Profeministimiehet on ryhmä, joka on muodostunut Helsingissä vuonna 1999. Tavoitteenamme ja tarkoituksenamme on tukea feminismiä, toimia feminististen pyrkimysten hyväksi ja antaa miehille ajattelemisen aihetta.
Profeministimiehet on ryhmä, joka on muodostunut Helsingissä vuonna 1999. Tavoitteenamme ja tarkoituksenamme on tukea feminismiä, toimia feminististen pyrkimysten hyväksi ja antaa miehille ajattelemisen aihetta.
The White Ribbon Campaign starts the day after tomorrow, i.e. November 25, and as some of you may know this annual campaign attempts to bring focus on men's violence against women. You can find more details from our WRC pages.
I recently discovered a web site that promotes a book called "The Origin of Emotions". The book promises to "identify the purpose, trigger and effect of each emotion" and since the first 18 chapters can be read online I decided to have a quick look at it. Amongst other things, I found a claim that "only men feel jealousy", which sounded odd and interesting so I read some more (pages 53 and 54, to be precise). It soon dawned to me what purpose such a claim could serve. Now, follow these statements closely (they are all taken from the book):
In clear text, this says that it is only natural for a man to use physical violence if a woman has been unfaithful. Does this sound like an attempt to give a scientific explanation and excuse for why men should be allowed to beat women? Or, at least, why it is understandable if some men happen to retort with physical violence?
The book also says jealousy can by triggered by other sources than the woman giving direct penile pleasure to another man. Another source for jealousy is "if the woman is flirting with another man". So, according to the book she deserves to get smacked for flirting, too.
But it doesn't stop there. The book continues: "jealousy can be triggered if another man gets visual pleasure while looking at the woman". Which means she deserves a beating simply for another man looking at her!
But that's not all. This is the best part: "Women often trigger jealousy to verify monogynistic love. Women intuitively know that a jealous man is a man in love. A woman will flirt with other men just to see if it triggers jealousy in her man. If it does, he must be in love".
Do you want me to put that in clear text or can you figure it out yourselves?
It's ridiculous that people with an advanced education in the above (which gives them a certain authority when they speak) can be out thought by pre-university history students.
On any course in Evolutionary Anthropology/ Zoology and similar there should be a module on social darwinism, its development, its debunking and where to find out more. It doesn't have to take sides, of course, but as so many people educated in the 'straight' sciences seem to be drawing sweeping conclusions from their education, they should at least have the opportunity to get equipped with some facts. (Such as what is positivism in sociology and why it went out of fashion in the 19th century)
The blind acceptance of anything apparently 'scientific' by many people makes this tendency especially worrying. After the entirety of the twentieth century, people still don't learn.
Please tell me that this is only a feature of the English speaking countries... I don't want to believe it's everywhere.
Tönäisyn päässä tragediasta.
Tilaa nyt profeministiaiheinen t-paita! Lue lisää täältä. Tai tilaa paitasi heti käyttäen tilauskaavaketta.
Vastaa kyselyyn ja voit voittaa itsellesi White Ribbon -pinssin.
Kantamalla valkoista nauhaa osoitat, ettet hyväksy miesten naisiin kohdistamaa väkivaltaa.
The smugness of this guy is awful. He obviously thinks that he's very clever to have figured all of this out, but he clearly hasn't done much background research.
Studying evolutionary theory is all very well so far as it goes, but a further study of anthropology, sociology, psychology or even history would relieve him of the notion that there is anything clever or original about this crude social darwinism.
This theory was popular when 'The Origin of Species' began to be accepted, and was popular with right wingers at the time because it supported the status quo. (Aristocrats were in power because they were naturally better and brighter/ if they hadn't been better and brighter they wouldn't be aristocrats. Also - black people were inferior or they wouldn't have become slaves) These theories were quickly debunked by serious thinkers for many reasons, just some of which were; lack of cultural/historical context, reasoning backwards from effects to causes, making generalisations about human society based on plants is damn silly and so on.
By the end of the 19th century, few serious intellectuals (at least in Europe) still believed the theory... but as a simple to grasp and reassuring 'formula for everything' the theory remained popular with the public (esp in a society losing belief in God). This became confused with nationalist ideas and provided for the rise in fascism.
Any idea that defends the status quo or harks back to a nonexistent golden age (presumably when women didn't object to being hit) will always be popular. The recent return of social darwinism should be watched carefully. There can be no morals, only science, says the social darwinist- therefore nothing I can do can be morally wrong.