Robert Jensen;Feminism and Masculinity, Minnesota Mens Action Network, October 2, 2009

No description available.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Gill O'Connor]

Wow. Thank you for this. Very powerful lecture and truly empowering to men. Conversations I am beginning to have with my sons as they are growing.

[Amber Schalke]

You reduce a very nuanced analysis to an shallow misrepresentation. He did not say that men are inherently evil. He is arguing that the way men are socialized in our current society is dangerous, especially for women, but also not good for men. This is feminism 101. You have misunderstood this basic distinction.

[MrAbdisatar]

Masculinity is in danger- and grave danger indeed. These so-called feminists killed gallantry, and they complain why there are no good men!! This is a man's world- like James Brown said. And we men shall take it back!!!

[ZephZhang]

He goes on to infer than men are constantly struggling to become human and claims that generalizes from his life experiences to claiming that all men are emotionally deformed. His constant narrative of men being violent, dominant, controlling coercive, shallow, abusive is sickening. My pity for his self-loathing fails to displaces my resentment at the feminist animals that taught him to think of himself and of other men that way.

[ZephZhang]

The speaker pretends to ask questions about masculinity, ignores the answers, then continues on with feminist narrative. He then takes this narrative, treats it as fact, then judges masculinity to be toxic. He then bangs on tropes using the feminist game of ignoring facts and using linguistic inference that he believes supports his case. Then he proceeds to the object/subject trope. Two sentences later he's talking about rape. This man has obviously never thought for himself.

[Daniel Kelley]

But, of course, like a feminist you don't reply to the point, instead you resort to fallacy (appeal to authority (I've read about this so trust me) appeal to emotion (you're "victim blaming" you're "projecting".))

I met your challenge of showing where D'n engaged in hate speech. So you shifted the subject. You throw buzzwords to stop debate. But the more important point is how you (like all "feminists") deny the obvious, demand proof and then shift the subject & name call when you get the proof

[Daniel Kelley]

speech is an obvious example hatred of men. I mentioned that like most feminist hate speech one needs to think about the statements for a moment before one can describe them as hate speech. The notions of a "rape truce" entails the idea that men as a whole use rape as a weapon against women as a whole in order to perpetuate the (mythical) patriarchy. But as I pointed out (and any man knows) men virtually never condone rape to one another, let alone plan to use it as a tool against women.

[Daniel Kelley]

Try addressing the point rather than making claims about your supposedly voluminous reading. Maybe you've read 5 books by Dworkin. Well that's just 5 books of navel gazing drivel about how heterosexual sex is violence. It's also 5 books you didn't read about science. You say (in essence) "trust me I've studied this." But you've demonstrated you can't be trusted. You challenged me to say where Dworkin had expressed hatred for males. I explained clearly how the "rape truce" quote cited in the

[Amber Schalke]

So what is your argument based on? Because I am not going to summarize hundreds of books, research studies, peer reviewed journals, lectures, presentations, interviews, podcasts, and statistics that I have taken the time to read or watch, just to squeeze them into 500 characters or less on a youtube video comment. But I guarantee that my theoretical framework is supported by research, not rhetoric. If you bother to do the research, then we can discuss. And, yes, you are projecting.

[Daniel Kelley]

You use typical feminists buzzwords to avoid rational discussion. I'm "victim blaming" when I say nothing whatsoever about victims. I'm "projecting" but you provide no argument because you obviously can't. More to the point, I explained precisely why Dworkin's idea of a "rape truce" is brain-dead, hateful drivel. You didn't respond, instead you again lobbed buzzwords to shut down debate. Yes if you think rape is a tool used by men as a whole against women as a whole you idiotic hateful bigot.

[Amber Schalke]

You like projection a lot.

[Amber Schalke]

You want me to google some Dworkin quotes so I know what she said? Oh, thanks, but I have read 5 of her BOOKS and have her entire collection, which I will eventually finish, though I take pauses for other authors. Dworkin didn't hate men. She hated male violence and domination. If you cannot tell the difference, this is your problem, not mine.