the men do.”

    The use of the word “man” to refer to humankind is a throwback, not a part of a patriarchal conspiracy to eliminate women from history. In modern times this is changing anyway…We have firefighters instead of firemen, chairmen and chairwomen, flight attendants instead of stewardesses, etc. Complaining about the evolution of an Old English term is strange enough. Continuing to do so while the language we use is already changing in a fashion you find preferable and more detailed is just plain odd.

    2. What about all those “religious people” who refer to God as both, or people like myself who believe in the Lady and the Lord? What about people who don’t really refer to God as anything, because they’re atheists? Or older religions that are also polytheistic, like Hinduism or Santeria?

    Your disapproval of so many “religious people” calling God by a male label is not indicative of the Patriarchy…it’s because the US is a country with 87% Christian makeup. If you were in India (or heck, even just talked to a Pagan practitioner), you would not encounter this nearly as much.

    3. I have to wonder what world you live in that you believe “the spotlight” has never been shown on women before? Women have always done great things. Women have always been in the Sciences, the Arts, and even newer fields like Tech, making contributions and working alongside their male peers to further reach the goals of our species. They have worked in mines, textile factories, laboratories, and hospitals. Women have been warriors, nurses, businessowners, artists, spiritual leaders, doctors, and a host of other occupations since time immemorial. What I think gets under the skin of most feminists is the fact that many *more* women made the choice to become stay at home mothers, which is a decidedly less fame granting job…but as it’s one that results in the improved continuation of our species, it should be no less worthy of consideration.

  2. Francis Roy says:

    Tarn said:

    Your disapproval of so many “religious people” calling God by a male label is not indicative of the Patriarchy…it’s because the US is a country with 87% Christian makeup. If you were in India (or heck, even just talked to a Pagan practitioner), you would not encounter this nearly as much.

    I missed this the first time around. Excellent point.

    • Tarnished says:

      Thanks. As a Wiccan who believes in a male and female deity, it gets tiresome to hear Christian/Jewish/Muslim based arguments from feminists directed at me What’s worse, is that when I respond with what my beliefs are, they try to claim that I’m a feminist. No, damnit…I’m not. Stop trying to buff your numbers by calling everyone who isn’t a MGTOW or MRA a feminist against their will! If someone refuses a label, there might just be a good reason for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: