I’d tried submitting this to Alas, but for whatever reason it didn’t get through.

I don’t think you should take Ampersand’s strictures to heart. As a male critic of certain aspects of feminism you are bound to be considered by many in the movement to be an MRA, neither more nor less. Remember how difficult Ampersand’s predicament is: he is a self-confessed liberal man (a type disliked with asperity by many of the less compromising internet feminist bloggers) who owns and runs a feminist-themed site. And his credibility has been further compromised in recent times by his decision to accept an invitation to supper from the patriarchal porn-devil without procuring a sufficiently long spoon beforehand. Do you really think that he can afford to make an endorsement of anything you write without hedging it around with caveats? He can’t.

Re: “Borat”, what about some specifically feminist approval for a film which is, amongst other things, an indictment of male-dominated society? The horrifying picture of Borat’s home village is one of an ur-patriarchal community, where rapists are indulged to the point of flattery and where it is normal to prostitute one’s sister. Furthermore, the film strikes a blow against the sexual objectification of women (and of anyone else come to that). That naked wrestling scene is a long-term suppressant of erotic thoughts more potent then anything this side of chemical castration. Even “Women in Love” can’t match it in this respect.

And by the way, has *anyone* noticed that the whole thing was a comedy remake of “Time of the Gypsies”?

Good point (remembering burqa photoshop -gate).

She can do that and they can’t really complain because she is oppressed in one more aspect than they are.

The rules are rather simple, really.

Personally I don’t see a problem with feminists focusing almost exclusively on women, what is annoying is their absurd insistence that the society/general public/media/patriarchy/everyone else unlike the feminists supposedly ignores issues affecting women in favor of those of men.

What’s annoying for me is when they paint a picture of the burdens of war falling overwhelming on women, while men lead a life of privilege. The men floating down the Tigris aren’t privileged. They’re dead.

The thing is, Brownfemipower just bashed feminists far harder than I’ve ever dared to:

The thing is, does he really think that women of color haven’t put forth their own critique of how feminists contribute to the violence against males in our communities through their focus on The Patriarchy?

My bold.

boils down to Daran being angry that feminists are neglecting to pay enough attention to men.

Dunno about that.

Personally I don’t see a problem with feminists focusing almost exclusively on women, what is annoying is their absurd insistence that the society/general public/media/patriarchy/everyone else unlike the feminists supposedly ignores issues affecting women in favor of those of men.

[edited]

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I also liked the first commenters view on ideal equality:

Yanno, I think that a happy marriage is A Good Thing. I also think it’s terrible when a man dumps his wife for a trophy model or whatever.

Hmm…

Most tribal societies have, or had, the equivalent of no-fault divorce. Nisa of Marjorie Shostak’s famous !Kung monograph had three husbands. In most societies, a woman had every right to kick her husband out and send him back home to his Mom (and likewise a husband could easily leave and go back home to Mom if he wanted!).

Equality. The woman can kick the man out of their home, but see, the man can leave voluntarily too, so no problem?
This is described as equivalent of the (current) no-fault divorce. Think that over a bit.

I think I’m slowly starting to see why MRAs are so pissed…